Overview
Litigation against the government is very different from litigation between private parties. Because of the power that regulatory agencies have over business and industry, the stakes in government litigation often reach far beyond the specific issues in a dispute. If a government agency has launched an investigation, served a subpoena, issued a detrimental regulation or denied an entitlement, sometimes litigation is the only recourse.
Government litigation often involves unique issues—not to mention potential political ramifications and media scrutiny—that require a legal team well-versed in these types of lawsuits. Many of our lawyers previously served as government prosecutors and in government agencies or administrative positions, giving us particular insight when developing strategies and litigating your matters. We have successfully litigated numerous cases involving government in civil courts, before administrative boards and administrative judges, and in appellate courts.
Unlike many firms, we are always prepared to take our cases to trial and are not limited to writ work and motion practice. Our track record of success litigating against governmental entities, as well as hands-on knowledge of their approaches and capabilities, means that we are often able to work with government lawyers to obtain favorable settlements.
Our group works collaboratively with our other groups, including our criminal, land use, environmental and appellate lawyers, as well as our government advocacy advisors, to provide clients with seamless representation and problem-solving strategies.
Experience
- Persuading a court of appeals that the furlough program imposed by Governor Schwarzenegger as applied to a state agency was illegal. Of the many cases initiated against the furlough programs, this was perhaps the only instance where it was established that the furlough was illegal as applied and the furlough program was found not to be enforceable (Cal. Attorneys v. Jerry Brown et al., 195 Cal. App. 4th 119, 2011).
- Securing a complete dismissal of claims that Los Angeles City Attorney-Elect Mike Feuer intentionally delayed paying a campaign consultant in order to qualify for taxpayer-provided matching funds. The suit, filed in the midst of the campaign, received widespread media coverage (2013).
- Securing a $23 million recovery for a professional services client from the state of California and the state controller. The case had its origins in 2009 in bankruptcy court after the state defendants terminated a contract with our client and refused to pay amounts due as a result. After defeating motions to dismiss filed by the state defendants on sovereign immunity grounds, and after early key discovery, the state defendants agreed to pay our client $23 million out of disputed bond funds to resolve the litigation.
- Winning a $36.8 million judgment in favor of a plaintiff landowner in an inverse condemnation action against the City of Half Moon Bay, Calif. A city-built storm drain project altered the topography on our client's 24.7-acre parcel, causing storm water to collect in depressions on the property. The city claimed that wetlands had formed in the depressions, precluding residential development of the property. We sued the city for causing the wetlands to develop, and the federal court awarded the full amount of damages sought. Yamagiwa v. City of Half Moon Bay, 523 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
- Obtaining a $9.6 million recovery for the owner of an industrial facility in an eminent domain matter against the County of Contra Costa California who had acquired parcels of our client's property on both sides of a state highway that bisected its 640 acres.
- Winning a $43.2 million jury verdict for damage to property values arising from the construction of a massive reservoir project in western Riverside County, Calif. In this eminent domain lawsuit, we persuaded a jury that the project would've hampered development opportunities for large areas adjacent to the project. The case involved extensive testimony from real estate economists, hydrologists and planning experts.
- Winning a $21.9 million jury verdict for damages caused by the condemnation of portions of an industrial building. This case involved extensive litigation about City of Los Angeles parking regulations applicable to commercial and industrial buildings and particularly the economic impact of such regulations.
- Successfully challenging efforts by the South San Joaquin Irrigation District to win approval for the municipal takeover of retail electric operations by PG&E. Decisions in the trial court and the court of appeals established and defined jurisdiction of Local Agency Formation Commissions over municipalization efforts by special districts.
- Prosecution against the California Coastal Commission resulting in a judgment limiting the Commission's jurisdiction over decisions of local government to control coastal access for protection of public health and safety. Other coastal-related litigation includes the prosecution of actions against the Commission arising from overly restrictive decisions limiting development at Bolsa Chica in Huntington Beach, Calif.; the defense of challenges to the Commission's approval of the $600 million Headlands project in Dana Point, Calif.; and the defense of cease-and-desist actions prosecuted by the Commission arising from alleged violations of the California Coastal Act.
Related Practices
Appellate
Government and Regulatory
Litigation
