Los Angeles-Area Consumer Protection Attorney Robert F. Brennan Selected as 2011 Southern California Super Lawyer--Sixth Straight Year

Brennan, Wiener & Associates of La Crescenta is honored to announce that its lead partner and founder, Robert F. Brennan, has been honored by being selected as a "Southern California Super Lawyer" for 2011. This is the sixth straight year Mr. Brennan has been honored by being named a "Southern California Super Lawyer".

Membership in Super Lawyers is limited to five percent of the lawyers in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Super Lawyers names Southern California's top lawyers as chosen by their peers and through the independent research of Law & Politics. The list of 2010 Southern California Super Lawyers is based on surveys of more than 65,000 lawyers across Los Angeles and Orange counties. The goal was to select as Super Lawyers the top 5 percent of Southern California attorneys in more than 60 practice areas. The list of Southern California Super Lawyers is published annually in the February issues of Los Angeles magazine and Southern California Super Lawyers, which is mailed to every attorney in Southern California.

Brennan and his firm had an excellent year in the courtroom in 2010, repeating a string of large verdicts and settlements on behalf of consumers for "lemon law" and car dealer fraud violations, wrongful credit reporting and identity theft abuses, wrongful debt collection practices and serious personal injury cases. In addition, Mr. Brennan made several presentations to other attorneys on consumer protection and trial practice topics, and had engagements as an expert witness in wrongful repossession class action cases, in credit reporting cases and in attorney fee disputes.

Brennan, Wiener & Associates is widely recognized as the leading Southern California law firm on a wide range of consumer protection issues, including lemon law, car dealer fraud, identity theft, wrongful credit damage, unfair debt collection practices, consumer protection class actions and landlord-tenant class actions, as well as serious personal injury cases. The firm enjoys an "AV" rating from the prestigious Martindale-Hubbell ratings agency, which is the highest possible rating for an attorney or a law firm and is based on pre-eminence in both legal ability and ethics.

Fair Debt Attorney Sergei Lemberg Seconds Consumers Union Recommendations for Debt Collection Industry Reform

Consumer fair debt collection attorney Sergei Lemberg voiced his support for the debt collection industry reforms recommended by Consumers Union in its recent report, "Past Due: Why Debt Collection Practices and the Debt Buying Industry Need Reform Now." According to Lemberg, "The debt collection industry needs to learn to play fair, collect debts fairly, and treat people with dignity and respect."

According to Lemberg, the Consumers Union report follows on the heels of related recommendations by the Federal Trade Commission, and of congressional attempts to amend the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. "While everyone has a slightly different prescription to fix the problem, there are several common themes," he said. "They stem from the lack of information that debt buyers have about the debts they are trying collect, and then use the courts to obtain judgments against consumers who may not know they're being sued. The current process leaves people's lives in tatters, is an enormous burden on the taxpayer-funded court system, and is simply immoral."

The Consumers Union recommendations include requiring debt sellers to provide debt buyers with basic debt validation information, which would also be available to the consumer and would be usable in any legal proceeding. Lemberg noted that the lack of debt validation standards is at the heart of the problem. "All too often, debt collectors go after the wrong person, misstate the amount owed, or fail to substantiate the debt before a judge," he said. "The current situation is a recipe for disaster. If a debt buyer says John Doe owes money, and John Doe isn't present to defend himself, the debt buyer can obtain a judgment and freeze John Doe's bank account."

Lemberg echoed another of the report's recommendations, namely the need to increase the penalty for debt collection agencies that violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. "The $1,000 penalty is peanuts; it hasn't been adjusted since the law was enacted in 1978. Among debt collectors, it's simply factored into the cost of doing business. Congress must make it more expensive for debt collectors to violate the law."

Lemberg, who was targeted in 2010 by collection industry insider WebRecon LLC for being the "most active consumer attorney" of the year, said that while the political climate may not be ripe for a congressional overhaul of the FDCPA, recognition of the debt collection abuse is reaching critical mass. "Even if Congress isn't willing to act, state Attorneys General and legislatures are beginning to step up," he said. "Tightening the reins on debt collection agencies represents good governance on two fronts. It helps protect consumers against predatory debt collectors and helps reduce the costs associated with overwhelmed court systems."

