Firm Profile

Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP

USA Guide 2023

Ranked departments
Ranked lawyers
USA

Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP

Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP

Contact number

+1 310 859 7811

Share profile

About

Provided by Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP
USA
Firm Details

Managing Partners: Ted Xanders and Cindy Tobisman

Senior Partners: Kent L Richland, Marc Poster, Tim Coates, Robin Meadow, Robert A Olson, Laurie Hepler, Alana Rotter

Number of partners: 13

Number of lawyers: 19

Languages: English

Firm Overview

Ever since its founding in 1983, the firm has been one of California’s premier civil appellate boutiques. From its base of practice in the California state and federal appellate courts, in recent years the firm has forged a potent United States Supreme Court practice: since 2006, it has won nine of the ten cases it has briefed and argued in the high court. The firm is counsel of record in over 500 published decisions and in many more hundreds of unpublished decisions and it has acted as amicus counsel in many additional appellate matters. The firm also frequently consults with trial lawyers so as to ensure that their cases are well positioned for a potential appeal. Through its appellate practice, the firm has developed substantive expertise in many areas, including constitutional law, civil rights, governmental torts and immunities, personal injury, insurance coverage and bad faith, complex business disputes, business torts, copyright and trademark, unfair competition, antitrust, real estate, entertainment law, environmental law, employment law, maritime law, family law, bankruptcy, professional malpractice, arbitration, and probate. The firm’s clientele includes national banks and other major national companies; major liability, casualty and title insurance companies; state and local governments; hospitals; public and private universities; entertainment industry companies and individuals; and lawyers.

Recent Appellate Work

California State & Federal Courts:

  • Inzunza v. Naranjo (2023) __ Cal.App.5th __: GMSR persuaded the Court of Appeal to set aside a $7.629 million judgment against its client.
  • Nigel B. Burbank Unified School District (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 64: GMSR wins reversal and remand of $1.75 million judgment against school district, with instructions to hold trial on apportionment of fault.
  • Starlight Cinemas, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 24: Court of Appeal affirms dismissal of movie theater’s property insurance claim for pandemic-related business losses.
  • JPV I, L.P. v. Koetting (2023) 304 Cal.App.5th 550: Court of Appeal reverses denial of alter ego motion.
  • Williams v. FCA US LLC (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 44: GMSR secures another Court of Appeal win holding that manufacturers cannot offset their Song-Beverly Act damages by amounts the plaintiff receives for trading in a “lemon” vehicle.
  • Johnston-Rossi v. Rossi (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1081: GMSR obtained reversal of order in family-law case that would have allowed children to be forced into 90+-day program isolating them from mother without a showing of significant changed circumstances or best interest of children. Case declared rule on issue of first impression.
  • Tufeld Corporation v. Beverly Hills Gateway, L.P. (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 12: Court of Appeal affirms judgment for GMSR’s client, ordering enforcement of its Beverly Hills ground lease through 2102.
  • Figueroa v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 708: GMSR obtained affirmance of Song-Beverly Act verdict on ground that auto manufacturer was not entitled to reduction of compensatory damages in amount buyer received from sale of truck on open market, after manufacturer refused to repurchase or replace truck.
  • Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828: GMSR obtained reversal in case deciding issue of first impression as to whether economic loss rule bars claims for fraudulent inducement of contract via concealment of material facts.
  • Riley v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (9th Cir. 2022) 51 F.4th 896: GMSR obtained reversal in high-profile case involving opt-out suits by individual lawsuits arising from VW’s emission defeat devices. Ninth Circuit reversed district court’s reduction of juries’ punitive damage awards on ground that low actual damages coupled with high reprehensibility in the form of years-long intentional deceit warranted ratio of more than 4 to 1.
  • Friend of Camden, Inc. et al. v. Brandt (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 1054: Court of Appeal reverses order permitting statutory buyout of GMSR client’s interest in an LLC.
  • Rycz v. Superior Court of San Francisco County (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 824: Reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeal holds that the increasing acceptance of remote testimony does not necessarily limit venue changes based on witness convenience.
  • Meiri v. Shamtoubi (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 606: Court of Appeal affirms order enforcing No Contest clause, making new law on the probable cause standard.
  • Coastline JX Holdings LLC v. Bennett (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 985: Court of Appeal affirms attorney fee rulings favorable to GMSR’s client, and finds appellant forfeited his merits argument.
  • Foxcroft Productions, Inc. v. Universal City Studios, LLC (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1119: On behalf of Columbo creators, GMSR persuades Court of Appeal to reinstate a fraud claim and keep alive a breach of contract claim involving Universal Studios’ failure to pay tens of millions in royalties.
  • Berroteran v. Superior Court (2022) 12 Cal.5th 867: GMSR advocated for and obtained ruling from Supreme Court that statutory provision concerning testimony taken in earlier proceeding and offered against party to that former proceeding did not erect a categorical bar against admission at trial.
  • Anderson v. Ford Motor Company (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 946: Court of Appeal affirms consumer’s victory against a car manufacturer for fraud and California Lemon Law violations.
  • Oakes v. Progressive Transportation Services, Inc. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 486: Court of Appeal affirms judgment for GMSR client, making new law on the interplay of two statutes.
  • Carachure v. Scott (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 16: Court of Appeal rejects plaintiff’s attempt to disavow $15,000 settlement so as to pursue a multi-million-dollar claim.
  • Nede Mgmt., Inc. v. Aspen American Ins. Co. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1121: Court of Appeal rejects insureds’ Cumis claims and affirms judgment for insurer.
  • Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657: Court of Appeal affirms defense summary judgment based on issue preclusion as to the appellant’s unclean hands.
  • Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 307: Court of Appeal orders confirmation of arbitration award for GMSR’s client, finding the respondent missed a jurisdictional deadline to seek to vacate it.
  • Jolie v. Superior Court (2021): A high-profile custody case, which broadly impacts the disclosure obligations of arbitrators and private judges—protecting litigants’ right to have an impartial arbiter decide their disputes.
  • Morgan v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2021): GMSR obtained reversal of a $15 million punitive damages award in a case involving alleged exposure to asbestos.
  • Southern California School of Theology v. Claremont Graduate University (2021): The Court of Appeal reversed judgment against the Claremont Colleges and ordered enforcement of their land buy-back rights worth more than $30 million.
  • Slaight v. Tata Consultancy Services (2021): In a closely watched Title VII class action alleging race and national origin discrimination, GMSR secured affirmance of defense verdict for a global information technology company headquartered in India.
  • County of Los Angeles Department of Health v. Superior Court (2021): The Court reversed a superior court injunction barring Los Angeles County from enforcing a Covid-19 pandemic outdoor restaurant dining ban until the County provided the superior court with a “risk-benefit” analysis that the superior court would find acceptable. This was a major case for public entities dealing with challenges to many facets of their Covid-19 health orders.
  • Ixchel Pharma LLC v. Biogen, Inc. (2020): The California Supreme Court adopted two rules of law urged by the firm, both profoundly affecting commercial contracts.
  • Quincy Jones v. MJJ Productions, Inc. (2020): Quincy Jones sued MJJ Productions, claiming it owed him money related to three Michael Jackson albums he produced in the 1970s and 1980s. The jury awarded him $9.4 million. On behalf of MJJ productions, GMSR and its co-counsel obtained reversal of about three quarters of the verdict in the Court of Appeal.
  • Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. (2018): The California Supreme Court concluded that a large law firm’s failure to disclose a conflict of interest invalidated a signed conflict waiver and violated public policy, requiring vacation of the arbitration award.
  • Wind Dancer Production Group v. Walt Disney Pictures (2017): GMSR’s clients, the creators and producers of the hit television show Home Improvement, sued Disney for underpaying their profit participation. Disney obtained summary judgment on the basis of an ‘incontestability clause’ in its contract. The Court of Appeal reversed. It found triable fact issues as to whether Disney had agreed to toll the two-year incontestability period, and whether the two-year period was barred by waiver or estoppel.
  • Sterling v. Sterling (2015): Successfully obtained affirmance of a Probate Court order requiring the sale of NBA team the Los Angeles Clippers from Donald Sterling to a new owner.
  • In re Estate of Duke (2015): GMSR represented two charities before the California Supreme Court, convincing the Court to chart a new course in will reformation. The Court held that when a mistake in a will is established by clear and convincing evidence, reformation is now available.
  • Howell v. Hamilton Meats (2011): In a case with multi-billion dollar implications, the California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff’s recovery for economic medical damages cannot exceed the lesser of the amount actually accepted by the healthcare provider as payment in full or the reasonable value of services, rather than the face amount of the medical bill.

