Strumwasser & Woocher

Community Organizations

OPEN NOW

Today: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm

33 Years

in Business

Amenities:

Wheelchair accessible

(310) 576-1233Call Visit WebsiteVisit Website Map & DirectionsDirections10940 Wilshire Blvd Ste 2000Los Angeles, CA 90024 Write a ReviewWrite Review

Is this your business?

Customize this page.

Claim This Business

Hours

Regular Hours

Mon - Fri:	9:00 am - 5:00 pm

Places Near Los Angeles with Community Organizations

Beverly Hills (4 miles)
Santa Monica (6 miles)
Culver City (6 miles)
West Hollywood (8 miles)
Marina Del Rey (9 miles)
Sherman Oaks (10 miles)
Studio City (11 miles)
Encino (12 miles)
Inglewood (14 miles)
North Hollywood (14 miles)
Van Nuys (14 miles)

More Info

Payment method

check

Neighborhoods

Westwood, West Los Angeles

AKA

Strumwasser Woocher Attys. at Law

Strumwasser Woocher Attorneys At Law

Strumwasser, Michael J

Other Link

http://www.strumwooch.com

Category

Community Organizations

Other Information

Parking: Garage, Paid

Wheelchair Accessible: Yes

Gallery

Be the first to add a photo!

Reviews

Hi there!
Rate this business!

Click to Rate

01/17/2009

Overall

Atty for Barack Obama,

This law firm defends President Barack Obama against lawsuits claiming he is not a natural born citizen.

Details

Phone: (310) 576-1233

Address: 10940 Wilshire Blvd Ste 2000, Los Angeles, CA 90024

Website: http://www.strumwooch.com

People Also Viewed

View similar Community Organizations

Suggest an Edit

Strumwasser & Woocher

Adoption
Guardianship
The issue here is not whether the Board makes a facial or as applied challenge to those statutes it claims are in conflict with Art. XVI, ß 17. The issue is whether the complaint raises an issue that can be resolved as a matter of law. (In re Guardianship of Olivia J. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1155, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 364; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 234, 39 Cal.Rptr. 284; Estate of Marler (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 30, 33-34, 306 P.2d 105.)
Annulment
FN5. Procedurally we have a case with a signed order of dismissal (see Code Civ. Proc., § 581d) in which the "appellant," i.e., the petitioner here, has short-circuited the appellate process by bringing a writ petition instead of going by way of ordinary appeal. Given that the petitioner seeks the annulment of an election and the holding of a new one, it is hard to say that he has an "adequate" remedy by way of appeal. However, even if petitioner does have an adequate remedy by way of appeal, the uncertainty generated by this litigation is sufficient grounds for this court to explain its reasons for the denial of the petition instead of just denying it summarily.

Criminal Defense
More recently, the court in Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 223, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281 (Amador Valley ), applied a quantitative and qualitative test in determining whether the Legislature proposed a revision rather than an amendment. [FN11] The court explained that a revision is proposed if the changes are "so extensive... as to change directly the 'substantial entirety' of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions...." (Ibid.) A single enactment that accomplishes " 'such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan... [may] amount to a revision.' " (Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 354-355, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077, quoting Amador Valley, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 223, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281 [finding a change proposed by Proposition 115 to vest all judicial interpretive power as to fundamental criminal defense rights in the United States Supreme Court effected a revision of the Constitution].)
Misdemeanors
Under the provisions of the Initiative, a civil action may be brought by any city resident "against a public official who receives a personal or campaign advantage in violation of" the Initiative, and a "knowing and willful violation" of the Initiative may also be prosecuted as a misdemeanor offense. (Initiative, § § 2206, subds.(a)-(c); 1701, subds. (a)-(c).)
Restraining Order
The plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the election, and the district court denied that motion on December 24, 2002. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, which the district court denied on January 10, 2003. The plaintiffs appealed and sought to prevent the election by filing an emergency motion for injunction pending appeal, which this court denied on January 30, 2003. The election took place as scheduled on February 4, 2003, and the plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed their appeal of the denial of the preliminary injunction. On February 21, 2003, the district court granted defendant Martinez’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Finally, on June 16, 2003, the district court granted the county defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The plaintiffs appealed.

