|
Services Available
Appellate Practice Areas
Manatt appellate lawyers are nationally recognized for our work in the areas of land use, eminent domain, healthcare, intellectual property, the Internet, banking, copyright and trademark, and patent infringement. We are widely known for our comprehensive skill at appeals under California’s Unfair Competition Law. We are also frequently involved in appeals of a wide range of commercial law matters, including antitrust, ERISA, government contracts, and insurance disputes. Our practice encompasses appeals before numerous federal, state and local administrative bodies. The following examples are illustrative.
Land Use and Eminent Domain
Manatt has unsurpassed capabilities in representing homeowners, landowners and developers in appeals involving zoning, eminent domain and the gamut of inverse condemnation matters ranging from land regulation to physical damage and occupation. Such cases often center on constitutional issues of takings, due process and equal protection, and are argued before the U.S. Supreme Court as well as federal appeals courts and state supreme courts. Our attorneys have handled some of the most important cases in this field, and have represented institutions, trade groups, and individuals. They also frequently file amicus curiae briefs to help develop the jurisprudence in this field. The following examples (along with those listed in the Amicus Curiae portion of this entry) show the breadth of this practice:
§ Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002) (Whether a land use moratorium is a taking of property must be decided on a case-by-case basis).
§ City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687 (1999) (Right to Seventh Amendment jury trial and Fifth Amendment compensation for regulatory taking).
§ Preseault v. ICC, 494 U.S. 1 (1990) (Federal “rails-to-trails” statute is valid under the Commerce Clause; however, compensation may be sought in the Claims Court under the Just Compensation Clause).
§ First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987) (Constitution requires just compensation for regulatory taking of property).
§ People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Southern California Edison Co., 22 Cal. 4th 791 (2000) (Computation of interest due for prejudgment possession in eminent domain).
§ County of Los Angeles v. Berk, 26 Cal. 3d 201 (1980) (Years of adverse use show property impliedly dedicated to public).
§ Ellis v. State, 51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 458 (Cal. App. 1996) (Ordinary tort defenses do not bar landowner from recovering in inverse condemnation).
§ Palmer v. City of Ojai, 178 Cal. App. 3d 280 (1986) (Failure to act on project application within one year means project is deemed approved).
§ City of Los Angeles v. Tilem, 142 Cal. App. 3d 694 (1983) (Violation of standards in Uniform Real Property Acquisition Policies Act is unreasonable conduct that requires compensation).
§ 99¢ Only Stores v. Lancaster Redevelopment Agency, 60 Fed. Appx. 123 (9th Cir. 2003) (Power of eminent domain cannot be used to condemn for purely private purpose).
§ Kottschade v. City of Rochester, 319 F.3d 1038 (8th Cir. 2003) (Whether ripeness rules need correction is for Supreme Court to decide).
§ Sinclair Oil Co. v. County of Santa Barbara, 96 F.3d 401 (9th Cir. 1996) (Use of ripeness and abstention doctrines in regulatory taking and substantive due process land use cases).
§ Hendler v. United States, 952 F.2d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Physical invasion of property by government is a taking, regardless of good intentions of government; U.S. is responsible for actions of state officials acting pursuant to U.S. authority).
§ National Advertising Co. v. City of Raleigh, 947 F.2d 1158 (4th Cir. 1991) (Property owner has immediate cause of action for regulatory taking as soon as ordinance affecting property is adopted).
§ Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 605 N.W.2d 472 (Neb. 2000) (Challenge of right to condemn becomes moot when project is built during appeal process).
§ Killington, Ltd. v. State, 668 A.2d 1278 (Vt. 1995) (Regulatory taking suit not ripe where no permit sought for ultimate project desired).
Intellectual Property/Internet
Manatt's experience in intellectual property and internet matters is unmatched. Part of the range of services we offer is complete litigation support at both trial and appellate levels. For example:
§ International Communication Materials, Inc. v. Ricoh, Co., Ltd., 108 F.3d 316 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Preliminary injunctive relief is not proper in patent case where claim construction shows little chance for success).
§ Abbott Laboratories v. Dey, 287 F.3d 1097 (Fed. Cir 2002)(Application of doctrine of equivalents to prove patent infringement).
