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.
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
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
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
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
© 2025 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90048
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
50 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
555 Anton Blvd, Suite 150
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
P: (310) 859-7811
© 2025 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
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.
