CA Supreme Court Holds CEQA Does Not Cover Social Noise from Residential Projects, Clearing Way for UC Berkeley’s Housing Project at People’s Park

So-called “social noise”—i.e., noise created by human voices—is not an environmental impact required by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) to be analyzed for residential projects, the California Supreme Court ruled on June 6, 2024, in Make UC a Good Neighbor v The Regents of the University of California.

The unanimous ruling brought an end to a years-long challenge to the University of California’s (“UC”) proposed housing project on the highly controversial site known as People’s Park in Berkeley.

Recognizing the State’s widespread housing crisis, UC Berkeley identified construction of new housing for students and faculty as one of its goals in its latest planning document, the 2021 Long Range Development Plan (“2021 LRDP”).

In September 2021, the Regents certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2021 LRDP and the construction of two development projects, including what became to be known as the People’s Park project. The People’s Park project proposed adding 1,113 student beds, 1.7 acres of open landscape, and 125 affordable and supportive housing beds for lower-income or formerly homeless individuals not affiliated with UC.

A month later, petitioners brought a CEQA lawsuit, objecting to UC building housing on People’s Park. Petitioners challenged the EIR and the 2021 LRDP and People’s Park project approvals on the grounds, that among other things, UC failed to adequately assess social noise impacts and that the EIR did not consider alternative locations for the People’s Park project.

After the trial court denied the petition, petitioners appealed. The First District Court of Appeal, reversing the trial court, concluded the EIR failed to assess social noise impacts in residential neighborhoods and failed to consider alternative locations for the People’s Park project. The Supreme Court granted the UC’s petition for review. While case was pending at the Supreme Court, the Legislature proposed an amendment to CEQA—AB 1307—in response to the Court of Appeal’s decision. AB 1307 provided that “the effects of noise generated by project occupants and their guests on human beings is not a significant effect on the environment for residential projects for purposes of CEQA.” Governor Newsom signed AB 1307 into law in September 2023.

The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision, holding that AB 1307 applies to both the People’s Park project and the 2021 LRDP. The Court took an expansive view of “residential projects” under AB 1307 to hold that the statute encompasses land use planning activities to the extent it concerns residential development. This confirmed AB 1307’s broad reach to prevent the need for analyzing social noise for a wide range of agency decisions affecting residential development.

AB 1307 also eliminated the requirement for UC to analyze alternative locations for the People Park’s project. Petitioners conceded, and the Supreme Court agreed, that AB 1307 mooted their alternatives argument.

This decision gives UC the greenlight to proceed with the much-needed housing project at People’s Park. It also reinforces that “no matter how important its original purpose, CEQA remains a legislative act, subject to legislative limitation and legislative amendment”—even in the middle of ongoing litigation.

Wage and Hour Policies Amid Rising PAGA Filings

At Meyers Nave, we prioritize assisting our clients in establishing and maintaining wage and hour policies that comply with legal standards. This includes implementing effective systems and processes to ensure all levels of the workforce are informed and practicing these policies. Unfortunately, we have observed a significant uptick in class action and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) lawsuit filings, particularly since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Last year, California experienced over 5,000 employment-related class-action filings, and the number of PAGA notices filed with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency has increased annually.

Rising Litigation: Understanding the Causes
Recent rulings from the California Supreme Court have been notably favorable to employee-plaintiffs, subsequently increasing employers’ exposure and liability:

  • Wage Designation: Meal and rest break premiums have been reclassified as “wages,” which has implications for wage statements and final pay penalties.
  • Timekeeping Requirements: Employers must accurately record meal periods and beware of rounding practices and policies. Any discrepancies in time records for meal periods raise a rebuttable presumption of meal period violations.
  • Payment Calculations: Employers are required to pay meal and rest break premiums at the employee’s “regular rate of pay,” rather than the base hourly rate.

Implications of Arbitration Agreements
The California Supreme Court last year upheld that PAGA plaintiffs retain the right to pursue representative claims, even if the individual claim is compelled to arbitration.

Individual Liability Under the Labor Code
California Labor Code Section 558.1 extends potential liability for minimum wage violations to company owners, directors, officers, and managing agents, equating them with the employer in these cases.