About Lemberg & Associates, LLC
The attorneys at Lemberg & Associates, LLC are experts in fair debt and lemon law, and practice in New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, California, Maryland, Illinois, and Washington, D.C. Sergei Lemberg can brief you about the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, remedies available to consumers who are victims of debt collector harassment, and other relevant issues.

Black Unemployment Update: Lee Wants to Extend Benefits

ATLANTA, Feb. 6, 2011, 10 a.m. - Rep. Barbara Lee is calling for Congress to fund relief for the long-term unemployed, in reaction to last week's unemployment numbers.

"The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Expansion Act, would ensure that these long-term unemployed workers get the long overdue assistance that they need to support their families, make ends meet and contribute to our economy," said Lee. "Our bill would add 14 weeks of emergency unemployment benefits and would make sure these benefits are retroactively available to people who have exhausted all their benefits and are still unemployed."

 

The California Democrat issued this call after the jobs report showed that the nation's unemployment rate dropped to 9 percent in January, down from 9.4 percent the month before. There are nearly 14 million unemployed.

What's more, the department's report indicates black unemployment is at 15.7 percent. The rate is down from 15.8 percent last month and 16 percent in November. The highest rate, since President Obama took office, was 16.3 percent in August.  

  

"The report also shows that unemployment rates for certain groups - like women and African Americans - have seen very little improvement," Lee said. "In the face of the report, we must redouble our efforts to create jobs and ensure that people are trained and ready to fill those jobs successfully."

Cummings Recognizes Continued Economic Growth

Rep, Elijah E. Cummings (MD-07), ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and senior member of the Joint Economic Committee, released a statement, following the Bureau of Labor Statistics Report that the unemployment rate fell to 9 percent in the month of January.

 

"Though the incredible stretch of inclement weather hampered hiring last month, the private sector added jobs again," said Cummings. "It has been a year now that private companies in our nation have been putting Americans back to work, thanks to the tax credits and other incentives we passed in the 111th Congress. I hope that my colleagues who are currently in the Majority will see this continued improvement and help bring this Congress together to pass more of these job-creating policies.

 

The time is ripe for adopting lemon law

 Just a week after paying S$2,150 (US$1,665) for a wooden bed frame, Madam Radia Matom was dismayed to find long cracks appearing on it. She made more than 10 calls to the retailer at Harbourfront Centre in Singapore, but got no satisfaction.

A year-long battle ensued, with five mediation sessions at the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) and two trips to the Small Claims Tribunal.

Finally, the 50-year-old housewife was offered a partial refund of S$1,000. She considered rejecting the offer and suing the retailer in court for a full refund, but was uncertain if she would succeed.

If a proposed law is passed here, success is certain for cases such as hers. But reactions to the proposed law have been mixed.

A taskforce headed by the Ministry of Trade and Industry and Case is revising the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act and Hire Purchase Act, which together empower consumers to seek civil remedies for a wide range of unfair practices, from aggressive sales tactics to false claims.

Late last month, it proposed changes that will allow the courts to compel a retailer to repair, exchange or offer refunds for a good that is found to be defective within six months of purchase. Views are being sought on the changes till Jan 31.

Already, some small retailers are dreading the proposed 'lemon' law, named after the colloquial reference to a defective product as a 'lemon'. Consumers, on the other hand, are happy.

In fact, both retailers' despair and consumers' elation are unfounded. The law will not make things onerous for retailers. But neither will it provide a great deal of protection for consumers in its proposed form. But it is still a welcome step forward on the journey towards greater consumer protection.

Why do I say this? First, it is timely. The consumer watchdog received 1,785 complaints about defective goods in the first 11 months of last year, compared with 1,877 in 2009 and 2,224 in 2008. In all three years, complaints about mobile phones, furniture and electronic products were most common.

Second, retailers' concerns are, frankly, unwarranted. Several shopkeepers told The Straits Times that they fear consumers taking advantage of lemon laws by returning goods that are used or damaged through wear and tear.

Petty customers, they feel, would demand refunds on a whim. It would make it easy for people to buy something -- such as a prom dress or a Christmas tree -- use it for a few weeks, and then demand compensation. Others may return a product simply because they have grown to dislike its colour or design, they argue.

