Home About RSS

Mills Legal Clinic of Stanford Law School

A Busy Week for the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic

On October 11, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the clinic’c case Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc., which presents the question whether the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act’s prohibition against charging unearned fees applies only to kickbacks, or also where the entity making the loan simply pockets the fraudulent charge. Clinic instructor Kevin Russell is lead counsel, and clinic students Emily Curran, Alex Aronson, Craig Lavoie and Ted Kider will now work on drafting our opening brief in the case.

On the same day, clinic co-director Jeffrey Fisher argued Greene v. Fisher before the Court and, on the following day, instructor Tom Goldstein argued Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders – altogether a busy week for the clinic!

Report Finds Flaws in Stipulated Removal Process

Professor Jayashri Srikantiah, Director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic collaborated with the Western State Immigration Clinic and the National Immigration Law Center on a report published last month revealing that the federal stipulated removal program violates immigrants’ due process rights.  The report, titled “Deportation without Due Process“ finds that for the past decade, the federal stipulated removal program has provided detainees an opportunity to waive hearing rights and order their own deportations without full disclosure and explanation of the consequences.  The full story, as reported by the Stanford Daily, can be found here.

ELC Succeeds in Efforts to Protect State Park Natural Habitat

Environmental Law Clinic student Holley Horrell successfully convinced the California Department of Parks and Recreation to prohibit private cattle grazing in Tolowa Dunes State Park (Del Norte County) on the banks of the pristine Smith River.  

In May 2011, the clinic sent a detailed letter to the Parks Department that its permits authorizing a private dairy farm to graze cattle on 230 acres of public land along the Yontocket and Tolowa Sloughs were illegal, and that the grazing was adversely impacting those acres and surrounding habitat.  For many years, the private grazing permits violated laws governing the management of California’s state parks, and the California Coastal Act.  As a direct result of the letter Holley prepared, the Parks Department has now agreed to comply with its legal duties, respect the intended purpose of Tolowa Dunes State Park, and prohibit the cattle from grazing within the park.  The cessation of grazing will help protect the Park’s wetlands and dunes ecosystems, which provide critical habitat for threatened and endangered species as well as migratory birds.

Environmental Law Clinic News, 2010-2011

Over the course of the 2010-2011 academic year, the Environmental Law Clinic brought to a conclusion some very long-standing matters and embarked on several new ones, with students drafting complaints, motions, and appellate briefs, and presenting or helping to prepare for oral arguments before various state and federal courts.    

Building on the prior work of clinic students before an administrative tribunal and then a state trial court, Collin Wedel ’11 successfully defended the clinic’s earlier victory before a state appellate panel in the auspicious setting of the California Supreme Courtroom in San Francisco.  Following a cogent and persuasive oral argument by Collin, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, upholding the administrative dissolution of a rogue water district that had impeded the state’s efforts to purchase property from willing sellers in the coastal estuary formed by the three forks of the Smith River in Northern California – the only undammed coastal river system in the state.  The properties in question are effectively undevelopable for physical and legal reasons, and the state has been purchasing them for inclusion in an existing wildlife refuge.  The dissolution of the water district eliminates a major obstacle to the acquisition program.  Collin also led the clinic’s defense of a Ninth Circuit victory in our Eagle Mountain Landfill matter – a decade-old case involving federal approval for what would be the nation’s largest garbage dump adjacent to Joshua Tree National Park – drafting oppositions to both a petition for rehearing en banc and a later petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Collin closed out the year, and his law school career, by drafting the lead argument in an amicus brief for the D.C. Circuit (filed jointly with the Columbia Law School environmental clinic) that supported the U.S. EPA’s “endangerment” finding for greenhouse gas pollutants – the first, necessary step in addressing these emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Several clinic students worked throughout the year to develop and prosecute a potentially ground-breaking agricultural water pollution case on behalf of Monterey Coastkeeper.  During the fall quarter, Brigid DeCoursey ’12, Aviva Horrow ’12, and Emma Laughlin ’12 researched a variety of legal theories and drafted the complaint.  The client’s goal is to force agricultural polluters, who are exempt from regulation under the federal Clean Water Act, to begin cleaning up their discharge of pesticides, nutrients, and sediment into public waters, an activity that threatens both public health and the ecosystem.  The case focuses on the intensive farming activities in the Salinas Valley, where roughly half of all rural groundwater wells contain contaminants in excess of the drinking water standards and virtually all local surface waters exceed applicable state standards for toxics, nitrogen, sediment, or temperature.  After the case was filed, Corinne Johnson ’12 and Jonathan Leland ’12 drafted a brief in opposition to the water agency defendant’s 14-point demurrer (motion to dismiss) and presented oral argument in the trial court, which overruled the demurrer on all claims and allowed the case to proceed to trial.  In the spring quarter, Brigid and Corinne returned as advanced clinic students to successfully fend off defendant’s attempt to bifurcate the case and to launch our discovery effort, which is ongoing. 

