Brianna Andrade is an Associate in Tyson & Mendes’ Los Angeles office. Her practice focuses on multi-party complex litigation and general liability matters. She also has previous training in labor and employment litigation.
Ms. Andrade has experience representing individuals, businesses, and employers in state courts throughout California. She participated in Tyson & Mendes’ clerkship program where she gained valuable experience in drafting motions, oppositions, and zealously defending clients by working all angles of a case.
Ms. Andrade obtained her J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 2019 where she was a Senior Articles Editor for the Hastings Race and Poverty Law Journal, a member of the Hastings Alternative Dispute Resolution Team, and where she served as a student mediator in the Hastings Civil Mediation Clinic. During law school, Ms. Andrade was able to actively refine her research and writing skills both as a Research Assistant and while twice interning at the Attorney General’s Office, California Department of Justice. In 2015, she obtained dual B.A. degrees in Psychology and Criminology from the University of California, Irvine. She is also fluent in Spanish.
In her free time, Ms. Andrade enjoys spending time with her family, friends, and Miniature Schnauzer. She enjoys trying new restaurants and recipes, running, exploring her city as a fellow Angeleno, and learning about different cultures while traveling.
In Rustico v. Intuitive Surgical Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Intuitive Surgical, Inc., and held a diversity product liability action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations in Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 335.1.
March 2021 marks the year anniversary that jury trials seemingly ceased to exist as we once knew them – that is, before COVID-19 abruptly shifted the courtroom. In the past year, jury trials have been ridden with unpredictability. One can rarely read a legal document these days without at least some mention of COVID-19 and its impact on the overall timeline of a matter. Are jury trials really a distant memory while still navigating midst of the COVID-19 era, or will innovation and the embrace of a new normal propel us forward?
A recent Ninth Circuit Order in the matter Adams v. Maricopa County, CV-19-05253-PHX-MTL, 2020 WL 6383248 (D. Ariz. Oct. 30, 2020), granted the Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing a plaintiff’s discrimination claim as untimely. While the case has yet to be officially published, the entered order sheds light on the significance of an employee’s prompt reporting of disability-related limitations and request for timely accommodation.