Attorney RecordLitigation · San Francisco County
Arturo Jorge Gonzalez · Litigation Attorney
Can’t reach them, or not sure who to call? Submit your case for review · attorneys who practice in your area read it and may send you terms. Free; your details stay masked until you choose.
Arturo Jorge Gonzalez is on California’s State Bar roll, #121490, admitted in 1985; license status: active as of 22 July 2026. The address of record is in San Francisco, San Francisco County. Practice areas listed in the registry: Litigation. This profile lists 3 third-party recognitions published by Chambers and Partners, the most recent in Chambers Global 2026. Registry record updated 8 October 2026; license information comes from the State Bar.
This profile has not yet been claimed. Verify current license status at the State Bar before retaining counsel; the choice is always yours.
Have a litigation matter? Submit your case for review.
Open a free case file, choose how attorneys may contact you, and review any terms they send. You decide whom to contact and whether to proceed.
In the last 30 days attorneys have read 16 filed matters on the registry.
Submit your case for reviewLegal information, not legal advice
Registry verification
Verified against official State Bar of California records · record last updated 8 October 2026. Contact information on this page comes from the public record and is shown free, the registry never paywalls it.
1 finding about you awaits your confirmation. Claim your profile to review and add the ones that are yours →
The record
| State Bar number | #121490 |
|---|---|
| License status | Active |
| Admitted | 1985 |
| Law school | Harvard Univ Law School |
| Firm | Morrison & Foerster LLP |
| Location | San Francisco, San Francisco County |
| Registry identity | Official State Bar record |
Diamond members practicing Litigation in San Francisco County
Practice areas
Practice areas are self-reported to the State Bar or added by the attorney; listing one is not a State Bar certification.
Understand your options
Free California worksheets to organize the facts before speaking with an attorney.
Verified profiles & presence
Professional identity links come from public sources or this attorney. Review-site ratings belong to their named source and may cover a firm or office. CAR does not combine them into an attorney rating.
Cases of record
From published opinions naming this attorney as counsel. The attorney has not yet confirmed these records.
| Case | Appeared for | Citation | Court | Decided |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nevro Corp. v. Bos. Scientific Corp. | Counsel for the plaintiff | 312 F. Supp. 3d 804 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 8 May 2018 |
| Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. | Counsel for the defendant | 256 F. Supp. 3d 1059 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 8 June 2017 |
| Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. | Counsel for the defendant | 252 F. Supp. 3d 934 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 11 May 2017 |
| Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. | Counsel for the defendant | 319 F.R.D. 284 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 10 April 2017 |
| Knox v. City of Fresno | Counsel for the plaintiff | 208 F. Supp. 3d 1114 | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California | 22 September 2016 |
| Phoenix Technologies Ltd. v. VMware, Inc. | Counsel for the defendant | 195 F. Supp. 3d 1096 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 1 July 2016 |
| Barajas v. City of Rohnert Park | Counsel for the plaintiff | 159 F. Supp. 3d 1016 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 5 February 2016 |
| Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. | Counsel for the appellant | 236 Cal. App. 4th 243 | California Court of Appeal | 28 April 2015 |
| Guidiville Rancheria v. United States | Counsel for the defendant | 5 F. Supp. 3d 1142 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 12 December 2013 |
| Neurovision Medical Products Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc. | Counsel for the appellant | 494 F. App'x 749 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 10 September 2012 |
| Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki | Counsel for the appellant | 663 F.3d 1033 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 16 November 2011 |
| Bullis Charter School v. Los Altos School District | Counsel for the appellant | 200 Cal. App. 4th 1022 | California Court of Appeal | 27 October 2011 |
| The Consolidated Delta Smelt Cases | Counsel for the plaintiff | 812 F. Supp. 2d 1133 | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California | 31 August 2011 |
| Howe v. Bank of America N.A. | Counsel for the respondent | 179 Cal. App. 4th 1443 | California Court of Appeal | 16 November 2009 |
| Miller v. BANK OF AMERICA, NT & SA | Counsel for the appellant | 46 Cal. 4th 630 | California Supreme Court | 1 June 2009 |
| Mendez v. County of San Bernardino | Counsel for the appellant | 540 F.3d 1109 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 27 August 2008 |
| Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake | Counsel for the plaintiff | 563 F. Supp. 2d 1049 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 25 June 2008 |
| Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County | Counsel for the petitioner | 163 Cal. App. 4th 575 | California Court of Appeal | 30 May 2008 |
| Torres v. Taser International, Inc. | Counsel for the plaintiff | 277 F. App'x 684 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 5 May 2008 |
| Nichols v. City of Taft | Counsel for the respondent | 155 Cal. App. 4th 1233 | California Court of Appeal | 2 October 2007 |
| Oakland Raiders v. Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, Inc. | Counsel for the appellant | 144 Cal. App. 4th 1175 | California Court of Appeal | 17 November 2006 |
| City of Modesto v. National Med, Inc. | Counsel for the respondent | 128 Cal. App. 4th 518 | California Court of Appeal | 18 March 2005 |
| Butt v. State of California | Counsel for the respondent | 4 Cal. 4th 668 | California Supreme Court | 31 December 1992 |
| Citizen Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley | Counsel for the appellant | 222 Cal. App. 3d 748 | California Court of Appeal | 30 July 1990 |
Appearances in published opinions, drawn from public court records. Cases of record are matters of public record and are not a representation of results; past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Legal information, not legal advice.