Clinic students also were busy this year with a case challenging the adequacy of the environmental review for a Marin County general plan amendment, specifically the analysis of impacts on the highly imperiled coho salmon.  Coho salmon are a unique “anadromous” species, meaning they are born in fresh water, swim out to the ocean to spend their lives, and three years later return to their native stream to spawn and die.  They are vulnerable to adverse impacts caused by human activity at each stage of this journey, and the federal wildlife agency responsible for their recovery has stated that coho salmon along the California coast are in an “extinction vortex.”  The coho run most likely to survive this vortex is the one that spawns in the San Geronimo Valley in Marin.  But creekside development causes sediment loading and water warming that can doom coho spawning, and recent years have seen a dramatic decline in returning adult fish.  Our client, the Salmon Protection and Watershed Network (SPAWN), which has long urged the County to impose more protective development standards in the stream zone, finally felt compelled to sue when the County failed to act.  During fall quarter, Khalial Withen ’12 drafted and argued an opposition to an intervention motion filed by a small group of local landowners, who made it clear that they intended to move for dismissal of the case.  Despite Khalial’s strong argument, the court granted the motion, allowing intervention so that the landowner’s theory of dismissal could be briefed.  In the spring, Tori Ballif ’12 helped draft our demurrer to the complaint in intervention and later took a break from her summer job at NRDC to successfully argue the matter before the trial judge.  The result was dismissal of the intervention complaint, which also mooted intervenors’ pending summary judgment motion, allowing us to proceed with the merits of our claims.  Between her other projects, Corinne Johnson ’12 got a good start on our trial brief, which will be filed this fall.    

Stephanie Lake ’12 also argued before a trial court in our own attempt to intervene in a challenge by recreational fishing organizations to California’s recent adoption of marine protected areas along the coast.  Our clients, NRDC and the Ocean Conservancy, have been involved in the administrative process leading to these protected areas for several years and sought to intervene in support of the state.  Stephanie worked closely with the clients to put together a very persuasive motion, supported by more than half a dozen declarations by members of the client organizations, and she traveled to San Diego on the Friday before spring exams to argue the motion.  Although the court was concerned about opening the floodgates to potential intervenors and, for this reason, ultimately denied our motion, Stephanie’s courtroom presentation was polished and cogent, especially in the face of some trying circumstances.  In particular, the court issued a tentative ruling against our clients the day before the hearing and proceeded at the hearing on the assumption that we had seen that ruling, even though none of the lawyers in the courtroom had actually received it.  Although that situation created some confusion (and some added stress), Stephanie remained poised and collected throughout and garnered a nice compliment from opposing counsel after the argument.  Earlier in the year, Stephanie was deeply involved in the drafting of an amicus brief on behalf of the U.S. EPA in a D.C. Circuit Court case that flowed out of the clinic’s ten-year effort to reduce the discharge of invasive species from cargo vessels.  That brief helped convince the court to reject a challenge to the first-ever EPA permit regulating these vessel discharges.    

The clinic’s 13 years of work to protect the 10,000-year-old sacred Medicine Lake Highlands landscape from development, on behalf of the Pit River Tribe and others, continued throughout the year with settlement negotiations and two road trips to the northeastern corner of California, where Tori Ballif ’12, Siew Kwok ’12, Annie Bersagel ’12, and Adam Thomas ’11 all made presentations to the Tribal Council (and, in one case, federal agencies) as a follow-up to our earlier victory in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  At the close of one of these meetings, the former Tribal Chair praised the students’ clarity and professionalism, announcing to the rest of the Council that “Now, that’s the way all of our attorneys ought to make presentations.”

