Plaintiff tripped and fell over a defect on a municipal sidewalk next to property owned by GMSR’s client, Street 41, LLC. He sued the City of Oakland and Street 41 for failing to maintain the sidewalk. The trial court granted the City’s and Street 41’s
In Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship v. County of Riverside, the Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment for GMSR’s client, the County of Riverside, in a suit asserting that a County zoning ordinance was facially invalid under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) as purportedly disallowing religious organizations to operate in the zone. The Ninth Circuit held that the zoning allowed construction of special occasion facilities. Nothing on the face of the statute indicates that a religious group would not be granted a permit to construct such a facility and use it for religious purposes, so there was no violation of RLUIPA. The statute merely requires public entities to treat religious uses the same as secular uses.
In a published opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed a judgment against GMSR’s client and directed the trial court to enter judgment in its favor. GMSR’s client purchased a commercial warehouse property in 1994 without actual or constructive notice of an unrecorded 1950 agreement that
While riding his bicycle, plaintiff was hit by a car in a controlled intersection. Because of his injuries, plaintiff could not recall how the accident happened, including where he was and the direction he was traveling just before the collision. He sued GMSR’s client City
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
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 affirms $3.9 million judgment on commercial guaranty, holding that federal law bars guarantor’s assertion of “sham guaranty” defense.
The plaintiff sued GMSR’s client, Southern California Edison, after renovations to her bathroom caused her to feel a slight tingle of electricity when she touched her showerhead, caused by neutral-to-earth voltage from a nearby Edison substation. She won a $4 million jury verdict on multiple
Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. v. Marazzo, et al. (unpublished, 1st Civ. A143364): Prometheus, a real estate developer, entered into an agreement with GMSR’s property-owner client that contemplated a residential development in Mountain View on the client’s property. Prometheus sued the property owner for breach
Ginsberg v. Gamson (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 873 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight) [published]. GMSR’s client, Gamson, leased a portion of a commercial building to Ginsberg for the operation of a vintage clothing store. Disputes arose from Ginsberg’s claims that she was
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.