§ Canon Computer Systems, Inc. v. Nu-Kote Intern., Inc., 134 F.3d 1097 (Fed. Cir 1998)(Presumptions and burden of proof in patent infringement case).
§ Phonometrics, Inc. v. Hospitality Franchise Systems, Inc., 203 F.3d 790 (Fed. Cir 2000)(Pleading patent infringement does not require allegation of each claim).
§ Braun Corp. v. Maxon Lift Corp., 97 Fed. 335 (Fed. Cl. 2004)(Limitation on scope of patent claims).
§ In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(Investors’ publication of paper more than one year before patent application foreclosed patent issuance).
§ Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com, 2000 WL 1887522 (C.D. Cal.), aff'd, 2 Fed. Appx. 741 (9th Cir. 2000) (Established new standards regarding enforceability of terms of use on a website).
§ Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp., 110 Cal. App. 4th 1658 (2003) (Burden of proof in trade secret litigation is on party claiming improper use).
Healthcare Industry
Manatt appellate attorneys with specialized health law expertise represent a broad range of healthcare providers and payers on a wide variety of health law issues. They have been instrumental in making favorable new law on behalf of healthcare industry clients, including:
§ City of Hope National Medical Center v. Superior Court, 8 Cal. App. 4th 633 (1992) (When hospital provides care to patient with verified insurance coverage, hospital is entitled to keep the money it receives from the patient’s insurer, even if the insurer decides months later that the treatment was not covered under the patient’s policy).
§ Oskooi v. Fountain Valley Regional Hospital & Medical Center, 42 Cal. App. 4th 233 (1996). (Hospital can dismiss physician from its medical staff based upon negative information about the physician’s practice history that the physician failed to disclose, even though the hospital might have discovered the information sooner than it did).
§ Congress of California Seniors v. Catholic Healthcare West, 87 Cal. App. 4th 491 (2001) (State courts cannot adjudicate the propriety of hospital Medicare and Medi-Cal cost reports under the guise of enforcing California’s Unfair Competition Law).
§ Olszewski v. Scripps Health, 30 Cal. 4th 798 (2003) (Healthcare providers cannot be retroactively liable for acting in accordance with a state medical lien statute that subsequently was invalidated).
§ Sater v. Wyckoff Hts. Hospital, 643 N.Y.S.2d 664 (App. Div. 1996) (Physician cannot enforce purported oral employment contract when State Health Department regulations require written agreements).
§ Humana of Aurora, Inc. v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1579 (10th Cir. 1985) (Successful hospital challenge to federal Medicare reimbursement regulation).
Entertainment Industry
Manatt's lawyers have a proven track record representing high-profile entertainment industry clients in significant copyright infringement and related intellectual property cases throughout the country. A number of our cases before appellate courts have established controlling legal precedents in important areas of entertainment, media and intellectual property law. Examples of matters that our attorneys have handled on trial and subsequent appeal include:
§ Thomas v. Larson, 147 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 1998). (Defending the heirs of the author of the drama Rent in a publicized decision deciding important questions concerning the scope of the joint authorship provisions of the Copyright Act).
§ Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records, Inc., 351 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2003). (Court rejects “bare corporate receipt doctrine,” under which some courts had allowed plaintiffs to succeed merely by showing that the company employing the alleged infringer had received the work).
§ Selletti v. Carey, 173 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 1999) (Defending recording artist Mariah Carey in copyright infringement case; dismissal affirmed).
§ Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. and Bob Dylan, 975 F. Supp. 623 (D.N.J. 1996), appeal dismissed, 166 F.3d 1204 (3d Cir. 1998) (Defending recording artist and record label in copyright infringement action).
§ Estate of Michael Jeffrey v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc., 743 N.Y.S.2d 717 (App. Div. 2002) (Defending record company in royalty action brought by estate of former manager of legendary musical artist Jimi Hendrix; dismissal affirmed).
§ Willis v. Home Box Office, 57 Fed. Appx. 902 (2d Cir. 2003) (Defending cable network in claim for copyright infringement regarding the television series Arliss).
