Author: Stephanie Hill

Pension Law Update: CA Supreme Court Avoids Addressing the “California Rule” in Much-Anticipated Cal Fire Decision

In its March 4 ruling in Cal Fire Local 2881 v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the California Supreme Court held that the Legislature’s elimination of the opportunity for employees to purchase additional retirement service (ARS) credit does not violate the state or federal constitution because the opportunity to purchase such credit is not a vested right protected by the constitutional contract clause. (Cal Fire Local 2881 v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System (March 4, 2019, S239958) ___ Cal.4th___.)

California adheres to a long-standing rule, known as the “California Rule,” which provides that pension benefits in place when a worker is hired can never be reduced without equivalent compensation. While the Cal Fire Court avoided the California Rule, the holding suggests that state and local governments may reduce pension costs by repealing certain benefits without running afoul of constitutional protections for public pensions. However, benefits enacted with clear legislative intent to create contractual rights and other “core pension rights” that have traditionally been seen as deferred compensation are still constitutionally protected.

Cal Fire Background

State employees and other members of CalPERS were granted the opportunity to purchase ARS credit in 2003 by the enactment of Government Code § 20909. Participating employees could receive pension benefits calculated on the basis of up to five years’ more public employment than they actually worked. Because ARS credit was untethered to actual service, it acquired the nickname “air time.” In September 2012, the Legislature enacted the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), which effectively repealed the statute granting public employees the opportunity to purchase ARS credit. (see Gov. Code, §§ 7222 et seq.)

Plaintiffs and appellants Cal Fire Local 2881 (a labor association) and four individual employees of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (known as “Cal Fire”) filed a petition for a writ of mandate against CalPERS challenging the elimination of the ARS credit, contending that the opportunity to purchase ARS credit was a vested right protected by the contract clause of the California Constitution.

Both trial and appellate courts entered judgment denying Plaintiffs’ petition concluding that eliminating the benefit did not impair or violate any pension right of plaintiffs. The California Supreme Court granted Plaintiff’s petition for review.

California Supreme Court’s Discussion

Plaintiffs’ argued that PEPRA’s elimination of the opportunity for existing public employees to purchase ARS credit violated the constitutional contracts clause, in both the United States and California Constitutions, which prohibits the enactment of laws effecting a “substantial impairment” of contracts, including contracts of employment. The Court pointed out that the terms and conditions of public employment, unlike those of private employment, generally are established by statute or other comparable enactment rather than by contract. The Court also recognized that it is well settled that public employees have no vested right in any particular measure of compensation or benefits and that these may be modified or reduced by the proper statutory authority.

However, the Court articulated two exceptions that could create rights protected by the contract clause in public employment: (1) when the statute or ordinance establishing the benefit and the circumstances of its enactment clearly evince a legislative intent to create contractual rights; and (2) where certain benefits of public employment, such as pension rights, are protected by implication, even in the absence of a clear manifestation of legislative intent.

Key Elements of Court’s Ruling

  • There was no clear evidence suggesting the Legislature made an affirmative commitment to make the opportunity to purchase ARS credit available indefinitely.

The Court did not find evidence that the Legislature intended to create a contractual right by allowing the opportunity to purchase ARS credits. Rather, the Court found that the Legislature had simply enacted more of a policy to allow the one-time election to purchase ARS credits. When read as a whole, the Court did not find the language of section 20909 suggested an affirmative promise by the Legislature to make the opportunity to purchase ARS credit available indefinitely.

  • The opportunity to purchase ARS credit is not entitled to the same type of constitutional protection as public employee pension rights.

Pension rights have historically been afforded constitutional protection because they are seen as deferred compensation that becomes part of the contract of employment itself. This is because pension benefits are earned by an employee’s work – the benefit flows directly from a public employee’s service, and their magnitude is roughly proportional to the time of that service. Thus, even in the absence of a manifest legislative intent to create contractual rights, the Court has held pension rights cannot be destroyed without impairing a contractual obligation. However, the Court held the opportunity to purchase ARS credits was not akin to deferred compensation. The Court found the opportunity to purchase ARS credit was “so unconnected to actual service time” because a public employee could increase his or her pension benefit merely by purchasing the ARS credit and not through the employee’s time in service.

  • The Court did not opine on the California Rule.