Such fears exaggerate the impact of the proposed law, which after all kicks in only when a dispute makes it to court.

On the shop floor, retailers are not forced to give in to requests for repairs, refunds or exchanges. But if a consumer proceeds to sue in court, and wins, the retailer can be ordered to replace, exchange or give a refund for the product.

Right now, with no proper lemon law, the outcome of a case depends on the judge's discretion. The retailer can also deny responsibility and blame the distributor, the importer or the manufacturer for the defect.

Consumers will thus have more recourse with defective goods. But the law as proposed will have a narrow ambit -- deliberately so.

This is a key feature of the law that merits attention: The cases affected are likely to be confined to big-ticket lemons purchased by consumers who will go the distance to seek redress.

With a limited law in place, the question may arise as to whether this law is worth putting in place at all.

The answer is clearly 'yes'.

As the experience of other countries suggests, a simple lemon law can be the start for more thorough legislation later covering different products.

This is the case in the United States, where specific lemon laws -- first created there in 1982 -- exist for vehicles, computers and even pets.

In California, for instance, retailers who deal in sick dogs can be fined up to US$10,000 or put out of business for a period of time.

Singapore's proposed law follows the British version, which is a blanket law covering many products, said Case chief executive Seah Seng Choon. He explained that complaints are received for a wide range of products. The law could be amended in future to target specific industries if needed.

A lemon law will also enhance Singapore's image as a shoppers' haven. Singapore Tourism Board figures show that tourists spent S$3.15 billion from January to September last year on shopping, up 30 per cent from 2009's S$2.42 billion.

Most important of all, the law will have the salutary effect of spurring the entire industry to improve service standards in the long run.

The use of lemon laws in the US and Britain has encouraged retailers to come up with their own policies on refunds and exchanges, and to publicise them.

This way, they avoid the risk of lengthy lawsuits or damage to their reputations from irate customers. In fact, the wish to avoid risky transactions also encourages retailers to go for reputable product sources.

The law could thus spark a sea change in the retail scene here. Few retailers here, apart from the big boys like Courts and Robinsons, now have a refund policy.

Others may offer exchanges, but on a purely case-by-case basis, leaving consumers vulnerable while the retailer decides at whim.

In short, the lemon law, though limited, has the potential to change the retail scene far beyond the courtroom.

Parking Fines Are Going Up in Lemon Grove

If you violate parking laws in Lemon Grove, expect to pay the price. A high one.

The Lemon Grove City Council unanimously approved a new fee schedule for parking violations at the council meeting Tuesday night, Jan. 18. The fee hikes were necessitated by a new state law which will take an additional $3 out of any city's parking citation fees to pay for new courthouse and jail construction.

At Tuesday night's meeting, several council members and staffers seemed annoyed at the state of California's action, which takes more money from city coffers at a time when finances are tight.

"I would like to emphasize that whether or not we raise the parking fees, the state will still take its cut," said Cathleen Till, the city's finance director. "I would hate to see the state of California get any more of our money than is necessary."

The city attorney, James Lough, added that the state legislature's decision to raise the fees took everyone by surprise, and that all the local cities were re-evaluating their parking fines.

Lough said that Lemon Grove's fines were within the "middle to upper end" compared to other cities in San Diego County, but he said that would certainly change as all the municipalities grappled with the same change in state fees.

Councilman George Gastil was the only one to question the fee increases, asking if it was really necessary to charge $403 for parking in a handicapped space without proper credentials. "I want to slap people if they park in the disabled parking, but ... I'm afraid if we go too high, we'd have trouble collecting it," Gastil said.

The city attorney and Lemon Grove Sheriff's Captain Gigi McCalla noted that the minimum level of some fines are mandated by state law, which is why the fine for wrongfully parking in a space reserved for handicapped drivers is so high.

Mayor Mary Sessom said, "I don't have a problem with it. I would be happy to send a message that we have parking in Lemon Grove, we have laws in Lemon Grove, and if you break them, you're going to pay."

The new fees take effect immediately, according to the city attorney.