§ Daisley v. Ozzy Osbourne, 78 Fed. Appx. 594 (9th Cir. 2003) (Defending rock star Ozzy Osbourne and his record label in a copyright infringement action relating to record albums that sold over 5 million copies).
§ Abdul-Jabbar v. General Motors Corp., 75 F.3d 1391, as amended, 85 F.3d 407 (9th Cir. 1996) (Representing basketball star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in a successful appeal over dismissal of his right of publicity and Lanham Act claims involving use of his former name, Lew Alcindor, in advertising).
Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
Manatt is a recognized leader in successful appeals of litigation brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. (UCL). For more than a decade, as UCL litigation has become the weapon of choice for nearly every litigant who sues a business in California for “unfair” or “deceptive” conduct, our attorneys have successfully represented UCL defendants, plaintiffs and friends of the court in California’s state and federal trial and appellate courts. We have shaped judicial interpretation of the UCL by taking first-impression cases to the courts of appeal and the California Supreme Court. In addition to obtaining published decisions affirming favorable trial court rulings, we also have used sophisticated theories and defenses to get to the heart of the issues when lower courts have made “imaginative” rulings not supported by law.
Our appellate lawyers have experience with UCL disputes involving such diverse issues as patent infringement, advertising claims, and wage-and-hour issues. We have particular strength in appellate cases affirming the rights of healthcare providers to assert and enforce liens against tort recoveries from third parties, to secure reimbursement for care provided to emergency patients, (e.g., Swanson v. St. John’s Regional Medical Center, 97 Cal. App. 4th 245 (2002) (affirming dismissal of UCL claim against nonprofit hospital system, and holding that absolute litigation privilege barred claim challenging hospitals’ assertion of liens in personal injury actions by former emergency room patients) (review denied)). Manatt also has successfully represented healthcare and long-term care providers in UCL appeals and appellate writ petitions involving Medicare cost reporting, matters under the California Insurance Code, and healthcare facility staffing.
Insurance
Manatt appellate lawyers represent insurance industry clients in a variety of bad faith, ERISA, Business & Professions Code Section 17200, and agency cases. Some significant examples include:
§ Prudential Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 4th 1118 (1992) (Reinsurers are entitled to offset amounts owed to them by an insolvent insurance company against amounts owed by them under the terms of their reciprocal reinsurance contracts and California Insurance Code Section 1031).
§ Hadland v. NN Investors Life Ins. Co., 24 Cal. App. 4th 1578 (1994) (There is no private right of action under California Insurance Code Sections 790.03(a) and (b); failure to read insurance contract precludes justifiable reliance on oral representations about health insurance coverage).
§ Crusader Ins. Co. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, 54 Cal. App. 4th 121 (1997)¬ (No private right of action under the Insurance Code provision requiring surplus line brokers to conduct a “diligent search” for a carrier admitted to do business in California before placing a risk with a non-admitted carrier).
§ Lambros v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 111 Cal. App. 4th 43 (2003) (Insurer entitled to retain “unused” portion of annual life insurance premium when coverage was terminated prior to the end of the year).
§ Sousa v. Unilab Corp. Class II (Non-Exempt) Members Group Benefit Plan, 252 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (E.D. Cal.), aff'd, 83 Fed. Appx. 954 (9th Cir. 2003) (Three-year contractual limitations period was reasonable and governed plaintiffs’ claims under ERISA, rather than California’s four-year statute of limitations period).
§ AMEX Life Assurance Co. v. Superior Court, 14 Cal. 4th 1231 (1997) (Whether a terminally ill applicant for life insurance can create an enforceable contract by sending an impostor to take the physical examination and blood tests which are an express condition precedent to the issuance of a contract insuring the life of the applicant or whether the incontestability provision in the contract controls).
§ Pieper v. Commercial Underwriters Ins. Co., 59 Cal. App. 4th 1008 (1997) (How to recover under an insurance policy when there are multiple causes of loss).
§ Safeco Ins. Co. v. Guyton, 692 F.2d 551 (9th Cir. 1982) (All risk homeowners policy provides coverage if a cause of the loss is covered, even though another cause of the loss is excluded).
