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 [unpublished].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 [unpublished].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
Billups v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2008) 2008 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 4970 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five) [unpublished]. A bus rider sued the MTA for injuries allegedly suffered as a result of falling on a bus. Following a defense verdict,
Karcher Firestopping, Inc. v. Local No. 5, International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers (2008) 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12236 Ninth Circuit Case Nos. 06-56728 and 07-5520 [unpublished ]. A labor union filed a grievance against GMSR’s client and the client invoked
HLC Properties v. MCA Records (2008) 2008 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 3993 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five) [unpublished]. GMSR’s clients, the heirs of legendary performer Bing Crosby, sued MCA Records for unpaid royalties. Because it concluded that the claims were equitable in
Robertson v. County of Ventura (9th Cir. 2008) 275 Fed.Appx. 594, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9071 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) [published]. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for two physicians who had been sued for violation of civil rights under
The buyers of a business sued the sellers, GMSR’s clients. The jury found that the sellers had committed fraud (both concealment and misrepresentation), for which it awarded compensatory and punitive damages. It also found that the buyers had breached the promissory note that represented part
Prince v. Sutter Health Central (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 971 (California Third District Court of Appeal) [published]. Plaintiffs in this professional negligence case sought noneconomic damages in excess of the MICRA cap (Civ. Code § 3333.2) from GMSR’s clients, a registered social worker and her employer,
Edwards v. Fire Insurance Exchange (2008) 2008 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 2428 (California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One) [unpublished]. Plaintiff purchased a house. The seller remained on the mortgage, however, and plaintiff buyer still owed a portion of the purchase price. Several days later,
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.