The old fees, compared to the new, are:

- Violation of curb markings: old fee—$35; new fee—$53

- Violation of parking signs: old fee—$35; new fee—$53

- Parking within 10 feet of a fire hydrant: old fee—$25; new fee—$53

- Missing license plate: old fee—$30; new fee—$35

- Parking in a marked bike lane: old fee—$$35; new fee—$38

- Parking in a handicapped place without credentials: old fee—$330; new fee—$403

To see more, go to the Lemon Grove city website, then to the agendas, and click on the agenda for Jan. 18.

9th Circuit: Mt. Soledad Cross Unconstitutional

A three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a 43 foot cross on Mt. Soledad in San Diego violates the Establishment Clause. Full ruling here (PDF). I believe this is the case in which Peter Irons was the original attorney for the plaintiff. The case has been going for about 20 years now and the plaintiff is now the Jewish Veterans of America.

There's been a lot of nonsense about this site spread by the other side. The first is that it's a war memorial and therefore has a secular purpose. But as the court notes, that is a false pretext that was invented after the legal fight began. The cross was originally put up solely as an endorsement of Christianity:

A cross was first erected on Mount Soledad in 1913. That cross was replaced in the 1920s and then blew down in 1952. The present Cross was dedicated in 1954 "as a reminder of God's promise to man of everlasting life and of those persons who gave their lives for our freedom . . . ." The primary objective in erecting a Cross on the site was to construct "a permanent handsome cast concrete cross," but also "to create a park worthy of this magnificent view, and worthy to be a setting for the symbol of Christianity." For most of its history, the Cross served as a site for annual Easter services. Only after the legal controversy began in the late 1980s was a plaque added designating the site as a war memorial, along with substantial physical revisions honoring veterans. It was not until the late 1990s that veterans' organizations began holding regular memorial services at the site.

This was originally on city land but it was transferred to the federal government by an act of Congress. The courts already ruled it unconstitutional under the California constitution, but that transfer restarted the whole challenge under the federal constitution. And now the same appeals court has ruled as it did before, that the placement of the cross is a clear endorsement of religion and thus unconstitutional:

Simply because there is a cross or a religious symbol on public land does not mean that there is a constitutional violation. Following the Supreme Court's directive, we must consider the purpose of the legislation transferring the Cross, as well as the primary effect of the Memorial as reflected in context, history, use, physical setting, and other background. Although we conclude that Congress did not harbor a sectarian purpose in establishing the Memorial in 2006, the resolution of the primary effect of the Memorial is more nuanced and is driven by the factual record. We do not look to the sound bites proffered by both sides but instead to the extensive factual background provided in the hundreds of pages of historical documents, declarations, expert testimony, and public records. Here, a fact-intensive evaluation drives the legal judgment...

In addition to overshadowing the Memorial's secular elements, the Cross's central position within the Memorial gives it a symbolic value that intensifies the Memorial's sectarian message. The Memorial's secular elements--the plaques, paving stones and bollards--represent specific individuals or groups of veterans, but the Cross, at the center of the Memorial, is meant to represent all veterans, regardless of their faith. The Cross, however, is the "preeminent symbol"--a "gleaming white symbol"--of one faith, of Christianity. The particular history of this Cross only deepens its religious meaning. The Cross is not only a preeminent symbol of Christianity, it has been consistently used in a sectarian manner. As even the government's expert noted, "over time . . . Mount
Soledad and its cross became a . . . Christian site." The Cross's history casts serious doubt on any argument that it was intended as a generic symbol, and not a sectarian one...

The use of such a distinctively Christian symbol to honor all veterans sends a strong message of endorsement and exclusion. It suggests that the government is so connected to a particular religion that it treats that religion's symbolism as its own, as universal. To many non-Christian veterans, this claim of universality is alienating. As one World War II veteran who fought in both D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge put it:

"I don't know if it is a Christian monument, but it does not speak for me. I was under Hitler and in a concentration camp and a cross does not represent me. The Cross does not represent all veterans and I do not know how they can say it represents all veterans.
I do not think a cross can represent Jewish veterans."

One of the plaintiffs, Steve Trunk, explained that he was "a veteran who served his country during the Vietnam conflict [but] I am not a Christian and the memorial sends a very clear message to me that the government is honoring Christian war veterans and not non Christians."

By claiming to honor all service members with a symbol that is intrinsically connected to a particular religion, the government sends an implicit message "to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community." ...