Business and Corporate Law

Business Disputes
Caroline joined Strumwasser & Woocher after working as a litigation associate at O’Melveny & Myers LLP, where she worked with a broad range of clients, from small companies involved in contract disputes to large corporations in nationwide litigation. While at O’Melveny, Caroline maintained an active impact litigation practice, including serving as co-counsel with the ACLU in actions representing physicians asserting constitutional challenges to state laws. Caroline has experience drafting trial court and appellate briefs, managing discovery, participating in settlement negotiations and at trial.
Antitrust
Ms. Ordin headed the Public Rights Division of the California Department of Justice for eight years under the leadership of John Van de Kamp, and with her guidance, the Office won landmark decisions in civil rights, environmental, land-use and antitrust law on behalf of the state and a broad range of state agencies, to which she was a counsel and advisor.

Workers Compensation
The initial factor set forth in Degrassi is whether a plaintiff has meaningful alternative remedies. (Degrassi, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 342, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 508, 58 P.3d 360.) The District contends Motevalli had ample alternative remedies, specifically, an action for a writ of mandate to compel reinstatement to her position (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085), a suit for injunctive relief to enjoin the violation of her free speech rights (Code Civ. Proc., § 526), as well as workers compensation for her alleged emotional injury. However, given Motevalli's status as a probationary/provisional teacher, it is questionable whether she could have obtained a writ of mandate to compel the renewal of her contract, let alone back pay or other damages.
Wrongful Termination
On July 12, 2001, three weeks after Motevalli's last day at Locke, she commenced this action against the District in the superior court, bringing claims for (1) violation of 42 United States Code section 1983 (§ 1983); (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy (Tameny ); (3) violation of free speech under the California Constitution; (4) taxpayer claim (Code Civ. Proc., § 526a); (5) negligent supervision and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Employment Discrimination
Strumwasser & Woocher secured settlement of an action alleging race discrimination in employment of probation officers and in delivery of services to juvenile probationers. As part of the settlement, the County of Los Angeles agreed to allocate intervention resources to probationers according to rigorous criteria that research has shown to be most effective in reducing delinquency.
Employment Contract
Motevalli was an emergency-credentialed teacher who was hired by the District for a specific period of time. The District elected not to renew Motevalli's contract. The nonrenewal is not actionable under Tameny because no cause of action exists for tortious nonrenewal of an employment contract in violation of public policy. (Daly v. Exxon Corp. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 39, 45-46, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 727.) Further, Motevalli cannot maintain an action for damages for deprivation of the right to free speech under article I, section 2, subdivision (a), of the California Constitution (hereafter, article I, section 2(a)). (Degrassi v. Cook (2002) 29 Cal.4th 333, 335, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 508, 58 P.3d 360.) Therefore, the judgment in favor of the District is affirmed.

Eminent Domain
In a church's challenge to Los Angeles Unified School District's eminent domain action, the firm defeated a challenge filed by the church that had purchased land being condemned to build a school to alleviate studentâ€‘overcrowding when the church claimed the First Amendment and federal statute precluded the taking of church property.
Land Use and Zoning
Strumwasser & Woocher's practice has consisted in large part of civil litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts. Much of the firm's work has consisted of pursuing or opposing injunctions, writs, and declaratory judgments establishing important principles of Administrative Law, Anti-SLAPP Law, Constitutional and Civil Rights Law, Education Law, Election Law, Environmental and Land Use Law, Health Care Law, Labor and Employment Law, Public Utility Law, and State and Local Government Law. In addition, the firm has litigated major money-damages cases on behalf of public agencies and private parties against large corporate adversaries.

Bankruptcy

View All Services

Provided by