Anticipated Changes: The November 2024 Ballot Measure
The upcoming California Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act seeks to address longstanding criticisms of PAGA since its 2004 enactment. Key features of the proposed initiative include:

  • Doubling statutory and civil penalties for willful violations.
  • Allocating 100% of monetary penalties to the affected employees, compared to the current 25%.
  • Excluding attorney’s fees from awards, which are presently available under PAGA.
  • Mandating that the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) be included in all labor complaints filed to the Labor Commissioner.
  • Ensuring full funding of the DLSE by the state legislature to meet legal requirements.
  • These proposed changes signify a substantial shift in how labor violations could be managed and penalized in California.

Have questions? Contact us. Meyers Nave is committed to keeping our clients informed and prepared for these potential legal landscapes.

PFAS Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels Set

Over the next five years, U.S. EPA hopes its new national drinking water standard will reduce per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) compounds in drinking water to almost zero as a way to prevent potential health risks associated with the chemicals.  On April 10, 2024, EPA finalized Primary Drinking Water Standards that it estimates will require public water systems to spend $14.4 billion to achieve the new maximum contaminant levels (“MCLs”) for six PFAS chemicals. (See April 8, 2024 Pre-Publication PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation Preamble (“Preamble”).) Just days prior, on April 5, 2024, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) adopted public health goals for two PFAS chemicals:  perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (“PFOS”).  These public health goals will lead to lower MCLs in California for PFOA and PFOS.

These are three questions that the new federal MCLs raise:

  1. Do the new MCL requirements affect the majority of public water systems nationwide?   The scope of the new MCLs require public water systems to monitor, report, and by 2029 remediate PFAS in drinking water. The affected entities are every public water system that serves “an average of at least twenty-five individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year.”  (Preamble, § I.B’ 40 C.F.R. § 141.2.)
  2. Will the new federal MCLs affect other non-drinking water regulatory programs?   The new federal MCLs will influence and potentially drive other standards such as effluent limits that wastewater treatment plants must meet to comply with permits issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) regulations and remediation clean-up levels for ground or surface waters.
  3. What are the true costs of compliance to achieve the federal MCLs? For the drinking water regulatory programs alone, the costs of compliance to achieve the federal MCLs are significant and range from EPA’s estimate of $14.4 billion to $47.3 billion, a reported estimate from American Water Works, the largest publicly traded water and wastewater utility company.

The impact of the new MCLs is important because although PFOA and PFOS largely have been phased out of production since the 1940s, the chemicals are still present in the environment.  (Preamble § II.B.) PFAS are synthetic “forever” chemicals that breakdown slowly and are commonly used in fast-food boxes and non-stick cookware as well as for other purposes (e.g., stain- and water-repellant clothing and carpets, some fire-fighting foams, and various industrial and manufacturing processes.)  (See e.g., July 2023 U.S. Geological Survey Study.) In California, monitoring data EPA reviewed found that 35.8 percent of California public water systems detected PFOA and 39 percent detected PFOS, with reported concentrations of PFOA ranging from 0.9 to 190 ppt and reported concentrations of PFOS ranging from 0.4 to 250 ppt.  (Preamble, § VI.)

  1. Federal MCL Requirements

EPA estimates that about 6% to 10% of the 66,000 public drinking water systems nationwide will need to reduce PFAS to meet the following new MCLs and unenforceable MCL Goals (“MCLGs”):

  MCLGs MCL
Perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (“PFOS”) Zero 4 ppt
GenX Chemicals Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (“PFHxS”) Perfluorononanoic acid (“PFNA”) Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (“HFPO-DA”) 10 ppt 10 ppt
Mixtures containing two or more GenX or perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (“PFBS”) 1 (unitless)* 1 (unitless)

* There is no unit for this this Hazard Index MCL because it is a sum of fractions.  EPA is currently developing an online calculator that will add up each fraction that represents average PFAS ratios (e.g., PFHxS/10 ppt + PFNA level/10 ppt) and see if the annual average is greater than the MCL of 1. (
EPA Hazard Index Fact Sheet.)