Following up on his earlier briefing and argument in the trial court last year, graduating 3L Justin Goodwin ’11 authored the opening brief for a Ninth Circuit appeal in our challenge to the State Department’s failure to consider the impacts of its annual shrimp import certifications on endangered sea turtles.  Dating back to the time of the dinosaurs, sea turtles are teetering on the brink of extinction today.  Entanglement with shrimp vessels is a major source of sea turtle mortality, with tens (or hundreds) of thousands of them drowning in shrimp nets around the globe each year.  While the U.S. imposes gear restrictions on domestic shrimp fishing vessels, in the form of so-called “turtle excluder devices,” many other countries do not.  Thus, Congress required that any nation wishing to export shrimp to the lucrative U.S. market must meet comparable gear requirements.  Our client, Turtle Island Restoration Network, challenged the State Department’s failure to properly implement this law, but the case was dismissed on procedural grounds.  Aviva Horrow ’12 and Annie Bersagel ’12 contributed to briefing of the appeal, which is now set for oral argument in November 2011.

Two students penned detailed substantive letters to bring about policy changes.  Holley Horrell ’12 convinced the California Department of Parks and Recreation to end harmful private cattle grazing in Tolowa Dunes State Park (Del Norte County) on the banks of the pristine Smith River.  Allen Gleckner ’11 provided insightful comments in his letter to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement – formerly the Minerals Management Service – urging the agency to reevaluate its use of “categorical exclusions” in the environmental review process for oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico.  Such an exemption from environmental analysis and disclosure preceded the disastrous Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010.

Several students also did yeoman work on our case challenging grazing allotments in the Bodie Hills area of the Eastern Sierra, which provides prime habitat for the imperiled sage grouse.  Several years ago, clinic students drafted a petition to list the sage grouse as endangered.  In 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service responded to the petition by finding that such a listing is “warranted but precluded,” meaning that although the species deserves to be listed under the Endangered Species Act based on its declining status, the agency has no resources to do so at this time.  In light of this finding, the clinic brought suit challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s continued allowance of destructive cattle grazing practices in important sage grouse habitat.  Siew Kwok ’12 and Tori Ballif ’12 began drafting a preliminary injunction motion during the fall quarter and Holley Horrell ’12 picked up the project during the winter and spring quarters, putting together the arguments for what will ultimately be our summary judgment brief and working closely with our outside expert.  We expect the case to go to hearing in March 2012.

Our spring quarter ended with an argument before the California Supreme Court in another long-standing case involving the adverse impacts of the cooling water system at the Moss Landing Power Plant on the Elkhorn Slough coastal estuary.  Holley Horrell ’12 invested countless hours helping prepare the clinic director for the argument and sitting second chair during the hearing.  This latest phase was the culmination of the client’s long effort to ensure that the cooling technology employed at the Moss Landing Power Plant is the “best technology available to minimize adverse environmental impact” as required by the federal Clean Water Act.  Our work in this arena continues, however, with the clinic’s administrative advocacy for a new state cooling water policy and our recent intervention to defend that policy in a case filed by private power plants.

All of our students contributed to the clinic’s successes by workshopping briefs and mooting fellow students for oral arguments and presentations.  The clinic’s work was overseen by Clinic Director and Luke W. Cole Professor of Environmental Law Deborah Sivas ‘87, Supervising Attorney Alicia Thesing ‘00, and Clinical Fellow Robb Kapla BA ‘99, MS ‘00.  As always, Lynda Johnston provided invaluable legal assistance.  Robb has now “graduated” from his teaching fellowship to join the Sierra Club as a Staff Attorney where we wish him well.  With his departure, we welcomed the return of Leah Russin, a former Teaching Fellow, who now joins us as Staff Attorney.  In the interim, she served as environmental counsel to U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and as Senior Counsel to the Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Enforcement and Regulation.  Leah returns with a wealth of Washington, D.C. experience to share with students.

Clinic Victory in Court Secures Confrontation Rights in Prosecution

On June 23, 2011, the Court ruled in favor of the clinic’s client in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, holding that the prosecution violates the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause when it introduces one person’s forensic lab report through the in-court testimony of a different analyst. The opinion can be found here.

