City of Riverside v. Superior Court (Juarez) (2008) 2008 Cal.App. Unpub LEXIS 9452 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two). [unpublished]. Plaintiff was injured when she fell on a street in Riverside County. She presented a timely claim to the wrong public entity
Corey Romagnano v. Rancho Simi Recreation & Park District (2008) 2008 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 9333 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six). [unpublished]. Plaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell off a steep cliff at a public park. He sued GMSR’s client, Rancho
Secarea v. Regents, et al. (2008) 2008 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 9217 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished], modified without change in judgment, 2008 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 10325. After plaintiff’s wife died following heart surgery, he sued GMSR’s clients, two doctors and
Fu Wang v. King Drew Medical Center, et al. (2008) 2008 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8955 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight). [unpublished]. Plaintiff had been a physician for 25 years in Taiwan but needed to complete a 4-year residency here in order to
OCM Principal Opportunities Fund v. CIBC World Markets (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 185 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four). [published]. GMSR co-counseled with Hennigan Bennett & Dorman in this second appellate victory for the prevailing plaintiffs and respondents in a case of first
Halicki v. Carroll Shelby International, et al., 547 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2008) (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals). [published]. GMSR’s clients owned the copyrights to and trademarks associated with the classic 1974 film, “Gone in 60 Seconds” and its iconic car character, “Eleanor.” In 2000,
Schulman v. Regents (2008) 2008 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8644 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two). [unpublished]. The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against GMSR’s client, the Regents of the University of California. After the Regents moved for summary judgment, the plaintiff
Peralda v. Fire Insurance Exchange (2008) 2008 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 7673 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four). [unpublished]. Plaintiff insureds sued GMSR’s client, claiming a bad faith denial of their fire loss claim. The carrier denied coverage because the insured admitted to
Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937 (California Supreme Court). Emphasizing the strong public policy underlying Business and Professions Code section 16600, the Supreme Court rejected the so-called “narrow restraint” exception to California’s statutory bar on employee covenants not to compete with former
Pavey v. Fire Insurance Exchange (2008) 2008 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5884 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One). [unpublished]. GMSR’s client, an insurer, terminated its agreement with one of its agents. The agreement called for the agent to turn over certain materials and
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.