Accordingly, after examining the entirety of the Mount Soledad Memorial in context--having considered its history, its religious and non-religious uses, its sectarian and
secular features, the history of war memorials and the dominance of the Cross--we conclude that the Memorial, presently configured and as a whole, primarily conveys a message of government endorsement of religion that violates the Establishment Clause.

Let me make three predictions. First, the religious right is going to throw a fit about this. When the Worldnutdaily and similar outlets publish stories about it, they will claim that this puts all crosses, including those on headstones, at military graveyards at risk. This is nonsense. The ruling very clearly distinguishes between such crosses and the one in this case.

Second, the DOJ will choose to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, just as they chose to appeal the district court ruling. They will do this to appease their opponents, which will fail as always.

Third, the Supreme Court will accept the appeal. The conservatives on the court will seek to overturn the ruling and do away with both the endorsement test and the purpose prong of the Lemon test in the process. Whether they succeed will rest solely with Justice Kennedy. And that's not exactly encouraging.

Best Bets for Bubbly This New Year's Eve

No New Year's Eve party would be complete without the sound of popping corks at midnight, and an effervescent toast. Champagne has the honor of being the most famous of the sparkling wines to ring in of the New Year.

New Year's Eve and champagne are so connected in our minds that many people find it difficult to serve it at any other time of year.

Most good champagne costs more than $30. Due to a law passed 50 years ago only the sparkling wines that come from the Champagne region of France can be referred to as "champagne" on their label. Sparkling wines from all other regions in the world are simply referred to as "sparkling wine".

While a bottle of French champagne is something that many people consider the perfect thing to toast special occasions, not everyone is in a position to buy the real thing, especially in these difficult economic times.

This New Year's Eve, if you want to reach for a bottle of bubbly, there are some great ones to choose from that won't break the budget and can be found at local stores. The level of quality of most sparkling wines from places other than France have   improved in the past decade, and it's not just California and American-made, there are Italian (Prosecco), Spanish(Cava), New Zealand and Australians making good sparkling wines as well.

The best of these sparklers are about $20 per bottle on average, but you can find decent bubbly priced between $10 and $20. There are some good value wines can be found for less than $10. All of these champagnes are available in the area. Several are available in Riverdale at Dumm's Market as indicated.

Sparkling wines and champagnes are categorized as Extra Brut, Brut  Extra dry, Sec and Demi-Sec.  Extra Brut - is "extra" dry

Keep in mind the term "Dry" is the opposite of "Sweet"

Brut – dry (most popular style and very food-friendly)

Extra dry – middle of the road dry, not as dry as Brut (great as an aperitif)

Demi-sec – pretty sweet (pair with fruit and dessert)

Champagne and sparkling wines are also categorized as "vintage" or "non-vintage" (NV on the label) meaning they either come from a single year or are a blend of several different years. Most Champagne on the market is non vintage.

Champagne/Sparkling Wine Suggestions Priced from $10-30:

NV Poema Brut Cava $10 A solid performer in the cava category. Aggressively fizzy, with apple and grey mineral flavors and a curt lemon-pith finish. A bit rounder mouth feels, despite impressively low alcohol. Take it to the table.

Minoetto Il Prosecco10-12 in many wine/grocery stores. Prosecco is an Italian wine that has grown in popularity as a cheaper alternative to Champagne. Proseccos can be either dry or fruity and contain about 12% alcohol by volume. Il Prosecco has light flavors of peach and apricot and is a nice balance of fruity and dry.

Pink By YellowGlen (Australian) around 10.00 a bottle. Pink is a bartenders secret. It is equivalent to Moet Rose for a fraction of the cost. Pink is great value for money and gives you a sparkling that is appealing to everyone's taste and will not offend anyone. It is soft and mellow and a very enjoyable refreshing. It is a dry sparkling rose, not a sweet wine. (Available  at Dumm's Market in Riverdale Park.)

Domaine Ste Michelle Brut  about $10. This sparkling wine from Washington State is a great replacement for French Champagne. It resembles its pricier cousin, with those great toast and fresh bread aromas, but is one-fifth the cost. Along with the toasty aromas, it offers nice citrus and pear flavors, and ends with a hint of honey and cinnamon.