California’s long-standing rule, known as the “California Rule,” provides that pension benefits in place at the moment of a worker’s hiring can never be reduced without equivalent compensation. The protective legal doctrine has hindered state and local lawmakers’ ability to revise the laws governing public employee pensions. Although the state and many amici curiae urged the Court to use the Cal Fire decision as an occasion to re-examine the California Rule, the Court did not reach the issue because, as a preliminary matter, it concluded that California’s public employees do not have a contractual right to the continued availability of the opportunity to purchase ARS credit. Therefore, the question of whether PEPRA worked as an unconstitutional impairment of protected rights did not arise.

Next Steps

Unfortunately, despite great anticipation, the California Supreme Court did not opine on the California Rule. For now, the precedent that forbids public agencies from reducing pension benefits for current employees and retirees unless they provide additional compensation to offset the loss of income remains intact. However, the Court is expected to hear cases that touch on the California Rule and may potentially affect the Rule’s application to other pension benefits. Two such cases in Alameda County and Marin County relate to benefits that “spike” the final compensation that is used to calculate pensions. (see Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Association et al. v. Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Association, et al. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 61, and Marin Association of Public Employees’ Retirement Association (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 674.)

EPA’s New PFAS Action Plan: Urgent Next Steps for the Regulated Community

In response to increasing concerns regarding contamination from potential exposure to per- and polyfluroalkyl substances (PFAS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has now released its PFAS Action Plan. The Plan affects thousands of PFAS substances that have been manufactured since the 1940s, used most prominently in products such as fire-fighting foams, non-stick cookware, food packaging, water-resistant coatings, and in the aerospace, electronics, semi-conductor and automotive industries, among many others. The impacts to the regulated community of this increased attention on PFAS are considerable. Whether it be airports, railroads, developers, manufacturers, or retailers, the prospect of state and federal enforcement of environmental, health and safety laws, of citizen actions under those laws, of toxic tort or product liability actions, and of project delays, are significant.

Recent studies have suggested potential toxicological effects from PFASs on human health, including carcinogenic, developmental and immunological effects. Exposures can occur through drinking water, groundwater, cooking, clothing, air, and other occupational exposures. Two PFAS compounds, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), have been added to the California Proposition 65 list of chemicals that have evidence of reproductive toxicity, and a number of states have developed drinking water standards for those substances.

EPA’s Immediate and Long-Term Actions

Now, with its PFAS Action Plan, and although some have contended that it has not acted fast enough, EPA is entering the arena in a significant way, and is planning to initiate a number of steps on a national level that will address PFAS. Among other measures, under its Action Plan, EPA will:

  • Institute a regulatory process under the Safe Drinking Water Act to develop maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for PFOA and PFOS, as well as assess whether MCLs for a broader class of PFAS is appropriate.
  • Initiate a process to list PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which will expand the range of potentially responsible parties with CERLA lability and increase cleanup costs at CERCLA sites.
  • Expand and strengthen enforcement with regard to PFAS.
  • Require reporting of PFAS releases under the Toxics Release Inventory.
  • Propose nationwide drinking water monitoring for PFAS.
  • Develop guidance to facilitate cleanup of contaminated groundwater.
  • Institute new chemical reviews under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
  • Expand testing and analytical methods, treatment and remediation technologies, and research, and develop broader data sets, with regard to PFAS.
  • Assess ecological risks presented by PFAS.

The PFAS Action Plan greatly impacts compliance costs, requirements, enforcement actions, and litigation for manufacturers – past and current – and users of PFAS. It is critical to address these potential risks now, and be aware of and get involved in regulatory efforts before the onset of enforcement actions or lawsuits occur. Please click here to view the Action Plan.

California Supreme Court Establishes CEQA Rules for EIR’s Discussion of Health Effects

In an important CEQA case, the California Supreme Court ruled that courts reviewing claims that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) inadequately discusses environmental impacts must determine whether the EIR “includes sufficient detail” to support informed decisionmaking and public participation. The court also held an EIR must make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” The decision, Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, Cal. Supreme Court Case No. S219783 (Dec. 24, 2018), makes clear that EIRs must contain clear and detailed discussion of impact significance determinations, and in particular must explain the nature and magnitude of significant impacts.

Court Clarifies Standard of Review

In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, challengers to a mixed residential/commercial development project asserted that the County’s EIR improperly failed to include analysis that “correlated” the project’s air pollutant emissions to its impacts on human health. In addressing that claim, the Court first clarified the CEQA “standard of review.” The Court explained that, for challenges to an EIR’s factual determinations, such as whether an impact exceeds the threshold of significance, a court applies the deferential “substantial evidence” test, examining whether the EIR’s determination is supported by substantial evidence without weighing the evidence to determine who has the better argument. By contrast, for claims that the agency preparing the EIR “failed to proceed in a manner required by law,” a court applies the non-deferential “independent judgment” or “de novo” standard.