At this time, these federal MCLs are for the most part slightly lower than the notification and response levels that California established in 2020 under the California Safe Water Drinking Act.  (See State Water Resources Control Board PFAS Webpage [setting forth 5.1 and 6.5 ppt notification levels for PFOA and PFOS, respectively, and 10 and 40 ppt response levels for PFOA and PFOS, respectively].) In California, however, public water systems will also be required to comply with California MCLs, which will be based on the new OEHHA public health goals (“PHGs”):

California Public Health Goal  
PFOA 0.007 ppt
PFOS 1 ppt


(OEHHA’s April 5, 2024 notice.) A PHG is the level of a drinking water contaminant at which adverse health effects are not expected to occur from a lifetime of exposure. Health & Safety Code §116365(a) requires a contaminant’s MCL to be as close to its PHG as is technologically and economically feasible. Some key takeaways from the final rule are as follows:

  • Monitoring. Public water systems have three years to complete initial monitoring (by 2027). Water systems must calculate the running annual average (using all samples and no composite samples). The overall annual average must be below the MCLs, and samples with results below 2 ppt are averaged as zeros. (Preamble, § VIII.B.3.) According to Section V of the Preamble, most laboratories (89%) can analyze levels accurately to as low as 2 ppt.
  • Public Notice. Beginning in 2027, public water systems must provide information to the public about PFAS levels, and, beginning in 2029, public water systems must provide notification to the public of any MCL violation. In California, Health and Safety section 116455 already requires timely notification by drinking water systems whenever a notification level is exceeded.
  • Compliance Deadline. By 2029, public water systems must reduce PFAS levels that exceed the MCLs. EPA has concluded that PFAS can be reduced or eliminated using granular activated carbon (“GAC”), anion exchange resins (“AIX”), and high-pressure membranes (nanofiltration (“NF”) and reverse osmosis (“RO”)). (Preamble, § X.)

EPA’s health-related evaluations concluded that the PFAS at issue are linked to many health effects ranging from liver and kidney cancers and low birth weight infants to high blood pressure and high cholesterol. (See id., §§ II.B, XII.F; Table 44; EPA Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”).)  One key finding throughout EPA’s rulemaking is that “[p]regnant and lactating women, as well as infants and children, may be more sensitive to the harmful effects of certain PFAS,” including the co-occurrence of the GenX Chemicals. (See e.g., Preamble, § II.)   Nearly half of the tap water nationwide contains at least one type of PFAS, according to a July 2023 U.S. Geological Survey Study.  EPA’s PFAS webpage recommends that households use certain certified water filters to reduce PFAS but the “current certification standards for PFAS filters (as of April 2024) do not yet indicate that a filter will remove PFAS down to the levels EPA has now set for a drinking water standard.  EPA also recommends nursing mothers ask pediatricians about potential PFAS exposures while nursing or giving infants formula, according to the EPA FAQ.

The Executive Summary of the rulemaking concludes that “the quantifiable annual [health] benefits of the final rule will be $1,549.40 million per year” based on the monetized benefits associated with 29,858 fewer illnesses and 9,614 fewer deaths.  EPA further found that “the quantifiable costs of the rule will be $1,548.64 million per year.”  This analysis supports EPA’s Executive Summary conclusion that the costs of the rule are justified by the benefits.  EPA did receive comments that it over-estimated health benefits (see e.g., id., § XII.A.1) and underestimated compliance costs (see e.g., id., at § XII.A.2).

  1. Non-Drinking Water Impacts

What EPA opted not to address in the MCL rulemaking is that the MCLs will affect non-drinking water environmental programs.  The MCLs set up a reference point that other state and federal agencies undoubtedly will use to evaluate allowable PFAS levels in wastewater discharges and at remediation sites.  For example:

  • NPDES Permits – A Regional Water Quality Control Board uses MCLs to determine allowable pollutant levels in discharges of water. Most, if not all, Water Quality Control Plans (called Basin Plans) throughout the state include a Chemical Constituents objective that requires compliance with MCLs for discharges to waters designated for municipal supply. For example, the Los Angeles Region Basin Plan states in Chapter 3: “Water designated for use as Domestic or Municipal Supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the limits specified [Title 22 State MCLs] . . .”  Thus, the numeric levels in state MCLs (once adopted based on the PHGs) will be automatically incorporated into limits applicable under Basin Plans.  Additionally, under 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d), if a point source discharge has reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of a water quality standard, historically a Regional Water Board will impose a water-quality-based effluent limitation.
  • Clean-ups The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) or similar state laws often seek that MCLs be attained in remediation actions, including CERCLA removal actions. EPA has stated that “typically MCLs should be attained to the extent practicable during the removal action[.]” (EPA Removal Management Level User Guide.)
  • POTWs The EPA has provided guidance for pretreatment and wastewater disposal to manage PFAS that enter the sanitary sewer system and must be managed by publicly owned treatment works (“POTWs”). (See e.g., USEPA, Addressing PFAS Discharges In EPA-Issued NPDES Permits And Expectations Where EPA is the Pretreatment Control Authority (April 28, 2022); USEPA, Addressing PFAS Discharges in NPDES Permits and Through The Pretreatment Program and Monitoring Programs (December 5, 2022)). EPA has stated that “[s]ite-specific technology-based effluent limits (TBELs) for PFAS discharges developed on a best professional judgment (BPJ) basis may be appropriate for facilities for which there are no applicable effluent guidelines (see 40 CFR 122.44(a), 125.3).”  (Dec. 2022 EPA Guidance.)
  • Hazardous Waste EPA’s MCL rulemaking concludes that potential hazardous waste disposal requirements may increase treatment costs but only marginally up to 12 percent. (Preamble, §§ V, X.C.) EPA’s conclusion may underestimate these costs because EPA has not yet updated its 2020 PFAS Destruction and Disposal guidance.  (§ X.C.2.)