United States Supreme Court:

  • Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna (2021): GMSR won its ninth case in the United States Supreme Court, which reversed a Court of Appeals ruling that erroneously denied a police officer qualified immunity based on inapt precedent.
  • L.A. County Flood Control Dist. v. NRDC, Inc. (2013): In a closely watched Clean Water Act case, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that the firm’s client had not violated the Act simply by moving water through improved portions of a river into other portions of the same river.
  • Messerschmidt v. Millender (2012): In an important decision for law enforcement, the Supreme Court held that sheriffs’ deputies were entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability where their search was carried out pursuant to a search warrant, even though the search itself was unlawful.
  • Los Angeles County v. Humphries (2010): In a critical decision for cities and counties, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a municipality cannot be subjected to declaratory or injunctive relief in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 unless the plaintiff establishes that an injury was inflicted as a result of a policy, custom or practice fairly attributable to the local public entity.
  • City of Ontario v. Quon (2010): The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a police department’s review of text messages sent and received by a SWAT team officer on his department-issued pager did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures.

Offices

Los Angeles, California

+1 (310) 859-7811

San Francisco, California

+1 (415) 315-1774

Ranked Offices

Provided by Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP

USA - Head office
USA
  • San Francisco
    50 California Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, California, USA, 94111
    View ranked office

Contributions

Latest contributions provided by Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP

In-Depth Overview
Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP
Authored by
Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP
Article • Jun 2023

Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP rankings

USA Guide 2023
California
Litigation: Appellate
1 Department
4 Ranked Lawyers
Department
Litigation: Appellate
1
Litigation: Appellate
1
Band 1
Lawyers
Kent L Richland
1
Kent L Richland
1
Band 1
Robin Meadow
2
Robin Meadow
2
Band 2
Laurie J Hepler
3
Laurie J Hepler
3
Band 3
Alana H Rotter
4
Alana H Rotter
4
Band 4