Court Announces Three Principles Governing Judicial Review

The Court noted that, “when the issue is whether an EIR’s discussion of environmental impacts is adequate,” it is not always clear which standard of judicial review applies. The Court held that an EIR’s discussion of impacts “may implicate a factual question that makes substantial evidence review appropriate.” On the other hand, the Court further held that a claim that an EIR’s description of an environmental impact lacks analysis or omits discussing the magnitude of the impact “is not a substantial evidence question.” Based on this distinction, the Court announced three principles to govern judicial review of EIRs:

  1. An agency has considerable discretion to decide the manner of the discussion of potentially significant effects in an EIR.
  2. However, a reviewing court must determine whether the discussion of a potentially significant effect is sufficient or insufficient, i.e., whether the EIR comports with its intended function of including “detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.”
  3. The determination whether a discussion is sufficient is not solely a matter of discerning whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s factual conclusions.

Court Applies Principles Governing Judicial Review

Applying those principles, the Court held that the EIR failed to adequately inform the public about the health effects of the project’s significant air pollution impacts. The Court noted that the EIR determined the project’s emissions of several pollutants would be a significant and unavoidable environmental impact, and that the EIR also contained a discussion, “general in nature,” about the health effects associated with various project-related pollutants. However, because the EIR’s discussion of health effects failed to “indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger the identified symptoms,” the Court found the EIR’s discussion inadequate, and held that “a sufficient discussion of impacts requires not merely a determination of whether an impact is significant, but some effort to explain the nature and magnitude of the impact.” The Court found the EIR’s discussion omitted material necessary for informed decision-making and to enable the public to understand and meaningfully consider the impacts of the project.

The Court rejected arguments from the project developer that additional information connecting emissions and health effects could not be provided, given the current state of environmental science, noting that support for those arguments appeared only in court briefing. The Court held that “if it is not scientifically possible to do more than has already been done to connect air quality effects with potential human health impacts, the EIR itself must explain why, in a manner reasonably calculated to inform the public of the scope of what is and is not yet known about the Project’s impacts.”

Court Addresses Mitigation Challenges

The Court also addressed several claims directed against the EIR’s mitigation for air quality impacts. The Court rejected the EIR’s determination that mitigation measures would “substantially” reduce air quality impacts (without reducing them to a less-than-significant level), holding that the EIR contained no facts or analysis to support the “substantial” reduction characterization. Therefore, the EIR needed to be revised to provide evidence to show the level of pollutant reduction and how that would reduce the adverse health effect. However, the Court rejected a claim that a mitigation measure may not reserve an option to substitute, for pollution control technologies identified in the measure, equally or more effective pollution control technologies that may become available in the future. The Court also made clear that a mitigation measure is not invalid simply because the EIR determines it is not capable of fully reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Meyers Nave Litigators Help Clients Win Their High-Stakes Cases

Meyers Nave litigation attorneys obtain victories at the trial and appellate level on many of our clients’ most complex, highest profile and strategically important cases throughout California. Below are examples of litigation successes covering a broad spectrum of our areas of expertise, including Commercial Litigation, Environmental Law, Land Use, First Amendment, Construction, Crisis Management, Finance and Economic Development. Meyers Nave recently shared our insights on high-stakes litigation as the moderator and presenter at a California Minority Counsel Program panel discussion in our Oakland office on the topic of “Strategies for Handling High-Profile Litigation.”

Shelter In Place Orders and Reopening Plan Litigation re: Coronavirus Pandemic
Meyers Nave is defending counties, cities and public officials throughout California in federal and state court litigation challenging Shelter In Place Orders, Public Health Orders, and Reopening Plans related to the coronavirus pandemic. Plaintiffs are churches, gyms, nail salons, brew pubs, wine bars, restaurants, lodging establishments, and other businesses challenging restrictions that are placed on the operation of their organizations. Our cases also include defending local government entities in class actions that request the refund of business and licensing fees, permits and taxes paid by organizations that are closed or are operating under various restrictions. The issues involve complex constitutional questions regarding local and state governmental powers during public health and safety emergencies intertwined with alleged violations of various rights under the California and U.S. Constitutions, ranging from First Amendment freedoms of expression, religion and assembly to civil rights claims for alleged violations of substantive and procedural due process and equal protection. Meyers Nave has obtained precedent-setting victories at both the district and appellate court levels which deny plaintiffs’ attempts to block enforcement of such Shelter In Place Orders and Reopening Plans.

