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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.