Los Angeles California Labor Employment Law Attorney Orange County Liability Defense

Trial Lawyer Experience that can Handle Diverse Litigation Issues

At Hornberger & Brewer, we have been civil litigation attorneys and trial lawyers for decades. We have been involved in myriad lawsuits involving business litigation, personal injury prosecution and insurance defense, construction, environmental law and toxic torts, labor and employment law, and general liability defense. It is a good bet that if you have a business litigation issue, we can handle it with skill and effectiveness. Click on the following link to access the latest news on legal issues practiced by our law firm:

News

Business
[08/29] Help-wanted ad for nanny: `My kids are a pain'
[08/20] NY restaurant uses 1933 prices; Steaks: 90 cents
More...

Personal Injury
[09/04] Mountain jumper survives crash after chute problem
[08/28] Disposable diaper breaks fall, saves child's life
More...

Construction
[08/15] Cyrela Announces 56% of the Sales Speed of 2Q08 Launches and 60% Growth in 1H08 EBITDA
[08/14] Small Lot Development Represents New Model of Homeownership in South Los Angeles
More...

Environment
[09/05] NJ cops kick in door over bird's cries for help
[09/05] Black bear busts secret Utah pot farm
More...

Insurance
[08/15] 6 get Legionnaires' disease in upstate NY; 1 dies
[08/15] Former half-ton man endures hard times in Nebraska
More...

Labor
[08/28] Help-wanted ad for nanny: `My kids are a pain'
[08/26] Returning firefighters find own station ablaze
More...

Real Estate
[08/15] General Shopping Brasil Posts 74.3% Increase in Gross Revenue in 2Q08 and 67.6% in 1H08. Adjusted EBITDA Rises 96.0% in 2Q08
[08/15] Cyrela Announces 56% of the Sales Speed of 2Q08 Launches and 60% Growth in 1H08 EBITDA
More...

Product Liability
[09/05] FDA posts list of potential problem drugs
[09/04] FDA orders stronger warnings for 4 arthritis drugs
More...

Consumer Products
[08/15] Gap widens between discounters, department stores
[08/15] Jarring economy spurs rise in home canning
More...

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

Case Summaries

Environmental Law

[09/05] Wong v. Bush
In a case alleging First Amendment and National Environmental Protection Act violations by the U.S. Coast Guard in establishing safety zones insulating a private super-ferry from blockade by local protesters, denial of declaratory judgment is affirmed despite plaintiff's standing to sue where: 1) the safety zones established by the Coast Guard did not violate the First Amendment; and 2) the Coast Guard need not consider the secondary environmental effects of the super-ferry itself in the decision to establish safety zones.

[09/03] Kentucky Waterways Alliance v. Johnson
In a matter brought under the Clean Water Act (CWA), judgment of district court in favor of defendant Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) with respect to plaintiffs' challenge to the EPA's approval of Kentucky's categorical exemption of six types of pollution discharges from Tier II review, though the EPA's decision document details the tests conducted to measure each exemption's impact, the document often fails to include the resulting measurements; 2) court cannot review this legal conclusion's reasonableness without the EPA first discussing its assimilative-capacity loss estimates and explaining why it deems them insignificant; 3) EPA's approval of Kentucky's classification of certain waters as eligible for Tier I protection rather than Tier II protection was not arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Case is remanded to EPA so that it may address the deficiencies in its consideration of state's de minimis exemptions.
More...

Professional Malpractice

[09/04] Griffin v. Foley
In a medical-malpractice suit, judgment for defendant and denial of plaintiffs' motion for a new trial are affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) time extensions granted to defendant during pretrial discovery; 2) admission of defense experts' testimony; 3) admission of testimony by defendant; 4) denial of plaintiffs' motion to strike defendant's untimely-filed motions in limine; 5) use of the depositions of plaintiffs' experts; 6) jury instructions; and 7) quashing of a subpoena seeking post-trial discovery.

[08/29] Bismar v. Morehead
In a medical malpractice suit, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of defendant's interlocutory appeal of denial of his motion for dismissal and attorney's fees on the ground that plaintiffs submitted a deficient expert report is reversed where the motion for dismissal was reviewable on interlocutory appeal.
More...

Insurance Law

[09/05] Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Care Plan of Georgia v. Gunter
In a claim by plaintiff-Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Care Plan of Georgia seeking reimbursement of insurance benefits paid to defendant from his settlement with a third party, dismissal by district court is affirmed where: 1) Blue Cross failed to establish that this case is not governed by the general rule in Empire Health Choice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh; and 2)the court lacks federal question jurisdiction to hear the case.