City of Palmdale Catastrophic Rain Storm with 0.1% Chance of Occurring
Meyers Nave successfully defended the City of Palmdale in actions brought by 30+ plaintiffs involving inverse condemnation, nuisance, negligence, and trespass claims as a result of a massive rain storm that caused substantial flash flooding and debris flow. The storm was rated “return frequency” of 1000 years, which means 0.1% of occurring, and overwhelmed the City’s public works infrastructure. Our team’s successes included (1) negotiating the dismissal of Palmdale from one action within a few months of the filing of the action, (2) winning a dispositive motion for summary judgment in another case for judgment based on establishing that the epic storm was an intervening factor that broke the causal chain for liability, and (3) obtaining a definitive legal ruling on a summary judgment motion that served as the catalyst to get the remaining cases settled and involved payment by the pooling entity with a minimal contribution from the City.

TRO Protects Client’s Business in a Trade Secret Theft Case
Meyers Nave commercial litigators obtained a Temporary Restraining Order to protect a client company’s trade secrets and greatly reduce unfair competition from a business that two employees set up with stolen confidential information. The San Francisco-based global client is one of the world’s leading purveyors of high-value, collectible vintage and modern timepieces. The case involved a former employee and a current employee who had access to customer information, a lead-generation customer wish list, and pricing and margin information. The former employee left the client company and within months launched a competing business. The other participant, while still working at the client company, provided the former employee with client contact information, shared proprietary pricing data, and steered customers to the former employee. The defendants are immediately enjoined from further use or disclosure of the client company’s information and must immediately return all such information in whatever form. The Meyers Nave victory was litigated in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California and asserted claims under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, a new law that is increasingly being used by companies throughout the U.S.

Los Angeles County Land Use and Environmental Protection Litigation Win
Meyers Nave’s Trial and Litigation Practice Group achieved a closely watched victory for the County of Los Angeles in a final ruling that awarded $6.6 million in attorneys’ fees, sanctions and civil penalties plus permanent injunctive relief in a case that involved the illegal transport and dumping of concrete and other construction debris in an ecologically sensitive region in the Santa Susana Mountains. Relying on drone surveillance and more than 500 exhibits, Meyers Nave initially obtained a preliminary injunction banning all Class 6 trucks and higher from the illegal waste disposal operation, along with additional restrictions including requiring defendant to post No Dumping signs and submit a conditional use permit and engineered grading application to address hillside stability issues. After granting our motion for summary judgment, the Court ordered briefing on the appropriate remedies. The Court’s subsequent ruling granted a permanent injunction banning Class 6 and higher trucks, the most effective deterrent for the County to halt the dumping and parades of trucks through the canyon. Civil penalties and attorneys’ fees were awarded in the amount of $6,638,192.33.  For violating the County’s Zoning, Grading, and Building Codes, the Court assessed civil penalties of $4,893,000.  For violating the state Unfair Competition Law, the Court assessed an additional penalty of $800,000.  The Court also awarded the County $945,192.33 in attorneys’ fees. In a press release, Fifth District Supervisor Kathryn Barger described the judge’s ruling as “an important victory for communities and the environment.”

$477 Million Downtown Arena for the Sacramento Kings
Meyers Nave defeated every legal challenge against the new $477 million downtown arena for the Sacramento Kings NBA team, including (1) an eminent domain victory giving the City of Sacramento permission to take over the final piece of downtown property, (2) a published appellate decision denying a CEQA-based challenge to the project, (3) a published appellate decision denying a constitutional challenge to the special statute passed to streamline the City’s CEQA review of the proposed arena (the first appellate decision concerning the constitutionality of project-specific CEQA streamlining statutes), and (4) an 11-day trial alleging that the public-private partnership engaged in a “secret subsidy,” collusion, fraud, concealment, waste and illegal expenditure of public funds, along with alleged illegalities in the City’s bond financing. The case settled for dismissal of all claims with prejudice in exchange for a waiver of costs subsequent to the Court finding that “plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof on any of their causes of action.” The trial victory was recognized by The Daily Journal among the “Top Defense Results” of the year. SuperLawyers magazine also featured attorney Shaye Diveley’s appellate victories in an article titled “From Way Downtown: That’s how Sacramento attorney Shaye Diveley helped deliver an arena for the Kings-and just before the buzzer.”

