Category: Firm Spotlight

Meyers Nave Represents the Tongva Community in Historic Reclaiming of Ancestral Land in Los Angeles Area After 200 Years

Meyers Nave represented the Tongva Taraxat Paxaavxa Conservancy in one of the first private land returns to Native Americans in the Los Angeles area. This historic event was widely reported by several Los Angeles media outlets and marks the first time in the nearly 200 years since the California mission system ended that land has been returned to the Tongva people.

Reclaiming ancestral land is rare for any Native American nation, tribe, or band. It is particularly complicated for the Tongva, who lack federal tribal status. Because the tribe was not equipped to process the bequest, Meyers Nave stepped in to provide legal support and advice to the Conservancy which resulted in the successful donation of the property, located in Altadena.

As noted in last week’s Los Angeles Times, “Tongva leaders said they hope the land can provide paths for the community to reconnect with its culture and promote healing from the centuries of trauma.”

Meyers Nave is proud to represent the Conservancy and to have helped secure this landmark victory for the Tongva people.

Meyers Nave Obtains Dismissal of Two High-Stakes Federal Lawsuits Against the City of Los Altos Under the Telecommunications Act

Meyers Nave successfully obtained the dismissal of two high-stakes federal lawsuits brought by AT&T and Verizon, respectively, asserting claims against the City of Los Altos under the Telecommunications Act.

The carriers filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Davila) after their combined 13 small cell wireless facility applications were denied by Los Altos for allegedly failing to comply with the City’s 2019 wireless ordinance. The carriers each filed motions for summary judgment, contending that the City’s denials of their small cell sites were not supported by substantial evidence, and that the denials violated the Telecommunications Act for effectively prohibiting the provision of wireless services in Los Altos.

While the motions for summary judgment were pending, Meyers Nave led a team of land use and telecommunications experts to devise a state-of-the-art wireless ordinance for Los Altos that achieved the City’s land use policy objectives while avoiding provisions that were at a greater risk of being successfully challenged under the Telecommunications Act.

In addition to drafting the ordinance, the Meyers Nave team shepherded the ordinance through the complex CEQA process and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council after a series of public hearings. The process required for the development and adoption of a new wireless ordinance – while the prior wireless ordinance was the subject of federal litigation – was highly nuanced and strategic, requiring careful guidance of the City in the face of scrutiny from the carriers and the public alike.

Following the successful adoption of the new ordinance, the Meyers Nave team moved the Court to dismiss the carriers’ pending cases on mootness grounds. Although hotly contested by the carriers, Judge Davila sided with the City and dismissed both cases on the precise grounds articulated in the briefing.

Deborah Fox, who led the Meyers Nave team on this matter, said: “The rights of localities to regulate wireless facilities under the Telecommunications Act is a rapidly evolving area of the law where the advocacy of legal counsel plays an especially critical role in shaping the developing jurisprudence in this area. That, combined with simultaneously litigating an existing wireless ordinance while developing a new wireless ordinance, made this case particularly intellectually and strategically complex. We were happy to both defeat the two federal cases while at the same time assisting Los Altos with the adoption of a new state-of-the-art wireless ordinance.”

The Meyers Nave team included Deborah Fox, David Mehretu and Kristof Szoke. Learn more about our Trial and Litigation capabilities.

Super Lawyers Distinguishes Meyers Nave Lawyers in San Diego

Meyers Nave is pleased to announce our attorneys have been listed as 2022 “Super Lawyers” in San Diego. Published in Super Lawyers Magazine, only up to five percent of the lawyers in California are named to the Super Lawyers list and only up to 2.5 percent are named to the Rising Stars list.

The recognitions demonstrate Meyers Nave’s highly regarded expertise in numerous areas of law including Labor & Employment, Employment Litigation, Business Litigation, and General Litigation. We congratulate our team for this important recognition of their legal expertise and professional accomplishments in their geographic region and their areas of specialty. Our distinguished lawyers include:

Super Lawyers

Janice Brown, Principal – Top 25 Women San Diego Super Lawyers (2017, 2018, and 2022); Super Lawyer – (1) Employment Litigation: Defense, (2) Employment & Labor: Employer and (3) Business Litigation (2007-2022)

Suzanne Roten, Senior Of Counsel – (1) Employment Litigation: Defense and (2) Employment & Labor: Employer (2019-2022)

Meyers Nave Elevates Camille Hamilton Pating to Equity Principal

Meyers Nave is pleased to announce the elevation of Camille Hamilton Pating as an Equity Principal of the Firm effective January 1, 2022. She serves clients in a range of complex and labor employment matters, among other areas, providing excellent client service and a high degree of legal expertise throughout the state.

Managing Principal David Skinner notes that “Camille is an outstanding Practice Group Leader for Meyers Nave’s dynamic Labor & Employment Group. Her leadership and dedication embody our values and principles. We are excited and proud that Camille will be joining us as an Owner of the Firm.”