EPA’s failure to consider non-drinking water costs was intentional because it asserts that under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA must “exclude ‘costs resulting from compliance with other proposed or promulgated regulations’” and is required only to include “costs that ‘are likely to occur solely as a result of compliance with the [MCL].’”  (Id., § V.)

  1. Costs of Compliance

The compliance costs that public water systems will incur to achieve the federal MCLs appear uncertain and range considerably.  EPA estimates that the initial capital costs to comply with the MCLs will be approximately $14.4 billion nationwide and “reasonably anticipates” that federal funding of $11.7 billion in Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and an additional $5 billion for emerging contaminants, should “be able support a substantial portion of the initial capital costs of the final rule.”  (Preamble, §XII.A.2.)

In late November 2023, American Water, the largest publicly traded water and wastewater utility company, estimated about “$47 billion in infrastructure investments across the U.S. to treat for PFAS at four parts per trillion.”  (See CNBC Nov. 30, 2023 “U.S. tap water has a $47 billion forever chemical problem.”)  Though the $47.3 billion American Water estimate is not mentioned in the Preamble, Section XII.A.2.a and Table 24 of the Preamble dispute a study conducted by Black & Veatch on behalf of the American Water Works Association in detail, specifying, for example, that granulated activated carbon (“GAC”) treatment should cost $300,000 per unit (to treat 1 million gallons a day) not $900,000 and that the new MCLs will affect 5,136 total public water systems, not 7,449 systems as Black & Veatch estimated.

The $14.4-billion EPA estimate also is at odds with estimates by California water districts.  In 2020, a total of eleven water districts in Orange County, California, including the Orange County Water District, estimated $1 billion in PFAS clean-up costs, according to a lawsuit filed by these water districts against DuPont, 3M, Chemours and Corteva.  (See CMBG3 Law Dec. 3, 2020 Newsletterhttps://www.cmbg3.com/california-water-district-pfas-lawsuit-1-billion-at-stake.)  If $1 billion is an accurate estimated for 11 California water districts, this would result in approximately $90.9 million per water district, not $2.8 million per public water system based on EPA’s estimate (i.e., $14.4 billion/5,136 public water systems.)

Whatever compliance costs will be, public water systems will need funds over the next five years to pay for treatment systems. For small or disadvantaged communities, the federal Emerging Contaminant (“EC”) fund can be used for eligible projects.  State funds are also available through the State Water Resources Control Board, which under the California Budget Act of 2021 was most recently appropriated $20 million from the General Fund for technical and financial assistance for the 2023-2024 fiscal year.  (See SWRCB PFAS Funding Webpage and California Supplemental Intended Use Plan.)

Meyers Nave Represents the Tongva and Acjachemen Communities in Orange County’s First Ever Native American Land Back Transaction

Meyers Nave attorney, Russell Morse represented the Acjachemen Tongva Land Conservancy (“ATLC”), a nonprofit organization formed by members of the Acjachemen and Tongva communities dedicated to preserving their ancestral homelands, in the first Indigenous land return in Orange County history. Community members of the Tongva and Acjachemen, two tribes that have historically inhabited lands in Southern California, joined forces to successfully acquire a six acre-parcel on the Bolsa Chica Mesa adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve.

The ATLC now holds title to a portion of the sacred Bolsa Chica Mesa, home to an ancient village site inhabited by the Tongva and Acjachemen Tribes some 9,000 years ago. This acquisition marks the beginning of an extensive restoration program, which will include the reintroduction of native species and removal of bike jumps unlawfully built on the site. Once complete, the site will potentially be a forum for cultural ceremonies and conduct public education activities to heighten awareness of the land’s historical and cultural significance.

