Civil Procedure

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.

Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments, Inc. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 161

Deciding an issue of first impression in a published decision, the Court of Appeal grants GMSR’s motion to dismiss the defendants’ appeal from an $8.5 million fraud judgment under the “disentitlement doctrine”

Court of Appeal orders a new trial for GMSR’s clients on the basis of disjunctive wording in a special verdict form

Siry v. Farkhondehpour et al. (2012) 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 9014 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two) [unpublished]. Plaintiff sued its two partners, including GMSR’s clients, both in their individual capacities and in their capacities as trustees of various trusts, claiming that

Nicolas v. City of Riverside (9th Cir. 2012) 486 Fed.Appx. 699

Plaintiff’s first ex-husband was murdered in the City of Riverside. Plaintiff and two others were charged with the murder. Plaintiff was acquitted. She sued GMSR’s clients, the City of Riverside and two Riverside Police Department detectives, under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a violation of

Dearing v. De Mille, 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8296

An institutional trustee won a judgment (which GMSR successfully defended on appeal) ordering the former trustee to pay the trust more than $1 million in damages. The former trustee attempted to stymie enforcement of the judgment by disclaiming his interest in his father’s estate and

Court of Appeal affirms ruling entitling GMSR client to enforce $1.3 million damages award against judgment debtor’s property

Dearing v. DeMille (2012) 2012 Cal.App. Unpub LEXIS 8296 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two) [unpublished]. An institutional trustee won a judgment (which GMSR successfully defended on appeal) ordering the former trustee to pay the trust more than $1 million in damages.

Bioquest Venture Leasing Co. v. Vivorx Autoimmune, 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 1293

This is GMSR’s second appellate victory in this case. In the first appeal, GMSR successfully argued for the reversal of a $2.5 million judgment on the basis of a statute of limitations defense. However, each side read the court of appeal’s disposition of the case

Court of Appeal adopts GMSR’s interpretation of Court’s earlier decision in favor of GMSR’s client

Bioquest Venture Leasing Co. v. VivoRx Autoimmune, Inc. (2012) 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 1293 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven) [unpublished]. This is GMSR’s second appellate victory in this case. In the first appeal, GMSR successfully argued for the reversal of a

HBI Construction, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 6745

GMSR’s client, HBI, had a mechanic’s lien on seven properties that were part of a single, overarching construction project. After foreclosure proceedings wiped out the lien on six of the properties, the owner of the seventh filed a motion asking the trial court to apportion

Court of Appeal finds GMSR’s client is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on mechanic’s lien

HBI Construction, Inc. v. Superior Court (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 6745 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two) [unpublished]. GMSR’s client, HBI, had a mechanic’s lien on seven properties that were part of a single, overarching construction project. After foreclosure proceedings wiped out

Ninth Circuit upholds terminating sanctions and $1.1 million default judgment entered for GMSR’s client after opponents’ discovery abuse

Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc. (9th Cir. 2011) 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14686 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) [published]. GMSR’s client, the Film Musicians Secondary Market Fund — created under collective bargaining agreements between the film industry and the American Federation

Who We Serve

PUBLIC ENTITIES

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.

Read More
INSURERS

Where coverage may exist, GMSR represents insureds on appeal effectively and efficiently. Where it does not, the firm protects insurers’ right to deny claims.

Read More
BUSINESSES

GMSR offers corporate clients objective assessments on appeal, based on a deep understanding of the limitations and opportunities of appellate review.

Read More
TRIAL COUNSEL

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.

Read More
INDIVIDUALS

GMSR vigorously advocates the rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants, in both state and federal appellate courts.

Read More