Transcript Public Interest Litigation

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
Michael Rawson
Co-Director, Public Interest Law Project
The Public Interest Law Project
449 15th Street, Suite 301
Oakland, CA 94612
510 891 9794
www.pilpca.org
Public Interest Litigation
What is it?
It’s Exactly the Same….

“Services Cases”

Administrative Actions

Impact Litigation
But, It’s Completely Different
Supported by Program Resources, not Client
Resources

Clients Unable to Bear Costs of Loss

Resources Severely Limited =
–

Inherent Tension Between Individual and Impact
Cases
Legal Services Corporation Restrictions
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
RESTRICTIONS

Not Permitted
–
–
–
–

Class Action Limitations
Representation of Undocumented Immigrants
Collection of Attorneys Fees
Prohibition on Lobbying
Permitted
–
–
Suits seeking injunctive relief and writ relief
OK if Injunction provides class-wide relief
In the Public Interest
1. Not Private Business or Government
2. Never Only for the Client
•
Results will have broad impact
3. Never in Isolation—Part of Coordinated Advocacy
– Partners:

Community Based Organizations (CBOs)
–

–
Labor, Faith-Based, Social Justice, Environmental
Sometimes Government
Types: Legislative, Administrative, Political
Examples from PILP

Urban Habitat v. City of Pleasanton
–
–

Watkins v. Alameda County
–
–
–

TRO Halting County from Implementing Time Limits on General
Assistance
With Bay Area Legal Aid
Coordinated Advocacy Strategy w/ EBCLC & CBOs
Arroyo Vista Tenants Association v. City of Dublin
–
–

Court of Appeal Reinstated Exclusionary Zoning Suit
With Public Advocates, Urban Habitat & Local Housing Activists
TRO Requiring Housing Authority and City Stop Involuntary Relocation
of Tenants
With Bay Area Legal Aid and AVTA
Price v. Stockton Redevelopment Agency
–
Injunction and Settlement Halting Displacement of SRO residents and
requiring the development of 360 affordable units downtown
THE NUTS & BOLTS OF
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
Federal & State Court
See “Choice of Relief in Calif. State
Courts….” Richard Rothschild (WCLP)
Federal Court – Options Limited

Class Action

Sometimes—Class-Wide Injunction In
Non-Class Action
•
If Relief Necessary to Redress Injury
•
Group Plaintiffs Generally Needed-See Price v. Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.
2004)
• Injury to Mission & Expenditure of Resources
Class Action Requirements Significant

FRCP 23
–
–
–

(a) numerosity, commonality typicality and
adequacy of class rep
(b) injunctive relief
(c) damages—greater commonality nexus
Injunctive Relief Available Only After Class
Cert.
Federal Jurisdictional & Procedural
Hurdles

Standing (Constitution, Article III)
–
–
–

Individual Injury “In Fact”
Proximate Cause
Redress By Courts Possible
Private “Right of Action”
–
–
Congress Intended to Create Individual Right?
Congress Intended Judicial Enforcement by
Individual?


Alexander v. Sandoval, 121 S.Ct. 1511 (2001)
Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002)
42 USC §1983: Provides
Redress and Enforceability Against
Government

Requires deprivation of a “federal right”
secured by the “Constitution and laws”


So, IF Congress created Individual Right,


By a person acting under color of state law
1983 Provides Presumption of Enforceability
Attorneys’ Fees available (42 USC §1988)
State Court – More Options
In Suing Government
- Individual Suit– Broader Standing
- Organizational Suit—Broader Standing
- Class Action (CCP 382 et seq.)—More Flexible
PLUS:
- Taxpayer Suit (CCP §526a)
- Writ of Mandate (CCP §1085)
More Options Suing Private Entity

Individual Suit & Organizational Suit

Unlawful Business Practice (B & PC §17200)
–
Caveat: Since Prop. 64 plaintiffs must be individually
injured and meet the class action requirements.

-Class Action (CCP 382 et seq.)


More flexible requirements
Injunctive Relief Easier to Obtain
INDIVIDUAL & ORGANIZATIONAL
STANDING

Individual Suits
–
Stocks v. City of Irvine, 114 Cal.App.3d 520 (1981)



Persons Living Outside Jurisdiction Can Attack
Exclusionary Zoning
Significant Public Interest can be sufficient for standing
Organizational Suits
–
Injury to Mission can establish standing if:


Strong Public Interest
Writ of Mandate (Enforcing Duty of Government to Obey
Law
WRIT OF MANDATE—CCP 1085

To Compel Government to Obey Law
–

Standing—Extremely Broad
–
–
–

To Perform any Mandatory Duty
Any “beneficially interested” person
Anyone having interest in execution of the laws
Green v. Obledo, 29 Cal.3d 126, 144 (1981)
Relief—Class-like Effect
TAX PAYER SUIT (CCP 526a)

Standing to Sue Government
–

Payment of Sales Tax Possibly Not Enough
–

Blair v. Pitchess, 5 Cal.3d 258, 267-70 (1971)
Torres v. City of Yorba Linda, 13 Cal.App.4th at
1046-48
But Homeless People Have Standing to
Challenge No-Camping Law
–
Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1086
(1995)
CLASS ACTIONS in Calif. (CCP 382)

Requirements: (Similar to Feds)
–
–
–
–
–

Ascertainable Class
“Well defined community of interests”
Common Questions of Law & Fact “Predominate”
Typicality
Adequacy of Representation
Relief
–
–
–
Injunctive Relief Before Certification (CCP 527)
Non-Unanimous Jury
Cy Pres
“CAREERS” IN PUBLIC
INTEREST LITIGATION
--Or Something
Else…
More than a Job—
A Different Kind of Wealth

Many Options
–
–
–
–
–


Legal Services
Nonprofit Public Interest
Labor Law
Consumer Class Action Firm
Some Government Jobs
Provide Professional Opportunities Equal to Big Firms
Court Awarded Attorneys Fees—The Equalizer
–
–
–
Federal: 42 U.S.C. §1988 (and other Civil Rights Statutes)
State: CCP §1021.5 (and other Statutory Provisions)
California– Catalyst Fees Still Available