In re Coalinga Reg’l Med. Ctr. (2019)
608 B.R. 746
In this 2019 case, Riley C. Walter successfully argued that the United States trustee for region 17 (“UST”) lacked authority to appoint unsecured creditors’ committees in Chapter 9 cases under 11 U.S.C. § 1102 (a)(1). Debtor also contends that § 105 (a) as implemented by Rule 2020 (providing the procedure to contest any act of the UST) authorizes the court to disband Committee.
John R. Lawson Rock & Oil, Inc. v. Air Resources Board (2018)
20 Cal.App.5th 77
Tim Jones and John P. Kinsey successfully challenged proposed modifications adopted by the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) to the “Truck and Bus Regulation,” which adversely affected trucking companies that had diligently and timely complied with the original regulation. The Court found CARB violated the California Environmental Quality Act by using an improper environmental baseline, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to adequately assess the economic impact of the modifications on compliant trucking companies. In a related appeal, the firm successfully argued the petitioners were entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees under Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Kinsey argued both cases on appeal.
Greer v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (E.D. Cal. 2017)
265 F.Supp.3d 1053, 1058
Patrick D. Toole represented Plaintiffs in a class action against employer Pacific Gas and Electric Company and union, alleging that employer failed to pay wages due under a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”), and that the union breached its duty of fair representation.
This case resulted in no less than three significant opinions. First, Plaintiffs established they were not required to exhaust a grievance process before bringing a Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) claim; second, Plaintiffs established precedent preventing witnesses from materially altering their deposition testimony to support a summary judgment motion; and third, genuine issues of material fact existed on the question of whether the union conducted an adequate investigation prior to entering into settlement agreements with PG&E. These rulings ultimately led to a $5.8 million settlement in favor of the firm’s clients.
United States v. McIntosh (9th Cir. 2016)
833 F.3d 1163, 1170-1172, 1179
Peter M. Jones represented one of the Defendants for marijuana offenses under the Controlled Substances Act. Defendants sought to enjoin the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) from using any appropriated funds to support the prosecutions. Defendants moved to dismiss their indictments or to enjoin their prosecutions on the grounds that the DOJ was barred from spending funds to prosecute them. The Ninth Circuit remanded to the district courts, finding that if the DOJ wishes to continue these prosecutions, Defendants were entitled to evidentiary hearings to determine if their conduct strictly complied with all relevant conditions imposed by California state law on the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana. Mr. Jones’ client and the other Defendants were subsequently dismissed as a result of the trial court ruling.
Central Green Co. V. United States (2001)
531 U.S. 425, 121 S.Ct. 1005
Central Green sued the United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act for damage to Central Green’s pistachio trees caused by water leaking from a federal water project. In a landmark decision argued by Timothy Jones, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holding the Federal Flood Control Act was not a bar to plaintiff’s claims.
Affordable Housing Development Corp V. City Of Fresno (2006)
433 F.3d 1182
In this case the firm successfully defended individuals who asserted their first amendment rights and were sued for $27,000,000. This case was important in establishing first amendment rights of individuals to petition their Government for redress.
Mergerdigian V. Western Farm Service (1986)
788 F.2d 760
In this case the firm successfully defended against an employee’s claim for wrongful discharge and age discrimination in the trial court, and this result was affirmed on appeal.
POET, LLC V. California Air Resources Board (2013)
218 Cal.App.4th 681
In this case, attorneys Timothy Jones, John P. Kinsey, and Daren A. Stemwedel successfully argued that the California Air Resources Board violated multiple provisions of CEQA and the APA when it adopted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard regulation, a major component of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The Fifth District Court of Appeal set aside the approval of the regulation, directing the Air Resources Board to comply with CEQA and the APA.
Baker V. Boland (2009)
Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 3569
In this case, Scott D. Laird successfully obtained reversal of “prevailing party” determination and attorney fees award on appeal, overcoming the “abuse of discretion” standard.
Artesia Dairy V. Agricultural Labor Relations Board (2008)
168 Cal.App.4th 598
In this case the firm successfully argued that the ALRB erred in failing to count the ballots of three employees in an agricultural election. The Court of Appeals ordered that the challenged ballots be opened and agreed that the ALRB had improperly construed the statute to exclude relatives of the owner of the dairy from voting.
Animal Legal Defense Fund V. Mendes (2008)
160 Cal.App.4th 136
In this case the firm successfully defended claims that Mendes Calf Ranch violated various statutes pertaining to the raising of livestock. The firm successfully defended the case and succeeded in convincing the Court that the Plaintiff lacked standing to sue under the Unfair Business Practice scheme set forth in California Business and Professions Code §17200.
Westamerica Bank V. MBG Industries, Inc. (2007)
158 Cal.App.4th 109
In this case, Scott D. Laird successfully defended appeal and made new law regarding California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 Offers.
North American Bldg. Maintenance, Inc. V. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2006)
137 Cal.App.4th 627
Patrick D. Toole and Scott D. Laird successfully argued that the insurance company, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, wrongfully denied its insured coverage for a claim of false imprisonment in an underlying class action lawsuit.
City Of Fresno V. People Ex Rel Fresno Fire Fighters (1999)
71 Cal.App.4th 82
In this case the firm successfully represented the City of Fresno in a labor case involving an action brought by the Police Officer’s Union and the Fire Fighter’s Union seeking to set aside the repeal of the City Charter provisions which set forth the employee’s wages based upon an eight city average. In this complex case arising under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, it was successfully argued at both the trial and Appellate Court level that the actions taken by the City of Fresno were proper and that the City of Fresno properly fulfilled its bargaining obligations with the labor unions.
Quinn Company (1984)
273 NLRB No. 107, 118 LRRM 1239
In this case the National Labor Relations Board upheld the decertification of the union that had represented the work force of the firm’s client. The board’s opinion is often cited for the proposition that a bargaining unit supervisor properly may participate in the decertification process.
Joe A. Freitas & Sons V. Food Packers,
Processors And Warehousemen Local 865,
International Brotherhood Of Teamsters (1985)
164 Cal.App.3d 1210, 211 Cal.Rptr. 157
In this case the firm obtained the reversal of an adverse arbitration award, in the process establishing important precedent regarding the validity and interpretation of collective bargaining agreements under California’s Agricultural Labor Relations Act.