Eminent Domain Victory
Meyers Nave’s client, the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (“TAMC”), is constructing a new commuter rail project to extend passenger rail service from Santa Clara County to Salinas. TAMC acquired most of the property interests required for this Project but was unable to settle as to an industrial property where TAMC sought to acquire 2,156 square feet from one of the warehouses located thereon.  Prior to trial, the landowner’s final demand to settle was $1,900,000 and TAMC’s final offer to settle was $1,100,000. At trial, the landowner asked the jury to return a verdict in the sum of $2,200,000.  TAMC asked the jury to return a verdict in the sum of $800,000. The jury verdict was $1,271,217.00, which was $928,783 below the landowner’s appraised value and $727,783 below the landowner’s final settlement demand. Because the jury’s verdict was much closer to our client’s final offer (only $171,217 over) than the landowner’s final demand, Meyers Nave also saved TAMC from the possibility of the judge ordering TAMC to not only pay for the fair market value of the property (as determined by the jury), but also pay for all of the landowner’s attorneys’ fees and other litigation expenses.

California Supreme Court’s Most Prominent CEQA Case
Meyers Nave represented Lotus founder Mitch Kapor and his wife Freada Kapor Klein before the California Supreme Court in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, a precedent-setting CEQA case that the Daily Journal featured in a cover story. The case also received extensive media attention and coverage in numerous Law360 articles, from an article that described it as “the biggest CEQA case the state’s high court will consider” to an article that described it as “a landmark CEQA case…to determine the fundamental legal nature and practical utility of CEQA’s regulatory exemptions.” The Court’s decision resolved years of uncertainty by holding that there must be “unusual circumstances” in order for an otherwise categorically exempt project to be subject to CEQA. The Court also resolved a divide among Courts of Appeal, holding that an agency’s findings as to unusual circumstances are subject to the substantial evidence standard. The Court established a new two-part test to analyze a project opponent’s assertion that a project presents “unusual circumstances” that require CEQA review.

$162 Million Meyer and Renee Luskin Conference Center/UCLA
The University of California’s General Counsel engaged Meyers Nave to help “bulletproof” the Environmental Impact Report for one of UCLA’s highest-profile projects, the 294,000-square-foot $162-million Meyer and Renee Luskin Conference and Guest Center. As expected, opposition groups filed lawsuits raising numerous challenges, including CEQA, zoning and taxation. Our guidance during the EIR administrative process with a focus on anticipating potential litigation was validated in a subsequent series of courtroom victories, culminating in an appellate judge rejecting all CEQA claims filed by a community group. Meyers Nave also obtained the dismissal of claims that were filed against the Luskins with a published appellate decision confirming that financial support from private donors is expression protected by the constitutional right of free speech.

Largest Fine Against a Utility in the United States
For seven years, Meyers Nave served as Special Counsel to the City of San Bruno regarding a Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) natural gas pipeline explosion that killed eight people, injured 58 others and destroyed or damaged 90 homes. Meyers Nave’s work was instrumental in the imposition of a record $1.6 billion fine against PG&E, the largest ever levied against a utility in the U.S. Our work also uncovered political corruption at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and led to multiple state and federal investigations of the utility and public agency. A federal court jury convicted PG&E of one felony count of obstructing the federal probe of the blast and five felony counts of knowingly violating pipeline safety laws before and after the disaster. PG&E also subsequently agreed to pay $86.5 million in penalties and fines over 164 illegal ex parte communications it had with CPUC regulators over a five year period. The multi-faceted litigation also involved a California Public Records Act lawsuit for which the City of San Bruno received a James Madison Freedom of Information Award from the Northern California Society of Journalists. Law360 named Meyers Nave a “California Powerhouse” and noted that the firm “flexed its muscle” by “marshaling the City of San Bruno through the aftermath of a devastating pipeline explosion.” Meyers Nave led the total recovery of $126 million for the City of San Bruno. The firm’s work garnered numerous awards, including “Giant Slayer” (The Recorder), “Energy & Environmental Trailblazer” (National Law Journal), “Top Women Lawyers” (Daily Recorder) and “Top California Lawyers” (Daily Journal).

$380 Million Expansion at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center
Meyers Nave represented Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in its breach-of-contract suit against Turner Construction regarding its failure to deliver a project which includes the construction of a 366,000 square foot 168-bed inpatient building, construction of a utility loop, and upgrades to the energy plant. During the course of the Project, there were disputes between the County and Turner regarding compliance with California building codes, workplace safety, quality of construction, and completing the project by the contracted dates. Meyers Nave finalized an agreement in which both parties agreed to a collaborative approach to finish the project in a reasonable time frame and a firm commitment on completion costs with a cap on additional costs.

