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.
Court Of Appeal Reinstates GMSR’s Client’s Claims Seeking Return Of $1.6 Million
Maria Ferra paid $1.6 million that she did not believe was owed, to stop a deed-of-trust holder from foreclosing on property Maria had sold to a third party under an indemnity and security agreement. Maria then sued the deed-of-trust holder to recover the wrongfully-demanded money.
Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657
A rogue employee of a title company promoted a Ponzi scheme in which she obtained investments from the appellant, a real estate entrepreneur whom she knew from handling his escrow business. When the scheme collapsed and the appellant purportedly lost about $9 million, he sued
Court Of Appeal Affirms Defense Summary Judgment Based On Issue Preclusion As To The Appellant’s Unclean Hands
A rogue employee of a title company promoted a Ponzi scheme in which she obtained investments from the appellant, a real estate entrepreneur whom she knew from handling his escrow business. When the scheme collapsed and the appellant purportedly lost about $9 million, he sued
Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 307
Litigation funder Law Finance Group turned to GMSR after the trial court vacated an arbitration award enforcing LFG’s loan agreement with a borrower. On appeal, GMSR argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the award because the borrower failed to seek vacatur within
Court Of Appeal Orders Confirmation Of Arbitration Award For GMSR’s Client, Finding The Respondent Missed A Jurisdictional Deadline To Seek To Vacate It
Litigation funder Law Finance Group turned to GMSR after the trial court vacated an arbitration award enforcing LFG’s loan agreement with a borrower. On appeal, GMSR argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the award because the borrower failed to seek vacatur within
Jean-Louis v. City of Riverside (9th Cir. 2021) 850 Fed.Appx. 548
Louis Jean-Louis sued the City of Riverside, City officials, and City employees, alleging a scheme to place houses into receivership by levying excessive fines for violating City ordinances. The district court dismissed Jean-Louis’ suit on res judicata grounds, because Jean-Louis had previously settled and dismissed
Ninth Circuit Affirms Judgment For GMSR’s Clients, Finding Appellant’s Argument Forfeited And Without Merit
Louis Jean-Louis sued the City of Riverside, City officials, and City employees, alleging a scheme to place houses into receivership by levying excessive fines for violating City ordinances. The district court dismissed Jean-Louis’ suit on res judicata grounds, because Jean-Louis had previously settled and dismissed
Melamed v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (March 22, 2021, B292794) 2021 WL 1084783 [nonpublished opinion]
A physician brought administrative mandamus proceedings seeking to overturn a medical peer review determination that upheld the summary suspension of his medical staff privileges. His mandamus arguments, however, challenged a different decision than what the parties had agreed the peer review hearing committee would decide—the
Court Of Appeal Finds Physician Failed To Exhaust Administrative Remedies In Medical Peer Review Matter
A physician brought administrative mandamus proceedings seeking to overturn a medical peer review determination that upheld the summary suspension of his medical staff privileges. His mandamus arguments, however, challenged a different decision than what the parties had agreed the peer review hearing committee would decide—the
Berroteran v. Superior Court (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 518
In a published decision that disagrees with a sister court decision, Wahlgren v. Coleco Industries, Inv. (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 543 (Wahlgren), the Court of Appeal granted GMSR’s petition for writ of mandate and directed the trial court to vacate in limine orders that had excluded
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.
As part of GMSR’s long-standing commitment to social justice and equality, GMSR provides pro bono appellate services to individuals and to community organizations on issues of concern.
© 2022 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.