- U.S. News and World Report’s Best Lawyers, “Ones to Watch” list in antitrust law (2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024)
- Active member of the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Section, and the Young Lawyer’s Division, the New York State Bar Association, the Committee to Support the Antitrust Laws (COSAL), and American Association for Justice
- Awarded the Pro Bono Publico award for her volunteer work in providing pro bono legal services to victims of human and civil rights violations (2021)
- The San Diego Daily Transcript’s Top 40 under 40 (2020); “The Daily Transcript made its selection after considering rising stars in real estate, construction, law, financial services, government, nonprofit organizations, and individual business owner/operators” and looked to honor “San Diego’s top young professionals who have made an impact on their company/organization, industry and community.”
- Women of Influence in Law 2021 (San Diego Business Journal)
- Ones to Watch: Antitrust Law (2021)
- Ones to Watch: Commercial Litigation (2021)
- Ones to Watch: Litigation – Antitrust (2021)
- Ones to Watch: Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Plaintiffs (2021)
Ms. Brizuela’s practice includes antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection litigation with a focus on complex class actions involving price-fixing, illegal tying, and unlawful monopolization. Ms. Brizuela has represented classes of individuals and businesses harmed by anticompetitive conduct from initial pre-suit evaluation of claims all the way through to class certification and final approval of settlements.
Ms. Brizuela’s recent work includes representation of a class of participants who traded futures and options in the foreign exchange market, alleging that defendant banks colluded to manipulate foreign exchange rates, in In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y.); In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.) (represented an end-user class of businesses and consumers alleging that manufacturers of cathode ray tubes conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices, thereby harming end-users who paid artificially inflated prices for CRT products); In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation (M.D. Fla.) (represented a class of consumers alleging that manufacturers of disposable contact lenses engaged in a “hub and spoke” conspiracy to coordinate prices through what defendants referred to as “unilateral pricing policies”); Miami Products & Chemical Co. v. Olin Corp. (W.D.N.Y.) (represented direct purchasers alleging that manufactures colluded to reduce supply and artificially inflate the price of caustic soda throughout the United States); In re Diisocyanates Antitrust Litigation (W.D. Pa.) (represented a class of direct purchasers alleging manufacturers of isocyanates MDI and TDI engaged in coordinated actions to limit production and artificially increase prices); and Jones v. Varsity Brands, LLC, 20-cv-02892-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn.) (represented indirect purchaser class alleging defendants conspired to and did in fact form a monopoly over the cheerleading industry in the U.S.).