Murphy v. Richardson (2016) 2016 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 1732 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One) [unpublished]. Plaintiff sued a religious sober-living home where he resided, for injuries he suffered in a car accident when a home employee was driving him to apply for
Garcia v. Holt (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 600 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One) [published]. GMSR’s landlord clients rented their single family home to a couple month to month. The landlords had no reason to suspect that one of the tenants was manufacturing
The Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1296 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven) [published]. Plaintiff was an undergraduate student at UCLA. Unprovoked, another student in her chemistry lab class pulled a kitchen knife and stabbed
Wilson v. Southern California Edison (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 123 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four) [published]. The plaintiff experienced what she called a “tingling sensation” at her showerhead that turned out to be stray voltage emanating from the next-door power substation owned
Breeden v. Superior Court (2014) 2014 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 7216 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two) [unpublished]. Two pet pit bulls mauled an animal control officer who was attempting to impound them. The animal control officer sued the dogs’ owner and the
Barrett v. Leech (July 24, 2014, D063991) 2014 WL 3659366 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One) [unpublished]. A horse owner hired a farrier to trim his horses’ hooves in the owner’s outdoor corral. While the farrier was trying to secure one of
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 LEXIS 1782 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished].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’
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 Unpub LEXIS 263 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five) [unpublished].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
Miller v. Ron Taylor Drilling (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 6635 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six) [unpublished]. The defendant’s vehicle, traveling at about 3 or 4 miles per hour, tapped the plaintiff’s car, which was waiting at a traffic light. The
A jury found that GMSR’s client transmitted herpes to the plaintiff, and it awarded $6,753,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. The compensatory damages included $2,500,000 for future medical expenses. On appeal, GMSR demonstrated that there was no substantial evidence of future medical expenses beyond the
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.