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.

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 (Sept. 29, 2014, B251366) 2014 WL 4807719 [nonpublished opinion]

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 (Sept. 29, 2014, B251366) 2014 WL 4807719 (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

Oct 17, 2013 Gary J. Wax
In Practice: ‘Kurwa’ Shuts a Door to an Early Appeal

The Recorder (October 17, 2013) When a trial court decides a core issue in a pretrial proceeding but leaves peripheral claims pending, appellate relief is generally unavailable because there is no final judgment.  Litigants have tried to create the necessary finality by voluntarily dismissing the

Apr 04, 2013 Related Cases
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”

Apr 04, 2013 Related Cases
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

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

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
COMMUNITY PRO BONO

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.

Read More