Two years ago, the clinic won an important victory by a five-to-four vote in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, in which the Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause prohibits the prosecution in a criminal case from introducing a forensic laboratory report without putting a live witness from the lab on the stand. Yesterday, the clinic solidified and extended that victory.

Acting again by a five-to-four margin, the Court ruled in favor of the clinic’s client, Donald Bullcoming, holding that the Confrontation Clause requires the prosecution to produce not just any witness from a lab, but a particular witness: the person who performed the test and wrote the report at issue. The Court thus reversed Mr. Bullcoming’s conviction because the State had put the lab supervisor on the stand instead of the actual analyst who conducted the test at issue.

Five recent graduates worked on the clinic’s briefs in the case and helped prepare for oral argument: Jud Campbell, Jacqueline de Armas, Kyle Maurer, Josh Patashnik, and Masha Hansford. Professor Jeff Fisher led the team and was assisted by clinic co-director Professor Pam Karlan, as well as the Washington, DC based firm of Goldstein, Howe & Russell.

See coverage on SCOTUSBlog here and here (opinion), and on The New York Times.

Spring Quarter Accomplishments for Youth and Education Law Project

The students, faculty and staff of the Mills Legal Clinic’s Youth and Education Law Project completed the spring quarter with a series of wonderful accomplishments.  In each of these projects, the students had opportunities to develop their expertise in factual investigations, legal writing, client counseling, negotiations, legal research and advocacy.

YELP Students Negotiate a High Schooler’s Return to School

Ashley Rogers (‘12) and Peter Squeri (‘12) represented fifteen-year-old J.T., a tenth-grader, in a school disciplinary matter. J.T. was suspended and faced possible expulsion from high school following an alleged off-campus incident during school hours. In lieu of initiating formal expulsion proceedings, the school district threatened to involuntarily transfer J.T. to a non-comprehensive continuation high school—an increasingly common practice that allows school administrators to effectively remove students from comprehensive high schools without due process. Ashley and Peter met with a school district representative and J.T. to negotiate an agreement in which J.T. would be allowed to return to his comprehensive high school. The school district dropped its recommendation to involuntarily transfer J.T. to the continuation high school and agreed to let J.T. return to his high school immediately. J.T. is now back in school, completing the remainder of his tenth-grade year.

YELP Students Secure Education Services for a Student with Mental Health Needs

When third grader “CC”’s case first came to YELP, CC was in the hospital on a psychiatric hold.  It was his second extended stay in the hospital due to his psychosis.  CC also has autism and a speech and language impairment.  When CC was released, the school district offered him a 2-hour per day placement, with the possibility that he could earn one additional hour pending five consecutive days of non-aggressive behavior.  In short, CC had to earn back his time in school because of his disability.  Furthermore, the school was not equipped to handle his needs, but refused to refer him to a school that could.  YELP advocated for, and received, a referral to the local county mental health department, as well as multiple assessments from the school.  YELP also wrote a letter to the school’s counsel requesting that the school fund placement in a nonpublic therapeutic school. As a result of YELP’s persistent advocacy, CC has been referred to a nonpublic school and his school team is exploring residential treatment options that would enable him to succeed in school and develop much-needed life skills.  Stephanie Klitsch (’12), Sam Roberge (’12), Charlie Wysong (’12), and Kyle Wislocky (’12) have worked on this matter.

YELP Students Advocate for Clean, Safe, and Accessible School Facilities for Child with Disabilities

Beth Kolbe (’12) and Alex Tischenko (’12) worked with a 2nd grade girl with severe medical fragility that results in her use of a power wheelchair, a ventilator, and a feeding tube.  Beth and Alex filed a “Williams” complaint on the family’s behalf, asking the school to address the sewage in the bathroom, mold in the classroom, and feces that another student had been spreading in an adjacent classroom, each of which posed a serious danger to their client’s health.  In addition, at a meeting with school district representatives, Beth and Alex advocated to get an assessment for occupational and physical therapy as well as an assistive technology assessment.  Additionally, they increased her speech and language and adaptive physical education services.

