William T. Long v. County of Los Angeles (2012) 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 7890 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One) [unpublished]. Plaintiff, a former employee of GMSR’s client, County of Los Angeles, sought reimbursement of attorney’s fees he allegedly incurred in assisting
Wells Fargo Bank v. D. Sprott (2012) 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 7824 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One) [unpublished]. In the probate court, GMSR’s client—Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., acting as trustee of a testamentary trust—obtained an order instructing it how to implement
Language Line Services, Inc. v. Language Services Associates, et al. (2012) 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20008 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) [unpublished]. GMSR’s client, Language Line Services, is the country’s largest provider of interpretation services. One of its employees left to
County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Faten) (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 543 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight) [published]. Plaintiffs were attacked by two of a neighbor’s many dogs. They sued the County, GMSR’s client, arguing that its Department of Animal Care
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
Williams v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (2012) 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 2797 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five) [unpublished]. Plaintiff was a lay advocate, representing public employees before the Civil Service Commission. After the Commission banned him from appearing before
Cotton v. StarCare Medical Group, Inc. (2012) 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 1782 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. GMSR’s clients, two Medicare-funded HMOs, are defendants in the underlying action alleging wrongful death and elder abuse. They had successfully demurred to plaintiffs’
Farmers Insurance Exchange et al. v. Song (2012) 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 1363 (California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. The Court of Appeal affirmed a preliminary injunction in favor of GMSR’s insurer client against its former sales agent. The agent’s agreement
Messerschmidt v. Millender (2012) 565 U.S. 535 [132 S.Ct. 1235] (United States Supreme Court). Tim Coates and Lillie Hsu obtained a 6-3 decision from the United States Supreme Court for two Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies in Messerschmidt v. Millender (2012) 565 U.S. 535 [132
Bioquest Venture Leasing Co. v. VivoRx Autoimmune, Inc. (2012) 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 1293 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven) [unpublished]. This is GMSR’s second appellate victory in this case. In the first appeal, GMSR successfully argued for the reversal of a
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.