Camille Hamilton Pating earned her J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law and her B.A. in political science from Stanford University. She is a highly respected lawyer for more than 35 years. Known for her skill, innovation and high-profile labor and employment practice, Camille is recognized as one of the most sought-after workplace investigators in the state. She established a preeminent investigations practice after serving as a member of the Meyers Nave Team that conducted an internal affairs investigation of the officer involved shooting of Oscar Grant. Camille is often consulted by elected officials, C-Suite executives, tech and digital media companies and non-profit leaders for investigations, employment law advice, litigation DEI initiatives and training. She is recognized by the Daily Journal as a Top Labor and Employment lawyer.

Camille explains that “Meyers Nave has been an exceptional match for me personally and professionally. This Firm invests in attorneys for the long term. I came here as a part-time contract attorney. Over the years, I was given the opportunities to lead an exceptional team, develop new practice areas, and provide leadership in areas of Inclusion and Engagement. I am excited to become an Equity Principal and Owner of Meyers Nave.”

Meyers Nave Elevates David Mehretu to Principal

Meyers Nave has elevated Of Counsel Attorney David Mehretu to Principal of the Firm, effective January 1, 2022.

Managing Principal David Skinner notes that “David has the unique ability to effectively grasp and communicate complex issues in difficult and high stakes litigation matters. His calm demeanor, and his personable and respectful approach with clients, judges and opposing counsel set him apart as an advocate. We are fortunate to have David become a Principal with the Firm, and we look forward to his leadership for years to come.”

David Mehretu earned his undergraduate degree from New York University (B.A., philosophy and politics) and his J.D. from New York University School of Law. He is an experienced litigator in areas of commercial law, employment law, civil rights and constitutional law, and land use law. He represents private sector and public entity clients on high impact matters in federal, state and appellate courts. He is widely recognized by his clients and colleagues for his ability to handle complex matters which require particularly creative and nuanced legal solutions.

David Mehretu explains that “Meyers Nave has afforded me the opportunity to work with leading experts in several areas of law involving economically significant and politically sensitive litigation matters. I appreciate the collaborative culture, including the Firm’s demonstrated support for Inclusion and Engagement. I am excited to become a Principal and leader with the Firm.”

Meyers Nave Secures Key Victory In California Supreme Court Confirming Application of Automatic Stay Pending Appeal to Mandatory Injunctions

In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court confirmed that the automatic stay pending appeal applies to a superior court judgment that orders mandatory injunctive relief. The trial court judgment ordered the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors to vacate the Third District seat and then immediately fill the vacant seat with a new appointee selected by Governor Newsom, based on an alleged Brown Act violation in the process the Board had originally employed to fill the vacant seat. The challengers had argued that the judgment was prohibitory in nature, and therefore excepted from CCP § 916’s automatic stay. Agreeing with the Board, the Supreme Court instead held that the judgment ordered mandatory injunctive relief because it altered the status quo of the parties at the time the judgment was entered, and the judgment was therefore subject to the automatic stay.

Gomez Daly v. San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, S260209, came to the California Supreme Court in a unique procedural posture. Petitioners Michael Gomez Daly and Inland Empire United (“Petitioners”) filed a petition for writ of mandate in the San Bernardino County Superior Court alleging that the Board had violated the open meeting requirements of the Brown Act when it filled a vacancy on the Board in appointing a supervisor to the Third District seat. Over the Board’s strenuous objection, the superior court found that the appointment violated the Brown Act, and was therefore “null and void” under the Brown Act’s provisions allowing a court to nullify action taken in violation of the Act. The superior court then entered judgment requiring the Board to vacate the seat and to allow the Governor to make a new appointment. The Board immediately appealed the decision, alleging several errors committed by the superior court. In connection with the appeal, because Petitioners were attempting to immediately enforce the judgment notwithstanding the appeal, the Board sought writ of supersedeas in the Court of Appeal on the basis that CCP § 916’s automatic stay applied to the judgment pending appeal. The Court of Appeal denied the petition for writ of supersedeas, the Board petitioned to the Supreme Court for review, and the Court granted review.

The Supreme Court laid out the familiar rule: mandatory injunctions are ones that alter the status quo and are therefore subject to the automatic stay; prohibitory injunctions, on the other hand, seek to preserve the status quo and are not subject to the automatic stay. While many cases identify the status quo as the point in time before the injunction is ordered, Petitioners urged the Court to use another definition—the last peaceable, uncontested status preceding the controversy. The Supreme Court harmonized these two competing definitions by explaining that the latter could be used where an injunctive order seeks to prevent injury from future conduct rather than remedy a past wrong. The Court next turned to the facts of the case, and explained that the judgment here was a mandatory injunction. Although the relief stemmed from a finding that the Board’s action was “null and void,” the relief was nonetheless properly characterized as a mandatory injunction because it required a mandatory act that would change the relative position of the parties by removing the Supervisor from office. Now that the Supreme Court has confirmed the automatic stay applies, the case is back to the Court of Appeal to address the merits of the Board’s appeal.

With this decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that California law sets the “default rule” to be that mandatory orders are stayed pending appeal. The decision has far-reaching consequences, providing added clarity and guidance for all appeals from injunctive relief judgments. The decision should also provide comfort to public entities by ensuring that injunctive relief will generally be stayed pending appeal, reducing the potential for erroneous judgments to interrupt or impede stable governance.