Representative Cases

Government & Municipal Law, Wildfire Litigation, Administrative Law

Wildfire Case involving destruction of over 195,000 acres. There was challenge to the California Public Utilities Commission decision denying a major utility provider’s application to include $379 million in settlement payments stemming from litigation involving a wildfire caused by its facilities. The utility argued the Commission’s decision should be annulled because it interpreted Public Utilities Code section 451 in a manner that unconstitutionally conflicted with the strict liability the utility faced in wildfire litigation as a result of plaintiff’s inverse condemnation claims. The utility also urged the decision should be annulled because insufficient evidence supported its determination that the utility was an imprudent manager, and its conduct caused the wildfire. Review denied by the California Supreme Court and certiori was denied by the United States Supreme Court.

The regional water board issued a cleanup and abatement order to a utility provider in connection with a power plant’s operations that discharged waste into the bay. The utility provider contested its designation as a “person” under Water Code section 13304(a).

The appellate decision overturned the environmental impact report (EIR) for the regional transportation plan. The court’s majority faulted the EIR for failing to assess the plan's consistency with the 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal contained in an executive order issued by the California Governor in 2005. The majority decision was reversed by the California Supreme Court.

Case involving the Coastal Act and whether destruction of an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) is permitted simply because the destruction is mitigated off-site.

A private veteran’s group constructed and maintained a large Latin cross on city parkland. City Proposition A donated the site to the Department of the Interior. There was a challenge to the donation as a violation of constitutional rights. This is a case involving questions of municipal law and constitutional law.

Action for refund of county property taxes. Case of first impression involving Inverse condemnation action against irrigation district and water district alleging the districts caused a taking of property damage caused by rising level of the Salton Sea.

Case involved multiple initiatives, one proposed by a city council regulating the rate of growth, and another initiative which also took steps to regulate growth. There was alleged conflicting language. The measure receiving the highest number of votes must prevail.

A security guard for a shopping center prevented plaintiff from distributing religious tracts in the shopping center parking lot. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the management company which is responsible for operation of the shopping center and the security company which employed the guard. Among other relief, Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction permitting him to distribute his tracts in the parking lot. In opposing his application for an injunction, the shopping center argued litter and traffic problems justified its prohibition on leafletting in the center's parking lot.

In addition to opposing Savage's request for injunctive relief, the management company brought a demurrer to the complaint on the grounds Savage had no right to engage in other than political petitioning anywhere at the shopping center. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered an order dismissing the complaint.

Prohibition against placing leaflets on cars in a parking lot to avoid littering and traffic problems.

A group of regularly credentialed teachers unsuccessfully applied for teaching jobs in a number of school districts. In place of the regularly credentialed teachers, the districts hired individuals who had received emergency credentials from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. By way of a petition for a writ of mandate, the regularly credentialed teachers challenged the Commission's issuance of the emergency credentials and the districts' decision to employ teachers who received the emergency credentials.

A 5-year-old girl and her 7-year-old sister were crossing the street so that they could get ice cream from an ice-cream truck. After the 5-year-old bought her ice cream, she started running back across the street and was hit by a van. The driver claimed that the ice cream truck obstructed her view so she did not see the child. The child’s leg was crushed and jaw broken, resulting in leg amputation. Issues regarding governmental liability and whether the City could have reduced the risk of injury to plaintiff by altering the physical characteristics of city-owned street.

Plaintiff was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, failed a breath test, and was given notice that her privilege to drive could be suspended for four months effective forty-five days after her arrest. The People charged Snow with driving under the influence of alcohol and with a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or more. A jury was unable to reach a verdict, and the court dismissed the charges. Plaintiff then filed a petition for writ of mandate to order the DMV to delete from its files reference to her excessive blood alcohol and suspension of her driver's license. Plaintiff argued dismissal of the criminal charges was tantamount to an acquittal and the trial court erred in denying her petition.

Eminent domain proceeding involving whether the defendant landowner properly disclosed the valuation evidence he offered at trial. Plaintiff and appellant acquired 4.2 acres of land owned by defendants. Prior to trial, Defendant disclosed the identity of and valuation opinion of an appraiser. However, shortly before trial, Defendant discovered flaws in his appraiser's opinion. The case was eventually was transferred to a different department for trial. Upon transfer to the new trial department, Defendant filed a trial brief which stated that he planned to call one of the co-owners of the property to testify as to the value of the property. Over Plaintiff’s objection, the trial court permitted the co-owner to testify. Defendant offered no other valuation evidence. The co-owner’s testimony was in sharp contrast to Plaintiff’s appraiser who set the value of the property much lower. Plaintiff moved for a new trial on the grounds the court erred in permitting the co-owner to testify as to his opinion of the value of the property.

This case involved a dispute between adjoining property owners over trees at or near their common border. Plaintiffs and appellants sued their neighbors alleging they wrongfully maintained, planted and/or installed numerous trees, shrubs and/or similar plants near the common property line at such a height and density so as to be annoying and damaging. Plaintiffs alleged a cause of action for private nuisance based on California's "spite fence" statute, Civil Code section 841.4, and based on ordinary nuisance principles, sections 3479 and 3481, and sought injunctive and declaratory relief in their second and third causes of action, respectively.

Plaintiff owned a commercial property and pays wastewater service fees to District. Plaintiffs' operative complaint asserted claims on behalf of themselves and all other District customers who paid a wastewater service fee. The complaint alleged causes of action against District for declaratory relief and for "refund [of] unlawful sewer service charges." Plaintiffs sought a declaration that District's method of determining the costs of sewer service based on each parcel's assigned EDU violated the "proportionally" provision of subdivision (b)(3) of section 6. Plaintiffs also sought a refund from District of alleged overcharges for wastewater service fees paid by its customers. At issue was whether property owners have an obligation to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief where they were not protesting fee increases.