Environmental
In connection with our real estate, land use, governmental, and other practices, our lawyers have been deeply involved in environmental litigation. Representative appellate matters include:
§ Greater Westchester Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles, 26 Cal. 3d 86 (1979) (Victims of airport nuisance may recover damages for emotional distress).
§ City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. 3d 447 (1974) (Claim for airport noise damage may be filed on behalf of class; but class lawsuit not appropriate, as each parcel is unique).
§ Friedman Bros. Inv. Co. v. Lewis, 676 F.2d 1317 (9th Cir. 1982) (Federal decision to fund project makes NEPA dispute ripe for decision).
§ City of Romulus v. County of Wayne, 634 F.2d 347 (6th Cir. 1980) (Adequacy of airport EIS and propriety of appellate review after completion of project).
§ Sierra Club v. Clark, 774 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1985) (Application of Federal Land Planning and Management Act).
§ No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 196 Cal. App. 3d 223 (1987) (Defense of action seeking to prevent petroleum exploration).
Other Matters:
Antitrust: Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield, 25 Cal. 4th 826 (2001) (trial court properly granted summary judgment for defendants, because plaintiff failed to show defendant petroleum companies had engaged in an antitrust/price-fixing conspiracy); Universal Analytics, Inc. v. MacNeal-Schwendler Corp., 707 F. Supp. 1170 (C.D. Cal. 1989), aff'd 914 F.2d 1256 (9th Cir. 1990) (First reported case of a claimed violation of Sherman Act section 2 as a result of alleged employee raiding or predatory hiring).
Government Entities: We represent government entities in a variety of appellate circumstances. For example, Manatt attorneys recently obtained a landmark ruling from the Connecticut Supreme Court on behalf of our client, a legislative impeachment committee, in Office of the Governor v. The Select Committee, 850 A.2d 181 (Conn. 2004). In a case of first impression throughout the country, Connecticut’s high court ruled that the committee could compel the testimony of a sitting governor. See also City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court, 13 Cal. 4th 232 (1996) (where deed is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence may be used to demonstrate fee transfer to city, defeating claims of transferor's heirs); City of Pasadena v. State, 14 Cal. App. 4th 810 (1993) (environmental impact of new probation facility properly analyzed; no due process claim because other cities paid for the move); Municipal Housing Auth. for the City of Yonkers v. NYS Emergency Fin. Ctl. Bd. for the City of Yonkers, 519 N.Y.S.2d 240 (App. Div. 1987) (public finance).
Employment: Our lawyers have also regularly been involved in various kinds of employment litigation. See Local 28, Sheetmetal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421 (1986) (remedies for Title VII discrimination in union apprentice program); Pollis v. New School for Social Research, 132 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1997) (interpretation of Equal Pay Act and Title VII); Williams v. City of New Orleans, 729 F.2d 1554 (5th Cir. 1984; en banc) (application of equal protection guarantee to Title VII litigation; class action settlements); Bratton v. City of Detroit, 704 F.2d 878 (6th Cir. 1983) (analysis of affirmative action, equal protection, and Title VII); Faculty of CUNY Law School v. Murphy, 539 N.Y.S.2d 637 (App. Div. 1989) (university faculty tenure).
ERISA: We have been trial and appellate defense counsel in numerous lawsuits involving alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or seeking remedies for allegedly wrongful denials of ERISA benefits, (e.g., Wyatt v. Masco Corp. Employee Disability Income Benefit Plan, 87 F.3d 1326 (9th Cir. 1996) (standard of review is the standard established in the plan); Cleghorn v. Blue Shield of California, 408 F. 3d 122 (9th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff’s class and representative claims were completely preempted by ERISA, because the only factual basis for those claim was the alleged denial of payment for emergency room treatment of plaintiff, an ERISA beneficiary).
Financial Services: Our counsel to banks, consumer finance companies, mortgage lenders and similar financial services companies facing class action lawsuits has involved extensive experience litigating class certification questions in trial and appellate courts.
Government Contracts: We represented NEC Business Communications Systems and Verizon California in the California Court of Appeal on two separate $1 billion contract disputes with the California Department of General Services.