Advocating for Appropriate Educational Services for Struggling Tenth Grader

W.C. is a 17-year old tenth grader receiving special education services at a local high school. When he came to YELP, W.C. had recently been pulled from his Algebra course rather than being given additional academic support to help him succeed in the class.  YELP students Chris Wilson (’12) and Paisley Kadison (’12) performed an investigation to determine whether W.C. was being denied appropriate special education services at his school.  They also attended a meeting at W.C.’s school to review and modify his Individualized Education Program (“IEP”). Chris and Paisley convinced the school district to provide additional academic support accommodations, expedite an assessment to shed light on how W.C.’s particular disabilities are affecting his academic progress, and to determine if he requires assistive technology to be successful in his classes.

Getting Support for and Avoiding Punishment of a Student with Emotional Disabilities

I.S. is a seventh-grader who has autism.  When he came to YELP, I.S. was facing expulsion from his middle school for making comments about bringing guns to school during a conversation with other students in his class.  I.S. made no actual threats toward anyone in his comments, and denied that he wanted to hurt anyone when asked directly.  School administration summarily decided that his statements were not a manifestation of I.S.’s autism—had they determined otherwise, the school would have been legally precluded from expelling him—and barred him from returning to the school.  For three months, I.S. received only one hour of school instruction per day in his home. With the advocacy and support of YELP students Stephanie Klitsch (’12) and Chris Wilson (’12), a district psychologist reevaluated I.S. and determined that his comments were, in fact, a manifestation of his autism.  He was placed in a different middle school in the district that offered increased support services, and a plan was developed that would allow teachers and school staff to respond appropriately to I.S.’s autism-related behavior.  Stephanie and Chris also worked with I.S.’s parents to write a letter to the district superintendent, requesting that all records related to the aborted expulsion be expunged from I.S.’s school files.

Fighting for the Integration of a Student with Disabilities

Beth Kolbe (‘12) and Paisley Kadison (‘12) have been working with a young boy who is nonverbal and has autism.  When Beth and Paisley got the case, the student had been pulled out of his classroom due to autism-related behaviors and was being taught by himself in a “closet” off of the school library.  Since Beth and Paisley got involved, the student has been integrated into his classroom again and the school district has started the process of ordering an iPad that has software to help him communicate.  Beth is continuing to work on the case and will represent the family at an upcoming meeting with the school.

Professor Bill Koski (the Eric and Nancy Wright Professor of Clinical Education) directs the Youth and Education Law Project, and Carly Munson is the Bingham McCutcheon Youth and Education Clinical Fellow. Joanne Newman provides excellent legal assistance.

Supreme Court Litigation Clinic Lands Two Important Victories This Week

This week the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic scored victories in two major cases. See below.

United States v. Tinklenberg, 09-1498

On Thursday, May 26, 2011, the Court ruled in favor of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic’s client in United States v. Tinklenberg, holding that the federal Speedy Trial Act allows only ten calendar days beyond its 70-day limit for purposes of transporting defendants to competency examinations. The opinion is here.

Brown v. Plata, 09-133

On Monday, May 23, 2011, the Court ruled in favor of clinic’s client, the California Correctional and Peace Officers Association, in Brown v. Plata, holding that the State must reduce its prison population by tens of thousands of inmates in order to provide constitutionally adequate health care services to prisoners.  The opinion is here. See coverage in the New York Times.

Update from the Community Law Clinic

I am writing to report on some of the great work being done by our students at the Community Law Clinic, who continue to maintain a full docket of civil matters representing low-income people in the communities surrounding the law school.  This past winter quarter, the students worked on a variety of housing, employment, and expungement matters.  A summary is below.

 Housing

Several students this past quarter represented clients facing eviction.  In each case, representation included legal research, client counseling, negotiation (often in the context of strong legal defenses articulated by the students) and the drafting of settlement agreements.  

Katharine McFarland & Alex Aronson (both ’12) represented an elderly, low-income Filipino couple who were completely lost in the legal system when they were served with an eviction suit for nonpayment of rent.  The students identified deficiencies with the service of the summons and complaint, and filed a motion to quash.  Pending the hearing date, the students negotiated an arrangement with the landlord’s lawyer that gave the tenants a reasonable time to find new housing. 

Dan Galindo (’12) represented a tenant whose landlord instructed her to stop paying rent after her home was scheduled to be sold at a foreclosure sale last July.  At that time, the landlord removed the kitchen appliances, leaving her with a completely non-functional kitchen.  In January, the landlord returned and sued her for possession of her home as well as for six months of back rent, claiming that his ownership of the home was never extinguished.  Dan served the landlord with discovery requests, which persuaded the landlord to drop the lawsuit altogether, and gave the tenant enough time to secure alternative housing.

