summary judgment
Share
Banc of California National Association v. Federal Insurance Company (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2022, No. 21-56179) 2022 WL 17583056
This dispute stemmed from a forgery insurance policy that the defendants carrier issued to GMSR’s client, a bank. After purchasing the Policy, the bank made a fifteen-million-dollar loan in reliance on a document later determined to be forged. After the bank contacted its forgery insurer
Beaudreau v. Burnham USA Equities, Inc. et al. (Aug. 23, 2022, G059971) 2022 WL 3593351 [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiff was injured in a strip-mall walkway when a mall patron pulling into a perpendicular parking space pressed the accelerator instead of the brake, causing the vehicle to jump a concrete wheel-stop and curb. In his personal injury suit against the mall owner, plaintiff alleged
Ray v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2021, No. 20-55989) 2021 WL 4902357
Plaintiffs injured in a car accident obtained an assignment of the at-fault driver’s rights and sued the driver’s insurance carrier for bad faith. They alleged that they had sent the carrier a settlement demand letter, but the carrier failed to timely accept. The carrier moved
Court Of Appeal Affirms Defense Summary Judgment Based On Issue Preclusion As To The Appellant’s Unclean Hands
A rogue employee of a title company promoted a Ponzi scheme in which she obtained investments from the appellant, a real estate entrepreneur whom she knew from handling his escrow business. When the scheme collapsed and the appellant purportedly lost about $9 million, he sued
Lopez v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Dec. 14, 2020, B296598) 2020 WL 7332045 [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiff sued his public entity employer for disability discrimination and failure to participate in the interactive process after the employer determined that plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of his job in light of doctor-imposed restrictions on his movement. The Court of Appeal affirmed
Coastline RE Holdings Corp. v. Cunningham (June 7, 2019, C076994) 2019 WL 2402272 [nonpublished opinion]
An LLC obtained a loan and its principal personally guaranteed repayment. Later, the lender entered FDIC receivership, and the FDIC sold all of its assets, including the loan, to another bank. After the borrower-LLC defaulted, the successor bank sued to enforce the guaranty. The guarantor
McCormick-Gordon v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Jan. 24, 2005, B172622) 2005 WL 236558 [nonpublished opinion]
Propriety of rejecting medical malpractice expert’s testimony on the basis of the expert’s lack of qualifications and his failure to provide a reasonable basis for his opinions
Slack v. Regents of University of California (Nov. 29, 2004, B164521) 2004 WL 2699976 [nonpublished opinion]
Appropriateness of trial court’s denial of trial continuance
Greines v. Ford Motor Co., Inc. (Jan. 7, 2003, B148400) 2003 WL 42524 [nonpublished opinion]
Summary judgment reversed in claim against automobile manufacturer for fraud and breach of warranty
Trancas Property Owners Ass’n v. California Coastal Com’n (Dec. 18, 2001, B142315) 2001 WL 1634406 [nonpublished opinion]
Conditions under which coastal development permit expires
Who We Serve
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.
© 2023 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Los Angeles
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90048
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
San Francisco
50 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
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.