Aliso Canyon/Porter Ranch Massive Natural Gas Leak
In County of Los Angeles v. Southern California Edison, Meyers Nave assisted the County of Los Angeles in a public health crisis regarding the largest methane gas release in U.S. history. The Meyers Nave crisis litigation team urgently assessed the legal landscape, consulted with the public health department, and successfully obtained a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction that allowed 3,000 relocated families to remain in safe alternative housing. The Aliso Canyon gas leak (also called Porter Ranch gas leak) was a massive natural gas leak from a well in an underground storage facility in the Santa Susana Mountains near Porter Ranch, Los Angeles. California Governor Jerry Brown issued a state of emergency for what was internationally reported to have been the largest and worst single natural gas leak in U.S. history.

Adult Entertainment Business Shut Down After 2.5 Year Battle
After a three-week trial, Meyers Nave convinced a judge to grant a permanent injunction to close EyeCandy Showgirls, a business advertising itself as providing “the only nude lap dance in San Diego County.” The defendants in the case – owners of several strip clubs in Southern California – had touted their experience obtaining victories against other municipalities awarding millions in attorney’s fees and damages to the adult use operator. The judge agreed with Meyers Nave that the business was operating unlawfully, was in violation of zoning codes, and was a public nuisance that must be shut down. The trial court also overruled objections and granted the City’s cost bill, which included a trial technician assisting with 350 exhibits, including maps, photos and videos, for a total recovery of $50,000. Meyers Nave also helped Chula Vista update and revise its adult business ordinances.

 

Meyers Nave Argues Landmark CEQA Case Before CA Supreme Court

On December 2, Amrit Kulkarni presented oral argument before the California Supreme Court on a case that Law360 calls the “biggest CEQA case” and members of the state’s land use legal community describe as a “landmark” case that will result in a “blockbuster decision.”

Amrit and Julia Bond are handling the high-profile matter of Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley on behalf of Lotus founder Mitch Kapor and his wife, Freada Kapor-Klein, which addresses whether a full environmental impact report is required for their proposed single-family home on a hillside lot. The California Supreme Court granted the City of Berkeley’s petition for review after a lower court required that an environmental impact report be prepared for the home despite the fact that CEQA categorically exempts single family homes from that requirement.   

The case will have profound implications for courts, private landowners and project developers, and all government agencies that regularly rely on categorical exemptions. If the Supreme Court affirms the lower court’s decision, it will be more difficult to qualify for the exemptions that legislatures provided in the CEQA guidelines to help streamline and shorten the review process for minor projects.

The Court’s ruling in this case is expected by March 2, 2015. Below are examples of the extensive media coverage of this precedent-setting case.

California Supreme Court Divided In Key CEQA Case

California Supreme Court Urged To Reinforce CEQA Exemptions

California High Court Could Play Major Role In CEQA Reform

CEQA Reform: The Aggrieved Instigator

Law360 Recognizes Meyers Nave as ‘California Powerhouse’ Firm

The nationwide legal industry website, Law360, is featuring Meyers Nave as one of the publication’s 20 California Powerhouse law firms—an elite list on which Meyers Nave is the smallest and one of the youngest firms.

In its feature story, Law360 describes how Meyers Nave has grown—in just 27 years—“from a small municipal law firm in the San Francisco Bay Area into one of the leading firms for local governments and public agencies throughout the state as well as private clients focused on complex, public-facing transportation and development projects.”

As examples of Meyers Nave’s “muscle,” the article cites the firm’s landmark public pension reform litigation, its work for the City of San Bruno in the aftermath of a devastating gas pipeline explosion, and its representation of the City of Sacramento in its ongoing efforts to build a new home for the Kings NBA franchise.

Meyers Nave Managing Partner David Skinner, firm Co-founder Steve Meyers, and Land Use Practice Group Chair Amrit Kulkarni, are all quoted in the article regarding the firm’s overall strengths and notable client successes.

The full article is available for viewing here.

About Meyers Nave

A full-service law firm, Meyers Nave represents a diverse range of clients whose day-to-day operations and legal matters often play out on California’s public stage. The entities we serve—from public agencies to national corporations and high-visibility healthcare, transportation, and education institutions—depend not only on our legal prowess but our aptitude for navigating complex government frameworks and sensitive public relations issues. We leverage this critical combination of skill to deliver creative, cost-effective strategies for large-scale projects, regulatory compliance, litigation, and operational concerns involving everything from labor and employment to finance and policy development.