Meyers Nave is proud to represent the ATLC and to have helped secure this important victory for the Tongva and Acjachemen people. For more information on the ATLC, we encourage you to visit: https://www.atlandconservancy.com/.

Meyers Nave Attorneys Selected among San Diego Super Lawyers and San Diego Rising Stars

Meyers Nave is pleased to announce that three of our attorneys have been recognized in the 2024 list of San Diego Super Lawyers and San Diego Rising Stars. This acknowledgment reflects their exceptional legal skills and professional achievements, highlighting the excellence across various Meyers Nave practice areas.

We congratulate the following attorneys:

Super Lawyers
Nadia Bermudez – Employment Litigation, Civil Litigation (2015-2024)
Janice Brown – Employment Litigation, Employment & Labor, Business Litigation (2007-2024)

Rising Stars
Janine Braxton – Employment & Labor (2023, 2024)

 

Meyers Nave Names Janice Brown as Chair of the Labor & Employment Practice

Meyers Nave proudly announces Janice Brown as the new leader of our Labor and Employment Practice Group, effective January 1, 2024. A renowned trial lawyer and employment problem solver, Janice brings a wealth of experience in California employment law, alongside a commitment to her clients, maximizing workplace productivity and minimizing risks. To Janice, fostering long-term relationships is of equal importance to achieving excellent results.

Janice is proud to follow in the footsteps of her esteemed colleague and dear friend Camille Hamilton Pating, whose leadership and contributions to the practice she will always cherish, and who will remain by her side to guide their team of attorneys toward success.

Janice’s vision for the practice aligns seamlessly with Meyers Nave’s core principles of delivering high-quality, innovative legal services underpinned by a team of authentic, passionate lawyers. Her leadership will continue to elevate our commitment to client service and workplace morale.

In addition to her legal expertise, Janice is the founder of Beyond Law, a platform that embodies her philosophy of going beyond conventional thinking in the legal field, and emphasizing the importance of mindset, trust, and collaboration in the practice of law. Her dedication to living an inspirational life and building meaningful relationships is at the core of her professional ethos. Janice’s unique perspective and motivational approach make her an exemplary leader for Meyers Nave’s Labor and Employment Practice Group.

 

Court of Appeal Confirms (Again) that CEQA Statute of Limitations Runs from the First Project Approval

The Second District Court of Appeal confirmed again that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) favors finality in rejecting a challenge to a subsequent project approval for a 42-single family home project in Los Angeles.

In Guerrero v. City of Los Angeles the Court of Appeal reversed a trial court judgment setting aside a mitigated negative declaration (MND) and requiring an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project because petitioners did not sue within the 30 days after the Notice of Determination (NOD) for the MND and first project approval in 2020. Confirming long-standing law against re-opening CEQA for every subsequent action that implements a project, the Court held “later adoptions of the same MND cannot restart or retrigger a new limitations period.”

Background

As is not uncommon for many developments, the City’s approval of the project involved many steps and revisions of the project, during which the City filed numerous NODs. The City originally adopted the MND when the City’s Planning Department approved a vesting tentative tract map on March 3, 2020. On March 25, 2020, the City filed a NOD pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074. Then, in May 2020, the City’s Planning Commission approved various zoning determinations and adjustments for the project, and recommended the City Council adopt the zone change required for the project. A letter of determination was issued on January 14, 2021, and a second NOD was filed on February 4, 2021. On June 8, 2021, the City Council again adopted the MND, rezoned the site, and filed a third NOD on June 18, 2021. On July 16, 2021, Petitioners filed a challenge to the City Council’s 2021 project approvals.

Court of Appeal’s Findings

Petitioners claimed their CEQA claim was timely because it was filed within 30 days of the third NOD. The Court of Appeal disagreed finding “[i]t is the first approval that triggers the running of the statute of limitations, and later approvals do not restart the statute of limitations clock.” The Court based its decision on the following reasons:

