Serve as CEQA trial counsel for the City of Los Angeles in an action challenging the construction of a luxury hotel project.

Serve as special land use counsel for the construction of large-scale infrastructure projects that traverse federal, state and American Indian lands. Supervise all aspects of preparation of legally adequate Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) under CEQA and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) under NEPA, including the retention of qualified technical consultants and the development of appropriate scope of environmental analysis and control of administrative record preparation.

Conduct all due diligence work associated with the $26 million acquisition of a luxury resort property located in the coastal zone by a capital markets client. Provide timely advice regarding compliance with the terms of a coastal development permit and the risks associated with the terms of the coastal development permit. Draft and negotiate offers to dedicate and conservation easements associated with resort construction.

Successfully defended a laboratory and research facility developer in litigation challenging the approval of a structure height variance and demolition of a historic structure. Drafted all related pleadings, including opposition to request for preliminary injunction and opposition to writ of supersedeas.

Successfully prosecuted a multimillion-dollar real property damages action on behalf of a mutual benefit corporation, including claims for nuisance and trespass. Drafted all substantive law and motion pleadings, including motions to strike, motions for summary adjudication/summary judgment and discovery motions. Prepared for and supported the four-week trial, including the preparation of motions in limine and jury instructions.

Successfully defended a developer lawsuit of first impression alleging a conspiracy to violate the Subdivision Map Act. Obtained determination by the court that punitive damages are not authorized for such claims. Took and defended more than 20 depositions and successfully moved for a protective order barring overbroad and burdensome discovery requests.

Successfully defended a national home improvement center client in a multimillion-dollar ground lease dispute in federal district court. Proactively advised the client regarding the latent ambiguity in a national form lease agreement and revised the lease agreement to remedy the ambiguity.

Represented a mining corporation in the prosecution of a CEQA action and a related action for violations of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA).

Representative Land Use Litigation

Highway 68 Coalition v. County of Monterey: Successfully defended EIR (in particular on water rights, water supply, traffic and hazardous materials analyses), General Plan consistency findings and approval by the County of Monterey of a small shopping center along Highway 68.

Friends of West Berkeley v. City of Berkeley: Successfully defended a height variance and addendum to an EIR approved by the City of Berkeley for changes to a new research and development building so as not to incorporate two historic walls of an existing brick building into the new facility.

Neighbors for Smart Rail: Prepared an amicus brief in a key California Supreme Court case on behalf of the California Building Industry Association concerning a CEQA baseline definition.

Feather River Recreation and Park District v. City of Oroville: Prosecuted multiple CEQA lawsuits on behalf of a parks district challenging CEQA review for and park fees levied against housing development projects, resulting in successful settlement and a change in the fee program.

Jamulians Against the Casino v. Caltrans: Represented a real party in interest to successfully defend a CEQA categorical exemption for a casino construction period encroachment permit onto a state highway.

Jamulians Against the Casino v. California Wildlife Conservation Board; California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Representing a real party in interest defending a categorical exemption for a subsurface soil nail easement and motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity/indispensable party grounds.