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.
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
GMSR secures another win on appeal, this time in Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment v. Castaic Lake Water Agency
Santa Clarita Org. for Planning & Environment v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1084. In a published opinion, Division 2 of the Second DCA upheld the right of GMSR’s client, the Castaic Lake Water Agency, to acquire all of the stock of a privately
Santa Clarita Organization for Planning & Environment v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1084.
In a published opinion, Division 2 of the Second DCA upheld the right of GMSR’s client, the Castaic Lake Water Agency, to acquire all of the stock of a privately held water company via inverse condemnation, and rejected the contention that the transaction violated various
GMSR obtains the vacating of a default judgment and award for attorney fees against one client, and affirmation of a finding of qualified immunity in favor of another
Figueroa v. County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2016) 651 Fed.Appx. 709. In an action alleging excessive force arising out of an incident in the Visitor’s Center of the Men’s Central Jail, the Ninth Circuit vacated a default judgment against one of two GMSR clients
Figueroa v. County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2016) 651 Fed.Appx. 709
In an action alleging excessive force arising out of an incident in the Visitor’s Center of the Men’s Central Jail, the Ninth Circuit vacated a default judgment against one of two GMSR clients involved in the appellate proceedings, a supervising sergeant, and vacated the attorney
County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1154
Court of Appeal holds that that attorney bills transmitted to clients are confidential communications protected by the attorney client privilege
Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital, 2014 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 6876
The Court of Appeal affirmed post-judgment orders denying plaintiff $7.5 million in post-judgment interest over and above what the Hospital paid under the periodic payments judgment in this medical malpractice action when the 5½-year appeals process came to an end. In Leung v. Verdugo Hills
GMSR successfully defends client against claimed $7.5 million post-judgment interest windfall
Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital (2014) 2014 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 6876 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four) [unpublished]. The Court of Appeal affirmed post-judgment orders denying plaintiff $7.5 million in post-judgment interest over and above what the Hospital paid under the periodic
GMSR successfully invokes rarely-used “disentitlement doctrine” to obtain dismissal of appeal from $8.5 million judgment
Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 161 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five) [published]. Defendants, who live in New York, appealed from an $8.5 million California fraud judgment in favor of GMSR’s client without obtaining a stay of enforcement. While 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.
© 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.