[08/29] Don's Bldg. Supply, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co.
On two certified questions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the court answered that: 1) when not specified by the relevant policy, the time at which property damage occurs for purposes of an occurrence-based commercial general liability insurance policy is when actual physical damage occurs, not when such damage is exposed or manifested; and 2) under the eight corners rule, the insurer's duty to defend under such a policy is triggered when the pleadings allege facts that would give rise to any claim covered by the policy.
More...

Labor & Employment Law

[09/05] Townsend v. University of Alaska
In a case interpreting the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) as applied to state employers, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) USERRA does not unequivocally abrogate states' sovereign immunity from suits by citizens in federal court; and 2) USERRA creates no cause of action against individual state employee-supervisors.

[09/05] Pachter v. Bernard Hodes Group
In a claim brought by former employee-plaintiff challenging legality of deductions under Article 6 section 193 of the New York Labor law taken by employer-defendant, decision in favor of plaintiff is reversed and remanded after answers by New York Court of Appeals to certified questions resolved the case, where: 1) because New York Labor Law Article 6, section 193 includes executives unless otherwise excluded, plaintiff is covered; however, 2) plaintiff's cause of action fails because it is undisputed that plaintiff knowingly acquiesced over a period of years to the approach used by defendant when calculating her commissions, conduct that constituted an implied agreement between parties; and 3) as an implied agreement does not violate "section 193 nor any other provision of article 6 of the Labor Law," the deductions in question did not violate that provision.
More...

Injury & Tort Law

[09/05] Sindecuse v. Katsaros
In a case alleging common law fraud surrounding a stock purchase, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the allegedly fraudulent statements could not support claims of fraud because they were: 1) predictions of the future; and 2) a promise of future action not accompanied by a present intent not to perform.

[09/05] Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg
In a lawsuit by a corporation against its officers and attorneys, order granting defendant's application to file a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, motion is reversed, vacated, and remanded with directions to deny defendant's application to file an anti-SLAPP motion where: 1) defendant failed to provide a compelling explanation for why he did not file an anti-SLAPP motion earlier in the case; 2) defendant did not articulate any extenuating circumstances justifying a late filing; and 3) under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant's application to file the anti-SLAPP motion.
More...

Consumer Protection

[09/04] Am. Bankers Ass'n v. Lockyer
After remand, in a case interpreting California's Financial Information Privacy Act (FIPA) in light of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a ruling that the FRCA entirely preempted FIPA section 4053(b)(1), which restricts the sharing of nonpublic consumer personal information between financial institutions and their affiliates, is reversed and remanded where the preempted portions of FIPA are severable, narrowing FIPA section 4053(b)(1) to exclude consumer report information as defined by the FCRA.

[09/04] Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz v. US
In a case challenging application of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) attorneys providing bankruptcy assistance are "debt relief agencies" under the BAPCPA, 11 U.S.C. section 526(a)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to these attorneys; but 2) sections 528(a)(4) and (b)(2) are constitutional.
More...

$38 Million verdict - for a Business Fraud "Bust Out" Scheme
$33 million verdict - Wrongful death action against O.J. Simpson
$21 million verdict - Business fraud case
$19 million verdict - Malicious prosecution action against Chinese importers
$17 million verdict - Breach of Contract involving the sale of DVD players
$6.1 Million verdict - for an Eminent Domain case
$5.3 million verdict - Business fraud and breach of contract case
$4.2 Million verdict - for a Liver Transplant case
$3.6 million verdict - Breach of contract and fraud regarding sale of distributorship
$3.193 million Binding Arbitration award – personal injury – head on collision
$2.6 million settlement - Inverse condemnation
$2.5 million settlement - for property damage caused by excavating for a subway tunnel
$2.3 million verdict - Wrongful termination of employee
$2.3 million settlement - Will contest
$2.2 million settlement - Inverse condemnation

444 South Flower Street
Suite 3010
Los Angeles, CA 90071
phone: 213.488-1655
phone: 213.629.8627
fax: 213.488.1255
Email: mbrewer@hgblaw.com

19200 Van Karman Avenue
6th Floor
Irvine, CA 92612
phone: 949.622.5466
Email: mbrewer@hgblaw.com

Attorneys