Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 590 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four) [published]. In a unanimous published opinion reversing the $1.7 million judgment against GMSR’s client J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc., the Second District
Heltebrake v. City of Riverside (2015) 2015 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 9469 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five) [unpublished]. Plaintiff sued public entities that had offered a $1 million reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Christopher Dorner, claiming that
Reyes v. Reyes (2015) 2015 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8122 (Calfornia Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One) [unpublished]. In this marital dissolution proceeding, the parties stipulated to having a temporary judge (a retired judge appointed under Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21) issue a
Garcia v. Holt (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 600 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One) [published]. GMSR’s landlord clients rented their single family home to a couple month to month. The landlords had no reason to suspect that one of the tenants was manufacturing
Sheridan v. Touchstone Television Productions, Inc. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 5080 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four) [published]. Nicollette Sheridan played Edie on Desperate Housewives until, she alleged, she was fired for complaining about a supervisor’s abusive conduct. She sued, alleging retaliatory discrimination
In re Marriage of Ziman (2015) 2015 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 7388 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One ) [unpublished]. Husband, GMSR’s client, entered the marriage with $16 million in separate property investments. The couple spent the first six years of the marriage
The Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1296 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven) [published]. Plaintiff was an undergraduate student at UCLA. Unprovoked, another student in her chemistry lab class pulled a kitchen knife and stabbed
21st Century Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 322 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two) [published]. Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident. He sued the insured. The carrier, GMSR’s client, defended under a $100,000 limits policy. The plaintiff and
In Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 899 (California Supreme Court), the arbitration clause in a standard auto purchase contract used by most California car dealers mandated: (1) arbitration before a single arbitrator on an individual basis, waiving any class action; (2)
In re Estate of Duke (2015) 61 Cal.4th 871 (California Supreme Court). From time immemorial, courts throughout the United States have been powerless to correct drafting mistakes in wills no matter how clearly the evidence established the testator’s actual intent. Courts could use the doctrine
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.
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.