Daisy Sanchez (’12) and Jess Oliva (’11) represented a man who was living in the single family home he and his estranged wife had occupied together until their separation 10 years ago.  The house had gone into foreclosure and the new owner was seeking possession.  Daisy and Jess, like their colleagues, were able to negotiate a reasonable relocation plan and a waiver of rent allegedly owing. 

Dayo Fashoro and Jenny Holmes (both ’12) represented a man who was sued for eviction on the basis of nonpayment of rent.  The students identified a strong legal defense and, in light of their intent to move for summary judgment, were able to negotiate terms on which their client maintained possession of the unit.

Maureen Keffer (’11) represented a 97-year old woman who was being evicted from the apartment she had lived in for more than decades.  Because her tenancy had converted to month-to-month, the tenant in fact had no legal right to stay beyond a legal notice period.  Based on the client’s extreme age and related disabilities, Maureen was able to negotiate a lengthy relocation period.  Maureen also helped her client identify alternative elderly subsidized housing, and to move in with a relative in the interim period (note that waiting lists for occupancy in any subsidized housing in the county are extremely long). 

J. Robert Garcia (‘12) and Julia B. Cherlow (‘12) successfully represented their client in an unlawful detainer action. Their client endured harassment from the landlord, and lived in an illegal and uninhabitable unit lacking heat and locks. Rob & Julia were able to negotiate an agreeable departure date, waiver of four months’ of back rent, and the return of their client’s security deposit. 

Dayo Fashoro (‘12) and Allison Pedrazzi (‘11) represented a tenant, recently disabled as a result of a motorcycle accident, who was being evicted on the basis of a faulty notice alleging inaccurate amounts of rent.  Based on their conversations with opposing counsel, the complaint was dismissed and the client was able to remain in his apartment.

Finally, Emily Roberts (’11) and Christy Holstege (’12) represented a Tongan family who fell behind in their rent at their HUD-subsidized apartment.  Emily and Christy identified a lease provision, backed up by federal regulations, that required a landlord participating in this program, to respond to a tenant’s representation that his or her income had decreased and conduct a re-calculation of rent.  The landlord’s failure to do so in this case put the clinic’s clients in a relatively stronger bargaining position, as did the clinic’s propounding of discovery regarding the landlord’s practices with respect to this requirement.  Christy and Emily were able to negotiate a very favorable settlement for the client family.  The case also gave Christy and Emily the opportunity to negotiate against a very inflexible landlord attorney, learning valuable lessons about when to fight (amount of rent waived) and when to fold (what word to use).

 Employment

Allison Pedrazzi (’11) represented a day laborer in the house painting industry, who began being underpaid when the economy slowed down.  His employer offered vague assurances that he would be paid in full “soon,” but after three months of not being paid at all, the worker quit.  He asked for his wages from the employer repeatedly.  Ten months later, he came to the clinic and Allison was able to negotiate with his employer prior to filing an official complaint.  The client was thrilled to recovered four thousand dollars in unpaid wages and penalties.

Nancy Hanna (’11) and Rob Garcia (’12) represented an auto mechanic who worked at a San Mateo auto shop.  When our client left the job, the boss failed altogether to pay him for his final week of work.  Nancy, who initiated this case a year ago, attempted to negotiate, and finally filed a claim in the state labor agency on the client’s behalf.  Finally, after numerous promises and missed meetings, the employer paid a settlement of the wages plus penalties literally on the day of the scheduled hearing.  Jacques Ntomne (’12) also worked on this case during his quarter at the clinic.

Recently, Jessica Ou (‘11) and Maureen Keffer (‘11) successfully represented a kitchen worker in a claim against his former employer, a Palo Alto restaurant. Based on an exhaustive review of the client’s payroll records, they determined he was owed thousands of dollars in unpaid overtime wages. When the employer failed to respond to their initial demand for compensation, they filed a claim with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. The pressure paid off, and the Clinic ultimately achieved a settlement of $9,300, amounting to all of the client’s unpaid overtime, plus a substantial portion of the waiting time penalties to which he as entitled under California law.

