STRUMWASSER & WOOCHER is one of the most respected law firms in California, known for its successful trial and appellate litigation of major public-policy and public-interest matters. Since its founding in 1991, the firm has litigated landmark cases regarding education law, election law, land use issues, economic regulation, local government law, taxation, environmental protection, constitutional law, civil rights, consumer protection, and workers' rights. In trial and appellate courts, legislative halls and administrative tribunals, Strumwasser & Woocher has collected a broad array of victories in path-making litigation—including more than 50 published appellate decisions—and has advised clients on the day's most compelling issues.

REPRESENTATIVE MATTERS
EDUCATION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

A large part of Strumwasser & Woocher's practice currently consists of representing and advising the Los Angeles Unified School District, the nation's second largest school system, on a broad array of legal and legislative matters—from issues of constitutional law, to implementation of sweeping changes in charter school law, to a penumbra of issues arrising out of the financing and execution of the District's multi-billion-dollar school-construction program. The firm also advises other school districts around the state on a wide range of statutory and constitutional issues.

• Strumwasser & Woocher recently succeeded in multi-billion dollar, path-making litigation to ensure that school districts will receive the full measure of revenues to which they are entitled under the Community Redevelopment Law. Los Angeles Unified School District v. County of Los Angeles et al., 181 Cal.App.4th 414 (2010). In related work, the firm advises school and community college districts around the state regarding their rights and responsibilities under the Education Code, Revenue and Taxation Code, and Government Code. The firm also advises school districts regarding the ever changing landscape of laws regarding school financing.

• Strumwasser & Woocher served as lead outside counsel to the Los Angeles Unified School District in its challenge to the constitutionality of state legislation that would have removed the authority of the elected Governing Board and handed over control of a significant portion of the school district to a private entity headed by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Mendoza v State of California, 149 Cal.App.4th 1034 (2007).

• The firm successfully represented the Los Angeles Unified School District in litigation against American International Group and its subsidiaries to enforce coverage under a $100 million, 20-year pollution liability insurance policy.

• In a church’s challenge to Los Angeles Unified School District’s eminent domain action, the firm defeated a challenge filed by the church that had purchased land being condemned to build a school to alleviate student-overcrowding when the church claimed the First Amendment and federal statute precluded the taking of church property.

• The firm successfully challenged the State Allocation Board’s rules for distributing state-bond funds, resulting in the establishment of new rules for the allocation of bond funds and an additional $650 million in Proposition 1A proceeds for the Los Angeles Unified School District. The court’s order in this litigation also led to the passage and voter approval of state Propositions 47 and 55, the historic $25.4 billion state bond measures, including provisions that the firm negotiated to ensure funds for critically overcrowded districts such as LAUSD. Godinez v. State of California (LASC Docket No. BC227352).

• The firm has advised the Los Angeles Unified School District in the development of its charter school policy and the defense of its program to satisfy facilities obligations under Proposition 39 in light of endemic classroom scarcity. The firm successfully defended that policy in an action brought by a charter school dissatisfied with the facilities it was offered by the District. Renaissance Academy Charter School v. Los Angeles Unified School District (LASC Docket No. BS090869; SDSC Docket No. GIC841140). In circumstances where the District was unable to offer facilities to charter schools, Strumwasser & Woocher successfully limited the district’s liability for damages and attorneys’ fees. New West Charter Middle School v. LAUSD (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 831.

• Strumwasser & Woocher successfully defended Los Angeles Unified School District at trial and on appeal against a damages claim filed by an untenured teacher whose contract was not renewed after she twice obstructed searches of her classroom pursuant to the District’s weapon search policy (crafted in consultation with the ACLU and law-enforcement officials). Motevalli v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 97.

• As counsel to the Los Angeles Unified School District, Strumwasser & