Skip to content
MRM Law,APC

Signature practice

Civil rights
+ police defense.

Experience when every
decision is examined.

MRM Law represents law enforcement agencies, public entities, and officers in complex civil rights, constitutional, and police-practices litigation. We defend Section 1983 claims, excessive use of force allegations, officer-involved shootings, false arrest and imprisonment, unlawful search and seizure, First Amendment retaliation, Bane Act claims, Monell liability, and qualified immunity disputes.

These cases are decided on details: seconds of video, the sequence of commands, the content of a policy, and what a witness says under oath. The defense has to be built with all of it in view, from incident response through dispositive motion practice and, where appropriate, trial and appeal.

Practice areas

  • 01Civil rights and constitutional law
  • 02Section 1983 / 1983 defense
  • 03Excessive use of force defense
  • 04Law enforcement defense
  • 05Officer-involved shootings
  • 06False arrest
  • 07False imprisonment
  • 08Search and seizure
  • 09First Amendment
  • 10Monell liability
  • 11Qualified immunity
  • 12Bane Act
  • 13Wrongful death
  • 14Police policy and training
  • 15Critical incidents
  • 16Appellate litigation

How these cases are actually litigated

The record is
assembled from pieces.

Law enforcement litigation is rarely decided by a single document. Reports, body-worn camera and surveillance footage, dispatch and communications records, policies and training materials, prior statements, deposition testimony, and expert opinion each describe the same event from a different vantage point. The defense consists of reconciling them into one accurate account and testing the plaintiff's account against the same material.

That account is then measured against the constitutional standards that govern the claims — objective reasonableness, the scope of a detention or search, deliberate indifference — and against the doctrines that can resolve them, including qualified immunity, supervisory liability, and Monell municipal liability. Those doctrines are fact-intensive, which is why we develop the evidentiary record with the motion practice in view from the outset.

The arc of a case

From incident
to verdict.

  1. 01Incident Response
  2. 02Investigation
  3. 03Pleadings
  4. 04Discovery
  5. 05Depositions
  6. 06Experts
  7. 07Summary Judgment
  8. 08Trial
  9. 09Appeal

Preparation

Testimony matters.

Witness preparation is not a final step before a deposition. It is a discipline that runs through the entire case — because the testimony given in year one becomes the cross-examination in year three.

  • 01

    Officer testimony

    The officer's account is examined line by line against reports, recordings, and policy. Preparation means understanding the record before the first question is asked.

  • 02

    Command staff

    Command witnesses speak for decisions, review, and discipline — testimony that frequently determines whether a Monell theory survives.

  • 03

    Supervisors

    Supervisory testimony connects the incident to training, direction, and the agency's response.

  • 04

    Agency representatives

    Person-most-qualified testimony is agency testimony. Scope, designation, and preparation are litigated issues in themselves.

  • 05

    Experts

    Police-practices, use-of-force, medical, and reconstruction opinions are tested against the same record the jury will see.

  • 06

    Plaintiff depositions

    The plaintiff's account is developed early and locked to the documents, timeline, and physical evidence.

  • 07

    Trial testimony

    Trial testimony is prepared as testimony, not as a script — clear, accurate, and consistent with the record.

Preparing officers and
deputies to testify.

Preparation begins with the record, not with the questions. Before a deposition, we review the incident and supplemental reports, body-worn camera and other video, dispatch and radio traffic, the chronology of the event, the relevant policies and training terminology, and any prior statements the officer has given — including administrative interviews and criminal-case testimony.

We then work through the areas of examination the officer is likely to face: perception and time distortion, the basis for each decision, terminology that plaintiffs' counsel will attempt to redefine, documents the officer did not write, and questions built on incomplete assumptions. The objective is not a rehearsed answer. It is an officer who understands the process, knows the record, does not speculate, distinguishes memory from inference, and testifies accurately and credibly under difficult questioning.

How We Prepare WitnessesLitigation Strategy

Founder's prior experience

Experience in high-exposure
law enforcement litigation.

A single critical incident rarely produces a single claim. The same encounter can generate Fourth Amendment excessive-force allegations, Fourteenth Amendment familial-association theories, Section 1983 claims, Monell allegations directed at policy and training, Bane Act claims, wrongful-death causes of action, and parallel claims against both the individual officers and the entity that employs them.

Before founding MRM Law, Marlena R. Mlynarska's practice at Lynberg & Watkins included the defense of precisely these matters in federal court — through summary judgment and qualified-immunity practice, interlocutory appeal, and federal jury trial.

01

Representative prior experience

Hermosillo v. County of Orange

Court
U.S. District Court, Central District of CaliforniaNo. SACV 20-1387 JVS (ADSx)
Issues
Federal civil rights · Fatal officer-involved shooting · Summary judgment
Procedural posture
Partial summary judgment for the defense (Sept. 29, 2021)

A federal civil-rights action arising from a fatal law-enforcement encounter. A public order dated September 29, 2021 identifies Marlena R. Mlynarska of Lynberg & Watkins among counsel for the County of Orange and Deputies Renzi, Faour, and Kocher. On the defense motion for summary judgment, the court granted summary judgment on all claims against Deputy Kocher, and for all defendants on the Fourteenth Amendment claim, Xavier Hermosillo's negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, and the Bane Act claim, while denying other portions of the motion.

View public record
02

Representative prior experience

Peck v. Montoya

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; C.D. Cal.51 F.4th 877 (9th Cir. 2022), Nos. 20-56413 / 21-55411
Issues
Section 1983 · Fourth Amendment excessive force · Fourteenth Amendment familial association · Qualified immunity · Federal jury trial
Procedural posture
Affirmed in part, reversed in part on interlocutory appeal

A federal civil-rights action arising from a fatal encounter between Paul Mono and Orange County Sheriff's Department deputies, asserting Fourth Amendment excessive-force and Fourteenth Amendment familial-association claims. The published Ninth Circuit opinion identifies Jesse K. Cox, Norman J. Watkins, S. Frank Harrell, and Marlena R. Mlynarska of Lynberg & Watkins as counsel for defendants-appellants; Mr. Cox argued the appeal. On interlocutory appeal from the denial of summary judgment, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part: the non-shooting deputies received qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim, and all deputies received qualified immunity on the familial-association claim, while the shooting deputies were not granted qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim at that stage. An official Central District of California calendar dated March 10, 2025 identifies Ms. Mlynarska among defense counsel on Day 5 of the federal jury trial.

Ninth Circuit opinion (govinfo)C.D. Cal. trial calendar
Qualified immunity and Monell are not arguments made at the end of a case. They are positions built into the record from the first responsive pleading.

Related capabilities

Contact

Let's talk about
the matter.

For inquiries regarding representation, litigation, training, or public-sector legal matters, contact MRM Law.

Contact MRMContact@MRM.Law