Expungement & Licensing

Dayo Fashoro (‘12) helped a client expunge a misdemeanor conviction from her record in Santa Clara County Superior Court.  Over the past few years, Dayo’s client developed a passion for working in health care, but had been unable to secure employment as a certified medical assistant because of her conviction.  With her criminal record cleared, Dayo’s client is eager to start the next chapter of her life, which will include returning to school to become a registered dietician and help others fight preventable disease.

Jess Ou (‘11) represented a former expungement client of the clinic in an appeal for her security guard licensure.  The California Bureau of Safety and Investigative Services had previously denied Jess’s client her security guard license, citing her extensive criminal record.  Jess engaged in intensive negotiations with the California Attorney General’s offices, collecting and providing the Bureau and AG with proof of her client’s rehabilitation, her expungements, her recent award of guardianship, and her role as an upstanding member of the community.  After several weeks, the Bureau ultimately awarded Jess’s client with a three year probationary licensure arrangement.  Combined with her expunged record, this probationary licensure arrangement will finally permit Jess’s client to fully pursue her professional goals.

Jess Ou (‘11) successfully represented a client in San Mateo County Superior Court on an expungement matter.  Her client’s convictions occurred many years ago, when he was coping with recent immigration to the United States.  He hoped to have his criminal record expunged in order to close the preceding chapter of his life, so that he could obtain secure, permanent employment in his trade and provide for his new family.  Jess drafted three expungement motions in this case and collected substantial supporting documentation.  Upon oral argument in San Mateo Superior Court, the judge granted all three of the expungement motions at his discretion and in the interests of justice.  Jess’s client looks forward to moving on in his life, and to building a home with his wife and three young children.

Jennifer Holmes (’12) represented a client in an expungement case in San Mateo County Superior Court to a successful result.  Jennifer’s client was seeking expungement of four misdemeanor convictions in order to broaden her employment opportunities and to seek recognition from the court of her successful drug rehabilitation, adult education achievements, and other recovery efforts.  Jennifer drafted and filed four motions and argued those motions before the court.  Despite the District Attorney’s opposition to the motions, the judge granted expungement of all four convictions.  The expungements will bolster the client’s pending job application, and she feels like she has been given a second chance.

Alex Aronson (’12) successfully represented a client on two expungement matters in San Mateo and Santa Clara County Superior Courts. Alex’s client approached the clinic seeking to expunge his outstanding convictions: a misdemeanor and a nonviolent felony that occurred over 20 years ago. His client hoped to clear his record in order to pursue a career in the real estate industry, and to formally close the door on a troubled chapter of his life. In addition to securing the expungements, and despite vocal opposition from the Santa Clara D.A., Alex successfully argued for the felony conviction to be reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to California Penal Code §17(b). His client expressed great relief and optimism about moving forward with his life, having shed the social and professional stigmas attached to a felony conviction.

Julia B. Cherlow (’12) successfully represented a client in Santa Clara County Superior Court on an expungement matter.  Julia’s client approached the clinic because she wanted to expunge a series of felony and misdemeanor convictions from the 1990s that were preventing her from securing employment. Last March, clinic student Stephanie Rudolph (’11) represented this same client in an initial filing. Although one mandatory expungement was granted, three discretionary petitions were denied and the client was told to, “Come back in 20 years.” Despite this disappointment, Julia refiled the three discretionary motions this February, highlighting the passage of time since her client’s convictions. During oral argument, the D.A. fought vociferously against granting relief; however, the judge ultimately recognized Julia’s client’s transformation and granted the requested expungements and felony conviction reductions in the interests of justice. Right after the hearing, Julia’s client thanked the clinic for providing her, “the first good outcome I’ve ever seen come out of a courthouse!”

Dan Galindo (’12) represented an expungement client who had been haunted by a plea deal for more than 15 years for a fairly controversial misdemeanor conviction.  Dan’s client approached SCLC to pursue an expungement as a step toward restoring his dignity. In the fall, Jacques Ntonme (‘12) researched how an infraction while on probation and a court-ordered modification of probation might affect the client’s chances at expungement. This quarter, Dan prepared a motion and supporting documents and successfully convinced a San Mateo Superior Court judge that the client’s expungement was mandatory, despite ostensible intervening factors that could have made his motion within the court’s discretion and in the interests of justice.

