summary judgment
Share
Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment for GMSR’s City client, finding no dangerous condition of public property
A drunk driver collided with a boy crossing a marked crosswalk in Glendale. The boy and his brother settled their claims against the driver and sued the City of Glendale, alleging that the crosswalk was a dangerous condition of public property. The trial court granted
L.S. v. City of Glendale (Nov. 21, 2023, B319602) 2023 WL 8046891 [nonpublished opinion]
Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment for GMSR’s City client, finding no dangerous condition of public property
Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment, finding no duty in case alleging inadequate streetlighting by public utility
While on their nightly walk to a neighborhood park, the plaintiffs’ parents were hit in a crosswalk. The plaintiffs sued Caltech and GMSR’s client, the public utility that provided streetlighting in the area. The plaintiffs contended that because of Caltech’s efforts to mitigate light pollution
Pham et al. v. Southern California Edison Company (May 2, 2023, B316026) 2023 WL 3189810 [nonpublished opinion]
Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment, finding no duty in case alleging inadequate streetlighting by public utility
Banc of California National Association v. Federal Insurance Company (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2022, No. 21-56179) 2022 WL 17583056
GMSR gets summary judgment reversed for bank seeking insurance coverage of forgery loss
Beaudreau v. Burnham USA Equities, Inc. et al. (Aug. 23, 2022, G059971) 2022 WL 3593351 [nonpublished opinion]
Court of Appeal reaffirms that businesses with perpendicular parking generally have no duty to protect against curb-jumping vehicles
Ray v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2021, No. 20-55989) 2021 WL 4902357
Ninth Circuit affirms judgment, rejecting plaintiffs’ belated effort to change insurance bad faith theories
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]
GMSR wins affirmance of summary judgment for employer on disability discrimination claims
Coastline RE Holdings Corp. v. Cunningham (June 7, 2019, C076994) 2019 WL 2402272 [nonpublished opinion]
Court of Appeal affirms $3.9 million judgment on commercial guaranty, holding that federal law bars guarantor’s assertion of “sham guaranty” defense
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.
© 2024 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.