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.
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
Newland v. County of Los Angeles (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 676
Plaintiff was injured in a car accident with a Los Angeles County deputy public defender who was on his way home from work. Although employers are generally not liable for accidents arising from an employee’s commute, the plaintiff sued GMSR’s client, the County, contending it
Court of Appeal reverses $13.9 million jury award and orders entry of defense judgment for GMSR’s client in employee commuting case
Plaintiff was injured in a car accident with a Los Angeles County deputy public defender who was on his way home from work. Although employers are generally not liable for accidents arising from an employee’s commute, the plaintiff sued GMSR’s client, the County, contending it
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects California’s Assertion Of Personal Jurisdiction Over Drugmaker
In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (June 19, 2017, Case No. 16-466), the United States Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 that California lacks “specific” personal jurisdiction over a pharmaceutical company, reversing a 4-3 decision last year by the California Supreme Court. The case arises
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects California’s Assertion Of Personal Jurisdiction Over Drugmaker
In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (June 19, 2017, Case No. 16-466), the United States Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 that California lacks “specific” personal jurisdiction over a pharmaceutical company, reversing a 4-3 decision last year by the California Supreme Court. The case arises
Malbrue v. Cty. of Los Angeles (Dec. 14, 2016, B264115) [2016 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8977]
Plaintiff sued for the wrongful death of his father who died while in police custody. The court granted summary judgment for GMSR’s client, the County of Los Angeles, after plaintiff failed timely to introduce an expert declaration in opposition to the motion. Plaintiff filed a
GMSR obtains dismissal of appeal from summary judgment
Malbrue v. County of Los Angeles, 2016 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8977. Plaintiff sued for the wrongful death of his father who died while in police custody. The court granted summary judgment for GMSR’s client, the County of Los Angeles, after plaintiff failed timely to introduce
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.
© 2019 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
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
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.