First Amendment: Board of Trustees of SUNY v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 (1989) (analysis of permissible restrictions on commercial speech); Young v. New York City Transit Auth., 903 F.2d 146 (2d Cir. 1990) (analysis of permissible restrictions on expressive conduct); Johnson Newspaper Corp. v. Morton, 862 F.2d 25 (2d Cir. 1988) (press access to court proceedings).
Elections: We are regularly asked to litigate issues related to election laws. Such cases include McCauley v. BFP Direct Marketing, 16 Cal. App. 4th 1262 (1993) (interpretation of Political Reform Act); Escalante v. City of Hermosa Beach, 195 Cal. App. 3d 1009 (1987) (retroactivity of emergency amendment restricting third party delivery of absentee ballots); O'Conner v. Superior Court, 177 Cal. App. 3d 1013 (1986) (unfair business statutes do not apply to election campaign statements).
Auerbach v. Rettaliata, 765 F.2d 350 (2d Cir. 1985) (residency requirement for students not unconstitutional).
Torts: Smith v. Superior Court, 151 Cal. App. 3d 491 (1984), later appeal sub nom. Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Superior Court, 43 Cal. 3d 858 (1987). (First impression case recognizing the new American tort of intentional spoliation of evidence); Nestle v. City of Santa Monica, 6 Cal. 3d 920 (1972) (First impression case holding government agencies liable for nuisance; airport operator also held liable for maintaining dangerous condition of public property and for zoning violations); Scott v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal. App. 4th 125 (1994) (Jury allocation of fault between negligent and intentional tortfeasors).
Business Crimes: Our attorneys serve the needs of businesses, individuals, and government organizations faced with investigations, charges or verdicts involving business crime allegations, handling such matters from trial to argument before appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Procedural Issues
Sometimes, our substantive representation turns on procedural issues. We have successfully argued these (either on appeal or in extraordinary writ proceedings) to our clients' advantage. For example:
§ Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. v. City of Irvine, 2005 DJDAR 688 (2004) (Challenge to conditional use permit absolutely time barred).
§ Medisys Health Network, Inc. v. Local 348-S, Food & Commercial Workers, 337 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2003) (Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review trial court's remand of improperly removed case).
§ Gold v. Gold Realty Co., 114 Cal. App. 4th 791 (2003) (Power and process for appointing a receiver).
§ PBA, LLC v. KPOD, Ltd., 112 Cal. App. 4th 965 (2003) (Proper interpretation of statutes involving disqualification of judges and declaration of vexatious litigants).
§ STI Outdoor, LLC v. Superior Court, 91 Cal. App. 4th 334 (2001) (Application of Public Records Act to documents submitted to agency in confidence).
§ Marylander v. Superior Court, 81 Cal.App.4th 1119 (2000) (Public Records Act may not shield documents without judicial examination of conditional privilege invoked).
§ Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428 (9th Cir. 1990) (Trial judge had no inherent power to dismiss a case with prejudice without notice or opportunity for hearing).
§ City of Los Angeles v. Decker, 18 Cal. 3d 860 (1977) (Government attorneys owe duty to litigate fairly and not to mislead jury).
§ State ex rel. Nagel v. Crookham, 680 P.2d 652 (Or. 1984) (Pre-condemnation damages may be sought by counterclaim).
§ Murty v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Bd., 612 S.W.2d 765 (Ky. App. 1981) (Government's right to take property may not be challenged by interlocutory appeal).
Amicus Curiae
Manatt's lawyers regularly file amicus curiae briefs on behalf of individual or associational clients where issues in pending appellate cases are of broad potential impact. We have been able to join the firm's expansive substantive knowledge with the appellate practitioners' knowledge of the higher courts to help shape the law.
§ Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005) (scope of the “public use” concept in eminent domain).
§ San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Francisco, 125 S. Ct. 2491 (2005) (impact of full faith and credit act on property owner’s ability to sue for regulatory taking in federal court).
§ Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc., 125 S. Ct. 2074 (2005) (regulatory taking requires economic impact).
§ Marine Forests Society v. California Coastal Commn., 36 Cal. 4th 1 (2005) (constitutionally of the California Coastal Commission).
§ Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (Legislation which deprives property owner of beneficial or productive use of land is a taking; exceptions to this rule are narrow and must account for property owners expectations when property was acquired; legislative “findings” are not conclusive).
§ Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992) (Mobile home park rent and vacancy control regulations are not a physical taking of property; whether they are regulatory taking was not decided).
§ Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) (Permit condition which is unrelated to public burden to be caused by proposed development is void).
§ MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. County of Yolo, 477 U.S. 340 (1986) (Regulatory taking case held unripe for litigation).
§ Kirby Forest Indus., Inc. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1 (1984) (Constitution requires eminent domain valuation near date of taking).
§ Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980) (Regulatory taking case held unripe for litigation).
§ People v. Pena, 32 Cal. 4th 389 (2004) (Court of Appeal notice appearing to coerce waiver of oral argument is improper).
§ Olszewski v. Scripps Health, 30 Cal. 4th 798 (2003) (Healthcare providers cannot be retroactively liable for acting in accordance with a state medical lien statute that subsequently was invalidated).
§ Galland v. City of Clovis, 24 Cal.4th 1003 (2001) (City may be liable for damages for deprivation of property without substantive due process).
§ Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc., 23 Cal. 4th 116 (2000) (Disgorgement into fluid recovery fund not allowed in non-class “representative” Unfair Competition Law action).
§ City of San Diego v. Neumann, 6 Cal. 4th 738 (1993) (In direct condemnation, "larger parcel" can be determined by examining unity of future use).
§ Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 48 Cal. 3d 395 (1989) (Homeowners' insurance policy provides coverage if a covered peril is a substantial cause of the loss).
§ Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth., 39 Cal. 3d 862 (1985) (Public agency liable in inverse condemnation even if it lacks power to condemn; airport operation is continuing nuisance).
§ Redevelopment Agency v. Gilmore, 38 Cal. 3d 790 (1985) (Just compensation guarantee includes interest at market rate).
§ Jones v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation, 22 Cal. 3d 144 (1978) (State is liable in inverse condemnation when its highway plans result in elimination of access to private property).
§ Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 380 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2004) (Copyright implications of peer-to-peer file sharing computer networking software).
§ Santini v. Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service, 342 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2003) (Fairness demands ability of property owner to reserve federal issues for federal court litigation when compelled to litigate in state court).
§ ETW Corp. v. Jireh Pub., Inc., 332 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2003) (1st Amendment protected use of athlete's name and image).
§ MediaOne Group, Inc. v. County of Henrico, 257 F.3d 356 (4th Cir. 2001) (Federal law pre-empts local regulation of cable television franchise).
§ Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 255 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) (1st Amendment protects speech that is not purely commercial).
§ Allen v. Lloyd's of London, 94 F.3d 923 (4th Cir. 1996) (Validity of insurer's reorganization plan).
§ Medical Staff of Sharp Mem. Hosp. v. Superior Court, 121 Cal. App. 4th 173 (2004) (Court will not “second guess” medical staff about physician's fitness to continue maintaining staff privileges [describing Manatt analysis as “persuasive”]).
Administrative Agency Actions
We represent business clients in appeals of proceedings before federal and state regulatory agencies responsible for antitrust, banking, employment, environmental, tax and numerous other oversight functions. A partial list of U.S. governmental bodies before which our attorneys have appeared includes:
§ Federal Trade Commission
§ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
§ National Labor Relations Board
§ Office of Federal Contract Compliance
§ Environmental Protection Agency
§ Internal Revenue Service
§ Office of the Inspector General
§ Comptroller of the Currency
We also handle state and local administrative appeals before bodies ranging from State Banking Commissions, State Insurance Commissions, and State Coastal Commissions to local zoning and property tax appeals boards.
Pro Bono
Manatt also is widely known for its pro bono work. For example, in Ruth T. Hairston v. Office of Personnel Management, 318 F.3d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2003), we obtained reversal of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board denying 82-year-old widow Ruth Hairston’s application for a former spouse survivor annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System. The Federal Circuit held that the original notice sent by the federal government was confusing and therefore ineffective. Thus, Ms. Hairston was entitled to receive the former spouse survivor annuity.
|
RSS | Blog | Advertising Opportunities | Site Map | Contact Us