Lexabrief

Level the playing field.

Lexabrief researches the law and turns your documents into polished drafts and briefs — with every line traced to a real source.

100 free credits · No card required · Cancel anytime

Lexabrief
Case file · 3 documents
Ortega Deposition.pdfindexingTime Records.pdfindexingVasquez Decl.pdfindexing
Drafted Argument II.A from the deposition and time records. It’s open on the right.
Checked 4 citations: 3 supported, 1 misconstrued. Flagged the Brinker line.
Bench review’s in. The strongest and weakest points are marked on the draft.
The draft opens here once Lexa has read the file.
Opposition to MSJ: Arg. II.A
II.A · No compliant meal periods

Coastal Foods failed to relieve its crew for compliant meal periods. Plaintiff’s supervisor testified that breaks were routinely cut to about eighteen minutes during peak shifts, and the company’s own time records show at least fourteen short or missed breaks. On summary judgment, Defendant bears the initial burden of showing Plaintiff cannot establish a violation. And Brinker requires the employer to ensure employees take their breaks.

MisconstruedBrinker, 53 Cal.4th 1004

The Court held the employer’s duty is to provide a meal period, relieving employees of all duty, not to ensure breaks are taken (at 1040).

Bench review · read as a skeptical judge

StrengthThe deposition and time-record evidence raise a clear triable issue on the meal-break claim.

WeaknessThe “ensure” framing of Brinker invites a reply that guts the argument. Fix before filing.

TightenTie each disputed fact to the separate statement (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(b)).

Your first case takes about four minutes.


§ I · Research

Find the controlling authority.

California and federal law, returned as the passage that governs, not a summary you have to trust.

Case law · CaliforniaSearching
Does a landowner owe a duty of care to a social guest?
Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Ctr.6 Cal.4th 666
Rowland v. Christian69 Cal.2d 108
Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill36 Cal.4th 224

…whether in the management of his property he has acted as a reasonable person in view of the probability of injury to others

✓ Quoted from the opinionRowland, at 119

Lexa reads the cases and returns the passage that governs, with its pincite.


§ II · Evidence

Every fact, tied to the record.

Upload the file. Lexabrief checks each factual assertion against your own depositions, declarations, and exhibits, then flags the ones that aren't.

Draft · Argument II.AReading the file
Ortega Deposition.pdfTime Records, Ex. 4

Plaintiff’s supervisor testified that breaks were routinely cut to about eighteen minutes during peak shifts, and fourteen shifts show a short or missed break. Repairs to the line cost $42,000.

Checking each assertion against the file
Bare assertionNothing in the file

The repair figure isn’t tied to any exhibit, so it needs support before this goes out.

Facts are checked against the record automatically and flagged for easy review.


§ III · Drafting

Court-format drafts, yours to edit.

Motions, briefs, and memos in proper form, versioned in the workspace and exported to .docx.

Opposition to MSJDrafted
## II.A · No compliant meal periods

Coastal Foods failed to relieve its crew for compliant meal periods, and the deposition and the time records raise a triable issue on every element of the claim.

12345678910111213
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
MARIA VASQUEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
COASTAL FOODS, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 24STCV01234

OPPOSITION TO MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Coastal Foods failed to relieve its crew for compliant meal periods, and the deposition and the time records raise a triable issue on every element of the claim.

✓ Court format checkedExport .docx

Drafts are formatted as pleading paper automatically and exported to Word.


§ IV · Judgment

Verified, flagged, or unchecked.

Every citation ends in one of three states, and the draft tells you which one — including the citations that nothing was able to check.

Opposition to MSJ — Argument II.A

II.A · No compliant meal periods

Plaintiff’s supervisor testified that ✓ Ortega Dep. 42:7 during peak shifts. And ⚠ Misconstrued. The rule is stated the same way in ◐ Not checked.

Click any highlighted passage

Across your practice

Built for the motions California litigators file every day.

Employment & wage-and-hourPersonal injuryBusiness & contractReal property & unlawful detainerFamily lawCriminal defense
Why we built this
§

Litigation too often comes down to who can afford more hours.

We experienced it firsthand — fighting (and winning) battles of attrition against companies with bottomless legal budgets. We built Lexabrief to even the odds, putting serious research and drafting power in the hands of solo practitioners, small firms, and the people the system was never priced to serve.

— Built by a practicing copyright attorney + ex-FAANG engineer

On your data

Data policies.

Status
01Your documents are encrypted in transit and at rest.Live
02We don’t use your data to train models, and our providers operate under no-training terms.Never
03Sensitive content is masked in our telemetry by default.Live
04Export or delete your files on request.Live
05The full detail lives in our privacy policy.Live
Early access

Sign in, or open
your first case.

Create an account and drop in your first document. Lexabrief reads it, and you can start drafting with every line traceable to the source.

Get started

100 free credits · No card required · Cancel anytime

Already have an account? Sign in

Lexabrief — AI legal research, evidence & drafting for litigators