Meyers Nave’s Land Use/Environmental Group Welcomes Shaye Diveley

Meyers Nave is pleased to announce that Shaye Diveley has joined the firm’s Land Use and Environmental Practice Group from Morrison & Foerster’s environmental and energy department. Drawn to Meyers Nave by the firm’s continuing expansion of work on large-scale development projects for both corporate and public entities, Shaye brings to the team experience handling land use and environmental matters of national and statewide significance.

Shaye is particularly skilled at litigating and counseling clients on water quality, endangered species, land use and related issues—background that will support Meyers Nave’s growing representations of clients such as BNSF and UCLA in litigation crucial to their major, complex projects.

Just a few examples of Shaye’s recent body of work include:

  • Successful representation before the trial and appeal courts of a residential developer in a CEQA matter involving the City of Dublin
  • Representation of another major East Bay city in a breach of land disposition agreement case
  • Successful defense of a developer in an Endangered Species Act citizen suit involving the removal of endangered plants that were illegally transplanted to project site (resulting in a favorable decision from  the Ninth Circuit)

Shaye was an associate with Stoel Rives prior to her position at Morrison & Foerster. She received her B.A. in Journalism from George Washington University in D.C., and her J.D. from UC Hastings College of the Law.

Her arrival reflects the consistent growth of Meyers Nave’s Land Use & Environmental Practice Group—now with 20 attorneys practicing in Northern and Southern California.

About Meyers Nave’s Land Use & Environmental Practice Group

Clients seek out Meyers Nave when approvals of large-scale development, transportation, or infrastructure projects are processed under CEQA, NEPA, and other related laws—and later when those projects are challenged in court. These matters often involve the most complex, cutting-edge issues in the field.  We offer comprehensive understanding of land use, environmental, and transportation infrastructure law—and particular strength in processing and defending major infrastructure projects for ports, airports, railways, and transit agencies.

About Meyers Nave

A full-service law firm, Meyers Nave represents a diverse range of clients whose day-to-day operations and legal matters often play out on California’s public stage. The entities we serve—from public agencies to national corporations and high-visibility healthcare, transportation, and education institutions—depend not only on our legal prowess but our aptitude for navigating complex government frameworks and sensitive public relations issues. We leverage this critical combination of skill to deliver creative, cost-effective strategies for large-scale projects, regulatory compliance, litigation, and operational concerns involving everything from labor and employment to finance and policy development.

Contact:

Amrit Kulkarni, Principal
Meyers Nave
Chair, Land Use and Environmental Practice
akulkarni@meyersnave.com
510.808.2000

Lindsey Staples
Director of Marketing & Communications
Meyers Nave
lstaples@meyersnave.com
510.808.2036

Meyers Nave Lands Top Construction Law Specialist, Eric Firstman

OAKLAND, CA – Meyers Nave has landed top Northern California construction trial attorney Eric Firstman to further secure its position as the preeminent construction law practice in the state. In making this announcement, the firm also named Firstman the Practice Group Chair of the firm’s restructured Construction and Facilities law practice. The Practice Group was restructured to emphasize its specialization and full service support of large scale construction project management, litigation and trial practice. Firstman is joining the firm as a partner in its Oakland office.

With over 30 years of experience in construction law, Eric represents public entities and private companies in large, complex construction projects from project development and contract negotiation, to project administration, dispute resolution and complex trials. His experience includes billion dollar and larger projects for cities, counties and municipalities as well as hospitals, school and special districts, seaports, airports and other commercial facilities in both bond funded projects, individual projects and capital improvement programs. 

Eric’s complex trial practice has included verdicts, final awards and judgments in cases involving power facilities, irrigation facilities, colleges, libraries and wastewater treatment plants, state court and federal court jury verdicts and court trials and arbitrations. He has been named a Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, a prestigious trial lawyer honorary society whose membership represents less than one-half of one percent of all lawyers in the U.S. Fellows are selected after being rigorously evaluated on their effectiveness and accomplishments in litigation and trial work, along with the attorney’s reputation for exceeding the highest ethical standards.  Eric also regularly serves as guest faculty in the trial advocacy program at Stanford Law School and several continuing education programs.

Formerly a name principal of Wulfsberg Reese Colvig & Firstman located in Oakland, Eric’s most notable projects and clients include major hospital and healthcare construction and renovation programs, two major airport expansion projects, a seaport expansion, stadiums and municipal event center projects, and multiple city, county, school district and college facilities bond programs, water district and waste water district expansion programs.

