Procedural issues create many traps for the unwary: Irregularities in trial court proceedings or ambiguous verdicts may require a new trial; failing to raise an objection in the trial court can foreclose appellate review of an issue; a settlement that purports to preserve the right to appeal can moot the appeal. The list goes on and on. GMSR is experienced in spotting procedural defects and navigating nuances that can be dispositive on appeal. For that reason, trial counsel and clients often consult with GMSR’s appellate lawyers as a case progresses, in order to maximize their chances of success in an eventual appeal. GMSR’s appellate lawyers have also gotten appeals dismissed, revived litigation that should not have been dismissed, and successfully developed arguments for affirmance or reversal, all based on procedural issues.
Branca v. El-Amin (Cal.Ct.App., May 16, 2019, No. B282375) 2019 WL 2136114
Four people claimed that Michael Jackson promised them 15% of The Michael Jackson Company in a middle-of-the-night meeting in 2006. After a long bench trial, the probate court rejected those claims on multiple grounds and confirmed that Jackson wholly owned the company. The Court of
Court of Appeal rejects claim that Michael Jackson gave away 15% of his business at a middle-of-the-night meeting
Four people claimed that Michael Jackson promised them 15% of The Michael Jackson Company in a middle-of-the-night meeting in 2006. After a long bench trial, the probate court rejected those claims on multiple grounds and confirmed that Jackson wholly owned the company.
Himelsein Mandel Fund Management, LLC et al. v. Fortress Investment Group, LLC et al. (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 28, 2019, No. B281210) 2019 WL 1395963.
GMSR’s clients sued their lender for destroying their business by reneging on a promise to provide additional funding. The lender cross-complained for an alleged $113 million deficiency following foreclosure on the security for its loans. The trial court rejected the clients’ demand for a jury.
Court of Appeal reverses denial of jury trial, refusing to apply New York law
GMSR’s clients sued their lender for destroying their business by reneging on a promise to provide additional funding. The lender cross-complained for an alleged $113 million deficiency following foreclosure on the security for its loans. The trial court rejected the clients’ demand for a jury.
Pacific Western Bank v. Audio-Visual Entertainment, Inc. et al., No. B278122, and Pacific Western Bank v. Far Out Productions Inc., et al., No. B278076
GMSR’s client, a bank, sued borrowers and a guarantor to collect on long-outstanding loans. The borrowers and guarantor attempted to avoid liability by challenging the admissibility of the bank’s evidence of the loans, chain of title, and outstanding balance. The trial court granted summary judgment
Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment entitling bank to collect on defaulted loans
GMSR’s client, a bank, sued borrowers and a guarantor to collect on long-outstanding loans. The borrowers and guarantor attempted to avoid liability by challenging the admissibility of the bank’s evidence of the loans, chain of title, and outstanding balance. The trial court granted summary judgment
Yu v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 102
Plaintiff sued a general contractor for defective construction work at the Anaheim hotel she owned; the general contractor cross-complained against a group of subcontractors. After settling with the general contractor, plaintiff substituted in as the real party in interest on the general contractor’s cross-complaint and
Court of Appeal affirms trial court’s order voiding jurisdictionally invalid default judgment
Plaintiff sued a general contractor for defective construction work at the Anaheim hotel she owned; the general contractor cross-complained against a group of subcontractors. After settling with the general contractor, plaintiff substituted in as the real party in interest on the general contractor’s cross-complaint and
Padda v. Superior Court (June 11, 2018, E070522) __ Cal.App.5th__ [2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 607]
With trial less than two weeks away in this business dispute between physicians and a medical group, GMSR’s clients learned that a key expert witness had become seriously ill, required immediate surgery, and would be unavailable to testify for at least six weeks. When the
Court of Appeal issues peremptory writ directing trial court to vacate order denying continuance of trial
With trial less than two weeks away in this business dispute between physicians and a medical group, GMSR’s clients learned that a key expert witness had become seriously ill, required immediate surgery, and would be unavailable to testify for at least six weeks. When the
Browse By Practice Area
Who We Serve
Whether on appeal, assisting trial counsel, or advising government officials contemplating legislative action, GMSR provides unique insight into the complex laws that impact public entities.
Where coverage may exist, GMSR represents insureds on appeal effectively and efficiently. Where it does not, the firm protects insurers’ right to deny claims.
GMSR offers corporate clients objective assessments on appeal, based on a deep understanding of the limitations and opportunities of appellate review.
The firm’s lawyers are team players, collaborating with trial counsel at any level from legal strategy to writing or editing trial court motions and appellate briefs.
GMSR vigorously advocates the rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants, in both state and federal appellate courts.
© 2020 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Los Angeles
5900 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th floor
Los Angeles, CA 90036
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
San Francisco
50 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
We welcome your inquiry. However, sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship. For that reason, you should not send us any kind of confidential information. Until we have agreed to represent you, we cannot be obligated to keep it confidential.