Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc. (9th Cir. 2011) 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14686 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) [published]. GMSR’s client, the Film Musicians Secondary Market Fund — created under collective bargaining agreements between the film industry and the American Federation
Today’s Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Education, et al. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 436 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One) [published]. Following administrative proceedings, GMSR’s client, Los Angeles County Board of Education, revoked the charter of Today’s Fresh Start,
Leontaritis v. Koursaris (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5041 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven) [unpublished]. No one is supposed to be subjected to judgment without first duly being brought under the jurisdiction of the court. But the superior court refused to
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1263 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three) [published]. The trial court ordered an attorney who formerly represented Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. to answer five deposition questions over objections of attorney-client and work
Frisch v. Roberts, et al. (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 4194 (California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District) [unpublished]. The Sixth District Court of Appeal has affirmed judgment in favor of defendants, including GMSR’s clients, Sutter Health and Palo Alto Medical Foundation. The plaintiff alleged
Martinez v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1038 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One) [published]. Plaintiff accepted a settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 from GMSR’s client, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The offer
Hill v. Sullivan Automotive Group, LLC (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 3726 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven) [unpublished]. California law requires that an employee’s wage statement state regular, overtime, and total hours worked. Affirming summary judgment for GMSR’s client in a
Cruz-Carbajal v. Holder (2011) 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8516 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) [unpublished]. Teaming up as pro bono counsel, husband and wife team Alana Rotter of GMSR and Jonathan Rotter of Kaye Scholer LLP argued that the Board of
Ruttlen v. County of Los Angeles (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 2389 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. In a prior appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of the anti-SLAPP motion filed by GMSR’s client, the County of Los
Do v. San Leandro Hospital (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 2264 (California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five) [unpublished]. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer in favor of GMSR’s client, San Leandro Hospital. Plaintiff asserted claims against
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.