The Construction and Facilities Practice Group is one of the area’s preeminent construction law practices and offers complete construction and facilities law services to public agencies, private owners, hospitals, developers, and subcontractors during all stages of construction projects. Some of the notable projects the practice has handled include one of the largest class action disability lawsuits in the state in response to claims of violations of both the ADA and Section 504 on behalf of a major city as well as lead construction counsel for one of the largest school districts in the nation, helping the client complete over $1 billion in construction work without any litigation since 2005. 

“This is a strategic merger which affords us competitive advantage and will complement our robust land use, real estate and environmental practices,” said Meyers Nave Managing Principal David Skinner.   “With Eric and his over 30 years of construction litigation experience, Meyers Nave is the preeminent law firm for large scale, complex construction projects in the state”, Skinner added. 

“Joining Meyers Nave gives the firm and me the opportunity to attract Fortune 1000 corporations and large scale projects and cases to our already impressive list of public and private projects. These clients are seeking more value in their legal representation and, I believe, Meyers Nave offers the greatest value in the state considering the top notch trial experience and deep litigation support the firm now offers,” Firstman said.  “We’re positioned well to meet the needs of value conscious, results-oriented clients and it should help fuel this firm’s growth for years to come,” he added. 

Eric is AV rated by Martindale Hubble, Martindale Hubble’s highest peer review rating, honored by Northern California Superlawyers in construction litigation for 2007-2013, and placed on Corporate Counsel’s list of Superlawyers from 2008-2013. Eric received his B.A. at the University of California, Los Angeles in 1980 and his J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of Law in 1983. 

 

About Meyers Nave: Founded in 1986, the law firm of Meyers Nave is recognized for its work with all types of public entities and non-profit entities in California. The firm provides the full scope of legal services to cities, counties, successor agencies, school districts and special districts statewide, as well as to all types of non-profit entities. Meyers Nave’s areas of practice include labor and employment, torts, economic development, city attorney and general counsel representations, first amendment, eminent domain, litigation, writs & appeals, public contracts, construction & facilities, healthcare, land use, public finance, crisis management, education and environmental law.

Meyers Nave Names David Skinner Managing Principal

Oakland, CA – Meyers Nave today announced that David Skinner has been named managing principal of the law firm, effective January 1, 2011.

Skinner has been a principal at Meyers Nave since 1997 and is head of the Eminent Domain practice. He succeeds Jayne Williams, who will continue in a leadership role as a member of the firm’s executive committee.

“We are grateful to Jayne for the instrumental role she played in guiding the firm’s expansion during her two terms as managing principal,” said Steve Meyers, founder of the firm. “As we look to the future, we are excited about the leadership, vision and energy David will bring to his new position as we continue to grow the firm.”

Skinner joined Meyers Nave as an associate nearly 20 years ago and is recognized as one of the leading eminent domain practitioners in California, representing public agencies in eminent domain and inverse condemnation matters. Skinner’s practice is devoted to assisting public entities in developing and implementing cost-effective, time-sensitive land acquisition strategies and he will continue his legal practice while serving as managing principal. He is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley and received his law degree from Hastings College of the Law.

“When I was hired at Meyers Nave in 1991, we were a 10-attorney firm,” said Skinner. “We have since grown to more than 80 attorneys. I’m proud that we have maintained the highest standards for the quality of our legal counsel, while at the same time offering more services to meet our clients’ needs. We have a tremendous team of lawyers and support staff, and I look forward to building our emerging practice areas and adding more top-notch attorneys to our firm.”

Based in Oakland, California, Meyers Nave is one of the premier public agency law firms in the state with five offices throughout California. Under Williams’ leadership, the firm underwent a significant expansion, growing its Sacramento office and adding offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco. Williams was instrumental in focusing the firm to diversify its practice areas to provide greater specialized services to its public agency clients.

“I am very proud of the contributions that I have made to the firm over the past six years as managing principal. I now look forward to continuing to serve as the city attorney for the City of San Leandro and devoting more time to expanding my practice in high-profile complex municipal law and public law areas,” Williams said.

About Meyers Nave

Founded in 1986, the law firm of Meyers Nave is recognized for its work with all types of public entities in California. The firm provides the full scope of legal services to cities, counties, redevelopment agencies and special districts statewide. Meyers Nave’s areas of practice include labor and employment, torts, redevelopment, city attorney and general counsel representations, eminent domain, litigation, writs and appeals, public contracts, construction, land use, and environmental law. For more information, please visit www.meyersnave.com.

Contact:

Lindsey Staples
Marketing Manager
916.556.1531
lstaples@meyersnave.com