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 LEXIS 1293 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven) [unpublished].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
Coffee House v. Superior Court (2012) 2012 Cal.App. Unpub LEXIS 263 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five) [unpublished]. Two unidentified men entered Coffee House, GMSR’s client, and started shooting. They fatally shot a patron named Hung and wounded three others, who sued
Gregory Ell Shehee v. Leroy D. Baca, et al. (2012) 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 684 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) [unpublished memorandum]. Plaintiff sued multiple Los Angeles County officials, including GMSR client Supervisor Gloria Molina under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (civil
Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 9627 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two) [unpublished]. The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for GMSR’s client, St. Paul Mercury Insurance. Chicago Title’s officers and employees were
Farmers Insurance Exchange et al. v. St. Fleur (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 9331 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two) [unpublished]. The Court of Appeal affirmed with directions a preliminary injunction in favor of GMSR’s client Farmers against its former insurance sales
Flores v. County of Los Angeles (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 9332 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two) [unpublished]. Plaintiff sued the GMSR’s client, the County of Los Angeles, for wrongful death after her daughter died in the emergency room at Martin
Wachtel v. Regents, et al. (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8410 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. The Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment in favor of GMSR’s client, The Regents of the University of California, and multiple other medical defendants
Seyedan v. Ebrahimi (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8092 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven) [unpublished]. GMSR’s client, Maryam Seyedan, invested some $400,000 in real property acquired by defendant Nassir Ebrahimi in Los Angeles and Las Vegas, a joint venture that was
Shugart v. The Regents of the University of California (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 499 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight) [published]. Plaintiff was treated for urinary incontinence and related conditions, first by a Bakersfield physician and, when that treatment proved unsuccessful, by physicians
HBI Construction, Inc. v. Superior Court (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 6745 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two) [unpublished]. GMSR’s client, HBI, had a mechanic’s lien on seven properties that were part of a single, overarching construction project. After foreclosure proceedings wiped out
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.