Cases of Interest

• ADA Accessibility Compliance
• Alternative Dispute Resolution
• Appellate
• Business
• Construction
• Education Law
• Employment
• Employment Practices & Liability Insurance
• Environmental Law & Property Rights
• Healthcare
• Personal Injury
• Plaintiff Representation
• Premises Liability
• Products Liability
• Professional Liability
• Public Entities
• Real Estate

Appellate

• Successfully defended prominent teaching institution and two individually named doctors in ten years of litigation involving two separate trials, multiple appeals, including Petition For Review by the California Supreme Court in an action alleging medical malpractice and federal civil rights violations where doctors diagnosed and treated an extremely rare metabolic disorder and refused to accept an alternative diagnosis and treatment plan proposed by a family member who was also a licensed health care provider and where that family member also refused to consent to the doctors' proposed treatment plan.
  
• On behalf of a local school district, defended the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance before the Eastern District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. The plaintiff alleged that the recitation of the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff as the non-custodial parent did not have standing to bring the suit.
  
• Successfully defended roofing contractor in trial by obtaining a virtual defense verdict.  Plaintiff had demanded more than $100,000 in damages.  Jury awarded merely $128.40 against Defendant roofing contractor. Verdict upheld on appeal on behalf of roofing contractor.
  
• Successfully defended clients in a neighbor dispute at both the trial court level and the 9th Circuit on due process and equal protection claims stemming from a lot line adjustment in Placer County.
  
• Summary judgment granted in the Eastern District on behalf of entity and police officer in pursuit case that alleged the death of the suspect was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Overturned Ninth Circuit ruling by successfully arguing before the United States Supreme Court for a new standard governing the constitutionality of police conduct in pursuit of fleeing suspects resulting in unintentional injuries or death.
  
• Prevailed on summary judgment, as well as at the Ninth Circuit, on claims filed against a Sheriff's Department and two deputies for use of deadly force. Deputies shot at plaintiff when he refused to obey commands to stop and drop a three foot long metal sword which he had been carrying throughout a residential neighborhood, exhibiting bizarre and erratic behavior. The deputies shot as plaintiff began to gain access to a residence via the backyard after numerous failed attempts to gain his attention and cooperation. At the time of the shooting, deputies were unaware that the home was the unoccupied home of plaintiff himself. Plaintiff sustained serious injuries and as a result became paraplegic. Both courts held that deadly force was appropriate even where there were no identified third parties to whom the suspect posed a serious threat of harm.
  
• Porter Scott represented a county in an action to require a sheriff's deputy to accept disability retirement status because of her increasing emotional instability. Porter Scott prevailed before the administrative law judge (ALJ), who relied upon evidence including a long psychological evaluation of the deputy indicating serious problems. The trial court, however, ignored the ALJ's detailed findings and granted administrative mandamus in favor of the deputy, ruling that no substantial evidence established that the deputy was incapable of performing her basic job duties. The Third District Court of Appeal, however, reversed the judgment in favor of the county. The opinion published held that there is a strong presumption in favor of the administrative findings, and that considerable evidence supported the ALJ's decision that the deputy was unable to perform her job. Moreover, the opinion established that for a peace officer, "substantial inability to perform usual duties" is not just a narrow technical question about physical job requirements, but should also encompass more broadly those emotional and character fitness requirements set forth in the Government Code and POST standards. (Sager v. County of Yuba (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1049)
  
• Obtained Ninth Circuit reversal of preliminary injunction sought by life-term state prisoners seeking more frequent parole hearings than provided under Proposition 9.  The prisoners claimed  changes in statute occurring after commission of offenses and sentencing violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of U.S. Constitution.  In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals held the proposition was not unconstitutional.  Gilman v. Schwarzenegger, 638 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir., 2011)