Brewer Partner Cecelia Fanelli Comments on Controversial LA Ordinance

August 11, 2022 – Law360 interviewed Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors Partner Cecelia Fanelli about the implications of a proposed Los Angeles ordinance that would require hotels to house homeless people in vacant rooms. The Los Angeles City Council recently voted to put the proposed ordinance on the ballot, leaving it up to voters to decide whether to approve the measure.

Fanelli said the proposed ordinance raises many concerns, including placing hospitality workers outside of their traditional role, charging them to provide “nightly social services” for homeless people in hotel rooms.  

"The ordinance also raises the issue of an overreach into the affairs of private businesses by the government, and it also potentially places into jeopardy the insurance coverage of hotels and motels given the change in their risk profile. Those costs would likely be passed on to consumers," Fanelli said.

"If it begins in Los Angeles, there's nothing to say that similar initiatives wouldn't be instituted in other cities," she added.

To read more, click here.

Brewer Anti-SLAPP Expert Analysis Article Published by Law360

On January 12, 2022, Law360 published an expert analysis piece written by Brewer Partner William Brewer and Associate Will Brewer titled, “Ruling Confirms Causation is Key Under NY Anti-SLAPP Law.”

The article states, “Threats of litigation initiated for the purpose of censoring, intimidating, or punishing a person for exercising their First Amendment rights have prompted many jurisdictions to pass laws targeting strategic litigation against public participation, otherwise known as anti-SLAPP statutes.”

The article discusses how the Hon. Nancy Bannon of the New York Supreme Court recently considered and dismissed an anti-SLAPP counterclaim in a dispute between Howard M. Meyers and and LEG Q LLC (“LEG Q”) in RSR Corp. et al. v. LEG Q LLC et al., Index No. 650342/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).

The authors write, “If this ruling is any indication of how New York courts will interpret the anti-SLAPP claim in the future, counsel should take note that, at the motion to dismiss stage,  an anti-SLAPP claim need not have in hand any judicial finding regarding the nature of a purportedly SLAPP lawsuit; allegations will suffice.”

The authors add, “Moreover, in light of this decision, the breadth of what constitutes a communication in connection with the ‘public interest’—reaching matters that are not purely private as between the parties—cannot be overstated.”

 To read more, click here.

New York Law Journal: NRA Files Motion to Dismiss New York AG's Lawsuit for Dissolution

On September 16, 2021, The New York Law Journal and other media outlets reported that firm client the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) has filed a Motion to Dismiss the New York Attorney General's (NYAG) Amended Complaint, filed on August 16, 2021. The Motion to Dismiss claims that the NYAG seeks to dissolve the NRA in an effort to "silence the constitutionally guaranteed political speech of its 5 million members."

“Since taking office in 2019, the Attorney General has ignored evidence that dissolution is improper and that the NRA Board of Directors acted appropriately at all times,” William Brewer, counsel to the NRA, told the Journal. “The NRA will continue to confront this partisan attack—in the interest of its members and the Second Amendment freedom for which they stand.”

The NYAG's office initially filed its dissolution lawsuit in August 2020, claiming that the NRA misused funds for the personal gain of its top executives. In its Motion to Dismiss, the NRA argues that "[e]ven if the allegations against current and former executives are taken as true (as they must be, for purposes of this Motion), the NRA and its Board would be the victims of the alleged wrongdoing—not perpetrators."

The Motion to Dismiss also notes that a "federal bankruptcy court found after a review of voluminous evidence, that the NRA has undertaken a sustained effort to improve its internal compliance procedures and is in position to continue fulfilling its mission."

“The Texas federal court expressly concluded that the NRA is well-placed to continue improving governance and internal controls and to fulfill its mission, as it has since its whistleblowers came forward,” Brewer wrote. “These findings comprehensively undermine the NYAG’s contrived narrative of an organization rife with corruption that is unable to reform itself and that must, therefore, be dissolved.”

Read More

The Hill Reports on NRA Countersuit Against New York Attorney General Letitia James

On February 24, 2021, The Hill reported that firm client, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), filed a counter lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James accusing her of "weaponizing" her power against the group.

Filed in the New York Supreme Court, the legal filing states, “James’s threatened, and actual, regulatory and civil reprisals are a blatant and malicious retaliation campaign against the NRA and its constituents based on her disagreement with the content of their speech. This wrongful conduct threatens to destroy the NRA and chill the speech of the NRA, its members, and other constituents, including like-minded groups and their members.”

William Brewer, counsel to the NRA, told The Hill in a statement that the group believes "the NYAG’s actions are retaliatory and reflect ‘selective use’ of regulatory oversight against the Association in violation of constitutional rights."

"The NRA will continue to confront the NYAG’s weaponization of power – to the benefit of the Association, its millions of members, and all who believe in constitutional freedom," Brewer said.

Read more.

Texas Supreme Court Exonerates Partner William Brewer in Pretrial Survey Case

The Texas Supreme Court on April 24 ruled that Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors Partner William Brewer did not act in bad faith when he conducted a pretrial survey in advance of a products liability trial. The ruling reverses a prior sanctions award levied against Brewer by a trial court.  

“We appreciate the attention paid by the court on this important issue. The opinion validates what we have believed all along – that Bill and our law firm acted ethically at all times,” says Michael J. Collins, partner at Brewer. “This outcome underscores our commitment to the highest of ethical standards.”

 Brewer was sanctioned by a trial court in 2014 in connection with a telephone survey that opposing counsel contended was a "push poll" meant to influence the jury. 

However, the Texas Supreme Court's opinion, issued on April 24, 2020, states: "Though the survey Brewer commissioned is not without its faults, the evidence shows he undertook reasonable efforts to secure a third-party industry professional to create a relatively balanced public opinion survey for random administration."

“This is an important victory for every lawyer in Texas,” says Linda Eads, professor emerita, SMU Dedman School of Law, and counsel to the Brewer firm. “It provides protection from unreasonable sanctions imposed by a trial judge not based on facts and evidence.”

Professor Eads continued, “The opinion confirms the Brewer firm acted appropriately at all times, and the survey in question was balanced for random administration. In this instance, the court ruled decisively in favor of Bill and the firm, finding the ‘record bears no direct, or even circumstantial, evidence of bad faith.’”