Segura Viudas $12  +."Very solid and sturdy, with aromas of apple, lemon-lime, soda cracker and mineral. The palate is fuller and more flavorful than your average cava, with candied apple, papaya, and lime and lemon flavors. Dry, pithy and hinting at complexity on the finish."
- Wine Enthusiast Magazine, December 15, 2010 -89 POINTS

Freixenet $12 generally a good value. Very easy to find -- indeed, this sparkling wine is available practically anywhere in the world.(Available at Dumm's Market in Riverdale Park.)

Korbel Champagne Brut under $15.00 a bottle  A good sparkling wine (champagne) especially the extra dry which is not that hard to find. At around $12 to $14 a bottle this is great for large parties and quite evenings at home. (Available at Dumm's Market in Riverdale Park)

Roederer Estate Anderson Valley Brut around $20.00 + per bottle — this wine also comes from California, it's the best of the American sparkling wines. It is a bold, rich style of wine, with aromas and flavors of cinnamon, apples and baked dessert breads. It is like an apple pie in a glass, with hints of a pear tart.

Roderer is the American version of the French Louis Roderer

Kirkland Champagne $19.99 Yes Costco has champagne and it is good. Manuel Janisson is presently making the Kirkland Champagne although it may not be as good as the Grand Cru Champagnes of Janisson & Sons, this Champagne is delicious and with great character. We love the slight orange citrus aroma and delicate structure. This Champagne is a bargain at this price and certainly compares very well with the likes of Veuve Clicqout that sells for $39

Gloria Ferrer Blanc de Noirs Rosé $19 Rosés have become very trendy in restaurants recently. Technically, Rosés are an "unfinished" red wine; the wine goes through the red wine making process, but is stopped before extracting too many red wine characteristics. The Blanc de Noirs is made of a combination of Pinot Noir and Chardonnay grapes, which creates a beautiful pinkish hue. Flavors of strawberries, black cherry, and vanilla.

Mumm Napa Cuvee M — From California's Napa Valley, this is among the best sparkling wines on the market, and a good value. It is delicate, with abundant flavors and aromas of peaches, strawberries and pastries, with hints of vanilla. Most bottles sold at around $18.00 - $26.00 per bottle

Mumm Napa is the American version of GH Mumm French Champagne. The French version cost between ten and fifteen dollars more per bottle and is of equal vent taste.

Champagne Suggestions Priced from $25-50:

NV Schramsberg Mirabelle Brut Rosé North Coast Sparkling Wine $25 Davies family's Diamond Mountain winery This  rosé has a  rich strawberry, roasted orange and spun sugar lead to lively, tangy peach flavors. Great tenacity on the palate, thanks in part to 48 percent Pinot Noir that adds depth.

Domaine Carneros Brut Carneros $25 NV Domaine Carneros Cuvee de la Pompadour Carneros Brut Rosé ($36) though the Domaine Carneros wines can sometimes feel a tad subdued, the Rose is exceptional. The wineries. Clean notes of strawberry and peach are highlighted by a chalky mineral tone. 58 percent Pinot Noir fruit yields a wine with significant depth and versatility. By far one of the most highly recommended It is from the California vineyards of Tattinger.

2002 Roederer Estate L'Ermitage Anderson Valley Brut $45. The latest release of Roederer's top-end vintage effort is in fine form, showing terrific refinement. It opens with aromas of pastry dough, ripe apple, gray mineral and a raspberry tang. Fantastically nuanced on the palate - an appropriately rich texture, not too toasty or yeasty, plenty complex but not sacrificing its fruit. Its higher-acid style will give it years to develop.

Champagne producer Louis Roederer's estate in northern California's cool and windy Anderson Valley puts out one of America's top brut nonvintage sparkling wines (it won F&W's 2005 American Wine Award for best sparkling wine). It's also known for this pretty, brioche-and-wild-strawberry-scented rosé.

Domaine Carneros Cuvée de la Pompadour NV ($42)

Napa Valley's Domaine Carneros, owned by the illustrious French Champagne house Taittinger, produces some of California's best sparkling wines, among them this salmon-colored rosé. It balances lemony acidity with lush strawberry fruit.