Maureen Keffer (’11) filed the SCLC’s first ever Motion for Early Termination of Probation, a purely discretionary motion, on behalf of a domestic violence survivor convicted of two felonies. The client’s trouble with the law grew out of a long history of drug addiction and abusive relationships. When given the option at sentencing of serving time in jail or time in a residential substance abuse treatment program, Maureen’s client opted for treatment, and she has since made a remarkable recovery. She currently works helping other women battling addiction and dealing with the scars of domestic violence. In light of the client’s recovery and extraordinary contributions to the community, the court granted the Clinic’s motion to release her from probation six months early, and she is now entitled to seek expungement of her convictions.

Nancy Hanna (’11) represented a client in Santa Clara Superior Court on three expungement matters.  The stakes were high in this case because the client had a pending job offer contingent on the expungement of these convictions.  Nancy successfully presented her motions and supporting documentation to the court, offering a novel interpretation of applicable case law and materials on the deeply archived legislative history of Penal Code §1203.4a (one of California’s two expungement statutes).  Nancy’s client made extraordinary efforts towards rebuilding her life after decades of homelessness and substance dependence.  Over the past five years, she had dedicated herself to recovery from her addiction, gaining job skills and becoming a community advocate, reaching out and helping to provide services to the very homeless community of which she was once a member. 

Jennifer Cain (J.D./M.B.A. ’11) worked on an expungement matter for a client and was successful in expunging his most recent felony conviction.  Jen’s client had struggled with substance abuse since he was a teenager.   He achieved sobriety over 10 years ago and obtaining the expungement of this felony conviction was a milestone for him.  He told Jen that his expungement court date and the successful result “was the best day of his life in the past two years” because he really accomplished something in his life by being able to put his old felony conviction behind him.

J. Robert Garcia (‘12) successfully expunged and reduced a felony conviction from his client’s record; the last conviction to be cleared from her history.  Since achieving sobriety, his client obtained her GED and is working towards a degree in the medical profession. The expungement and felony reduction granted by the Presiding Judge (Criminal) of the San Mateo Superior Court will open up significant job opportunities to Rob’s client as she moves forward with her career goals.

All the work in the Community Law Clinic is supervised by Clinic Director, Professor Juliet Brodie, together with Lecturer Danielle Jones and the Jay Spears Clinical Teaching Fellow, Nisha Vyas.  Vital support is provided by Guadalupe Buenrostro and Adelina Arroyo.

Supreme Court Grants Two Clinic Cert Petitions

On April 4, 2011, the Supreme Court granted only two certiorari petitions, and both are from the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic’s docket.

In the first case, Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, the clinic represents the plaintiff in a civil rights lawsuit arguing that a jail violates the Fourth Amendment if it conducts suspicionless strip searches of all admittees no matter what the charges or circumstances of their arrests. Clinic law students Jud Campbell (‘11), Jacqueline de Armas (‘11), and Kathryn McCann (‘12) prepared the petition under the supervision of team leader and clinic lecturer, Tom Goldstein.   See coverage on SCOTUSblog and Westlaw News & Insight.

In the second case, Greene v. Fisher, the clinic represents a state prisoner arguing that he may obtain federal habeas corpus relief based on a violation of a United States Supreme Court decision announced after the last state-court decision on the merits of his direct appeal but before that appeal became final. In other words, petitioner argues that the retroactivity regime that the Supreme Court announced in 1989 in Teague v. Lane remains good law after the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Clinic law students Thomas Scott (‘11), Andrew Zahn (‘11), and Kathryn McCann (’12) prepared the petition under the supervision of the clinic’s co-director, Jeffrey Fisher.  See coverage on SCOTUSblog:

The clinic will now proceed to brief both cases on the merits and to present oral argument next fall.

Clinic Work With Nonprofit Agricultural Clients

The exciting work of the Organizations and Transactions Clinic representing Northern California nonprofit organizations involved in sustainable agriculture, food security and food system reform is highlighted in a blog article, Agricultural & Food Law at Stanford recently published in Agricultural Law, the blog of the AALS section on agricultural law. Clinic students represent food system clients on matters involving corporate governance, contract and risk management.  Students are supervised by clinic director Jay Mitchell and clinic fellow Eva Gutierrez, with paralegal assistance from Octavio Gonzalez.