Cases

United States v. Windsor (DOMA)

Anita Susan Brenner wrote an amicus brief challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on behalf of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and the Armed Forces Committee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. She argues that with the revocation of "Don't ask, don't tell" in this time of war, mission effectiveness requires equal treatment of military spouses. See www.scribd.com/doc/128047755 or www.tinyurl.com/LACBAamicus  

The Tait Employment Cases

The Tait cases were a series of employment trade secret appeals in the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three.  Our firm did not handle the trial.  We were called in to represent the individual defendants after they lost at trial.   The three cases quickly resolved after we filed our opening briefs. Tait & Associates, Inc. et al. v. Batlle ; Tait Environmental Management, Inc., et al. v. Johnson (No. 1) ; Tait Environmental Management, Inc., et al. v. Johnson (No. 2)

The Elwood Civil Rights Cases

Our firm successfully defended employees of the County of Los Angeles in two civil rights lawsuits (Elwood v Drescher and Elwood v. Boyle). We prevailed on four separate appeals. After we succeeded in motions to dismiss, employees were awarded attorneys fees and the awards were by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. See Elwood v. Drescher (2006) 456 F.3d 943. However, the fees awards to the co-defendants, who were not represented by Law Offices of Torres & Brenner, were overturned on appeal.

Attorneys fees for County of Los Angeles affirmed by California Supreme Court

In Kobzoff v. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Medical Center (1998) 19 Cal.4th 851, the trial judge granted our motion for summary judgment and awarded attorneys fees. The Court of Appeal reversed the fees award, but the California Supreme Court disagreed and reinstated the original order awarding attorneys fees.  Len Torres of Law Offices of Torres & Brenner was the trial attorney and co-counsel on appeal.

DUI Bicycle Statutes Overturned

Anita Susan Brenner successfully challenged the former Vehicle Code DUI provisions as unconstitutional. Her clients’ convictions  for DUI on bicycles were overturned. The state legislature later enacted new statutes that clearly included  bicyles as “vehicles” for the purpose of the DUI laws. The Court of Appeal held, "To summarize: in order validly to subject cyclists to criminal punishment, [Vehicle Code] section 21200 must explicitly inform cyclists that their driving of a bicycle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor will render them liable to such punishment, and it must do so in terms sufficiently clear that men of common intelligence would not differ as to its application.” Clingenpeel v. Municipal Court;  Watson v. Municipal Court  (1980) 108 Cal. App. 3d 394