  • Environmental Review Must Occur at Earliest Feasible Opportunity. The Court recognized that “[t]he mere possibility that a project may change as it moves through the planning process does not preclude applying CEQA’s requirements at the early stages of project review.” Here, the City properly conducted its environmental review before making any project approvals.
  • CEQA’s Statute of Limitations is Triggered by the First Project Approval, Even for Projects Subject to Numerous Discretionary Approvals. CEQA Guidelines, § 15378 further makes clear that a “project” subject to CEQA “refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term ‘project’ does not mean each separate governmental approval.” As the Court noted, “the City made its earliest firm commitment to the Project when it approved the vesting tentative tract map, even though there were conditions attached to the approval,” and, thus, that was the proper “project approval” for triggering CEQA’s limitations periods.
  • The 30-Day Statute of Limitations Applies Where an NOD is Filed. For these reasons, “[t]he City’s March 25, 2020 NOD was effective to trigger a 30-day statute of limitations on any challenge to the validity of the MND.”
  • A New Statute of Limitations is Triggered Only Where Subsequent or Supplemental Review is Required. The Court also noted CEQA’s statutory presumption under Public Resources Code section 21166 against additional environmental review for implementing approvals, which is limited to where there are substantial project changes, new information or changed circumstances resulting in new or more severe impacts. The Court rejected Petitioners argument that this presumption did not apply the prior CEQA review as an MND. The Court noted the presumption still applied: “there have been no changes to the Project requiring a subsequent or supplemental MND, the later adoptions of the same MND cannot restart or retrigger a new limitations period.”

Conclusion

The key take away is that in multi-phase development projects, the first project approval in a series of discretionary project approvals for the same project always will trigger CEQA’s statute of limitations.

Once that limitations period has run, there can be no further CEQA compliance challenges to the project unless subsequent or supplemental review is triggered under Public Resources Code §21166. This is the same even when the project was originally approved based on a MND, rather than an EIR. To allow otherwise, reasoned the Court, would undermine the need for finality and predictability for land use decisions.

Navigating Your 1L Summer: The Application and Interview Process and How To Make the Most of Your 1L Summer

Join Meyers Nave attorneys on Monday, November 13, for advice on navigating the perplexing world of getting a job at a law firm and learn about Meyers Nave’s 10-week summer 1L Diversity Fellowship Program.

The webinar will cover:

  • Finding the right law firm for you
  • Successfully navigating the interview process from beginning to end
  • Tips for a successful summer – stories of triumph and tribulation
  • The goal of Meyers Nave’s 1L Diversity Fellowship Program

Panelists:

  • David Mehretu, Co-Chair of the Diversity Committee and Trial and Litigation Principal
  • Neha Shah, Co-Chair of the Diversity Committee and Labor and Employment Senior Associate
  • Kiana Amiri-Davani, Land Use and Environmental Associate

Date: Monday, November 13, 2023

Time: 4:00-5:00pm PST/7:00-8:00pm EST

Cost: Complimentary

Register HERE.

Virtual Presentation: This webinar will be provided on the Zoom platform. You will receive an email with log-in instructions upon completion of your registration.

1L Diversity Fellowship: For more information on our 1L Diversity Fellowship Program, please click HERE.

Questions? Please contact Sharon Mettler at 510.808.2000 or smettler@meyersnave.com.

Deborah Fox named one of Daily Journal’s 2023 “Top 100 Lawyers”

Meyers Nave is pleased to announce that Deborah J. Fox, has been named to the Daily Journal’s 2023 “Top 100 Lawyers,” a prestigious list that honors and recognizes “the best lawyers in California based on their legal accomplishments, professional reputation, and contributions to the legal community.”

As Principal of the Meyers Nave Trial and Litigation practice group, Deborah handles high-stakes litigation and crisis management around controversial matters at the intersection of law and societal evolution. She has built a reputation as a go-to attorney for sensitive political issues that attract intense media attention and elevated public scrutiny, helping to shape California’s legal landscape and confirming her as one of the state’s top lawyers.

Daily Journal subscribers can read the full article here.

Meyers Nave Attorneys Recognized as 2024 “Best Lawyers in America” and “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America”

Meyers Nave is proud to have four lawyers recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® and one lawyer recognized in The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America® 2024 editions.

Their legal expertise and professional accomplishments reflect the high regard of numerous Meyers Nave practices, including commercial litigation, eminent domain, employment law, environmental law, land use, litigation, municipal law and natural resources law. Their recognitions also demonstrate Meyers Nave’s reputation for excellent client work from attorneys in each of our offices throughout California.

We congratulate the following attorneys on their 2024 Best Lawyers rankings:

Inclusion in Best Lawyers® is based on nomination, voting and evaluation by peers in the same practice area and geographic region. Best Lawyers® assesses the information and checks each attorney’s status with local bar associations. Lawyers do not pay to be included.  First published in 1983, The Best Lawyers in America is regarded as a definitive guide to excellence in the legal profession.