Skip to content
MRM Law,APC

Practice

Public entity
defense.

Defense for the
institutions that serve.

MRM Law represents cities, counties, special districts, public agencies, and their officials in civil litigation, governmental liability, and pre-claim matters — from the presentation of a Government Tort Claim through trial and appeal.

Public entity litigation is not ordinary tort defense. Statutory immunities, claim-presentation requirements, public records obligations, individually named defendants, elected bodies, and the realities of state and federal practice all shape the case. Defense strategy accounts for each of them from the outset — beginning with the pre-claim investigation and Government Tort Claim response that often define the matter that follows.

Practice areas

  • 01Public entity lawsuits
  • 02Government Tort Claim representation
  • 03Pre-claim investigations and defense
  • 04Tort immunity cases
  • 05Governmental immunities
  • 06Government Claims Act
  • 07Dangerous condition of public property
  • 08General tort liability
  • 09Catastrophic injury
  • 10Wrongful death
  • 11Civil rights and constitutional claims
  • 12Police liability
  • 13Premises liability
  • 14Municipal liability
  • 15Complex civil litigation
  • 16Appellate matters

How we defend

A defense record is built in sequence.

  1. 01Early Case Assessment
  2. 02Discovery Strategy
  3. 03Deposition
  4. 04Experts
  5. 05Dispositive Motions
  6. 06Trial
  7. 07Appeal
The questions that decide a case at trial are usually asked for the first time in discovery.

Who retains us

Counsel for public institutions
and their people.

MRM Law works with City Attorneys, City Managers, Risk Managers, Police Chiefs, agency executives, joint powers authorities, claims professionals, insurers, and elected officials — along with the supervisors and employees named individually alongside the entity.

Representation usually runs on two tracks at once: the institution and the individuals named with it. Those interests are typically aligned, but they are not identical, and conflicts, indemnity, and defense-cost obligations are addressed candidly at the outset rather than after positions harden.

Practically, the work is early case assessment and valuation for the entity and its carrier or JPA; a discovery plan built around document-intensive records, public records obligations, and the claims that can be resolved on motion; executive and employee depositions handled with attention to what testimony binds the agency; expert development; and motion practice and trial preparation pursued as the same effort.

A boutique engagement means something specific here: direct attorney involvement in the matter, continuity in who knows the record, witness preparation handled with care, and close coordination with agency leadership and counsel throughout the case.

Related capabilities

Founder's prior experience

Grounded in public
entity litigation.

Before founding MRM Law, Marlena R. Mlynarska practiced at Lynberg & Watkins, where her public-entity work included the representation of the County of Orange, the Orange County Sheriff's Department and its personnel, and other public entities in California state and federal litigation.

As reflected in the public record, that prior experience spans constitutional and civil-rights litigation, police liability, ADA and other public-entity claims, dispositive motion practice in federal court, state appellate proceedings before the California Court of Appeal, and long-running institutional litigation.

One example of the latter is P.E.O.P.L.E. v. Rackauckas, a 2018 action concerning Orange County jail custodial-informant practices. The Orange County Sheriff's Department's official release states that plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice in 2025 and that the settlement imposed no changes or requirements on the Department.

Representative prior experience

P.E.O.P.L.E. v. Rackauckas

Court
Orange County Superior CourtFiled 2018
Issues
Institutional litigation · Custodial informant practices · Constitutional and state-law claims
Procedural posture
Voluntarily dismissed with prejudice (2025)

A long-running institutional action filed in 2018 challenging Orange County jail custodial-informant practices and alleging federal constitutional and state-law violations. Ms. Mlynarska represented the defense in this matter while practicing at Lynberg & Watkins. The Orange County Sheriff's Department's official release dated March 25, 2025 states that plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice and that the settlement imposed no changes or requirements on the Department.

OCSD official release

Contact

Discuss
a matter.

For questions about a claim, a pending matter, or a potential engagement, contact MRM Law.

Contact MRMContact@MRM.Law