Each case name opens the published opinion it comes from. Is a case not this attorney’s? The attorney can claim this profile and mark it as not theirs, which removes it from this page; anyone can report an error through Help & Support.
Third-party recognitions
Third-party recognitions, as published by their issuers. CAR does not rank attorneys. How to read a Chambers recognition.
Chambers Global 2026, Band 2, Litigation: Trial Lawyers (USA). As published by Chambers and Partners; CAR does not rank attorneys. Firm at the time: Morrison Foerster.
Published source · Methodology
Published by Chambers and Partners and shown under licence. Not yet confirmed by the attorney. Last checked 6 October 2026.
Chambers USA 2026, Band 2, Litigation: General Commercial (California). As published by Chambers and Partners; CAR does not rank attorneys. Firm at the time: Morrison Foerster.
Published source · Methodology
Published by Chambers and Partners and shown under licence. Not yet confirmed by the attorney. Last checked 3 October 2026.
Chambers USA 2026, Band 2, Litigation: Trial Lawyers (USA - Nationwide). As published by Chambers and Partners; CAR does not rank attorneys. Firm at the time: Morrison Foerster.
Published source · Methodology
Published by Chambers and Partners and shown under licence. Not yet confirmed by the attorney. Last checked 3 October 2026.
Are you this attorney? Claim this record to confirm, correct or remove a recognition →
Issuers set their own criteria and may sell marketing products to the firms they recognize. A recognition is not a guarantee of any result. The California Attorney Registry is not affiliated with Chambers and Partners.
On the official record
The employer on the official record is Morrison & Foerster LLP.
The law school on the record is Harvard University Law School.
Admitted to the California Bar in 1985 · 41 years on the roll.
Practice areas on the record: Litigation.
24 appearances as counsel in published opinions are on this record.
The address of record is in San Francisco, in San Francisco County, where matters are ordinarily heard at the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, seated at San Francisco.
Confirm Arturo Jorge Gonzalez’s license status, bar number #121490, and official disciplinary or administrative history directly with the State Bar of California at apps.calbar.ca.gov before retaining counsel. This profile does not reproduce the complete official history; missing information does not mean no discipline. This page indexes public-record data and identifies verified claims; it does not rate attorney quality or predict results.
Legal information, not legal advice.
On the record nearby
Litigation in San Francisco County: next on the roll
San Francisco County: next on the roll
Listed alphabetically by last name, continuing from this record. Not a recommendation.
For Attorneys
Your profile is already on the roll. Make it yours.
Every California attorney is indexed here from the official State Bar roll, including you. Verify your identity in minutes, present your practice the way you want clients to see it, and unlock the Referral Exchange · send and receive matters with verified attorneys, fees divided 100% between counsel under CRPC 1.5.1.
Claim My ProfileFree to claim · referrals free at every level · identity verified against the State Bar record
Read the record. Then decide.
Describe your matter once, review the verified records, and place the call; the choice is always yours.
Find Your Counsel279,000+ attorney records · 58 counties · Official State Bar records