Wins
Court of Appeal affirms order denying in-house fees to attorneys
GMSR’s client sued his former attorneys for malpractice. The matter went to arbitration, and the arbitrator ruled in favor of the attorneys. They sought to recover attorney’s fees under their engagement letter with the client, but the arbitrator refused to allow them to recover fees
Court of Appeal affirms judgment for GMSR’s property owner client
Plaintiff filed a negligence action against GMSR’s client, a shopping center owner, alleging that he was injured when he walked into a pole in a landscaped area separating a parking lot from the sidewalk. A jury found in favor of the property owner. Plaintiff appealed,
Court of Appeal affirms damages and fee awards in favor of real estate developers and rejects neighboring homeowners association’s million-dollar counterclaim.
GMSR’s clients acquired four parcels of land and began developing residential homesites—a process that requires frequent pre-development visits by multiple contractors. Because the land was not adjacent to public streets, the developers and their visitors accessed it by driving through a guarded gate and then
Court of Appeal grants motion to dismiss appeal from summary judgment in favor of GMSR’s utility client
Plaintiffs’ mother was struck by a car while crossing a street near a streetlight that was cycling on and off. GMSR’s client, Southern California Edison, serviced the streetlight. Plaintiffs sued, alleging that Edison negligently failed to keep the streetlight working properly. On summary judgment, the
Court re-affirms denial of arbitration of malpractice claims
Several years ago, in Rice v. Downs (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 175, the Court of Appeal vacated an arbitration award against GMSR’s client, finding that his claims for legal malpractice against his lawyer/business partner were not covered by the parties’ arbitration agreement. These included a
Court of Appeal affirms judgment for GMSR’s utility client, finding no basis for liability following firefighter’s accident.
A firefighter was electrocuted when he touched the firetruck he was working on at the same time his crewmember rotated the truck’s aerial ladder into a 25-foot-high power line owned by GMSR’s client, Southern California Edison. The firefighter sued, alleging that Edison negligently failed to
GMSR’s client faced loss of her home on account of an unauthorized home equity loan from which she received nothing. Judgment for the lender reversed.
The issue on appeal was whether evidence of the homeowner’s execution of a written agreement with a third party ratified the third party’s previously unauthorized execution of a trust deed on her home. Since a trust deed must be in writing, under the “equal dignities
Court of Appeal holds that plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy for defendant’s intentional interference with inheritance expectancy was in probate court
Relying on Beckwith v. Dahl (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1039, plaintiffs sued their uncle, GMSR’s client, in civil court for intentionally interfering with their expectation of inheritance. They claimed their uncle intentionally exerted undue influence over his parents and interfered with his mother’s desires to leave
Court of Appeal affirms $3.9 million judgment on commercial guaranty, holding that federal law bars guarantor’s assertion of “sham guaranty” defense
Court of Appeal affirms $3.9 million judgment on commercial guaranty, holding that federal law bars guarantor’s assertion of “sham guaranty” defense.
Ninth Circuit grants GMSR’s motion to dismiss interlocutory appeal from discovery ruling
GMSR, representing the defendant seeking to take the deposition, moved to dismiss the appeal. The motion argued that Ninth Circuit case law precludes a party from appealing an interlocutory discovery ruling, and that the same rationale should apply to non-party IMS because its objections were identical to Valley’s.
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.
© 2020 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.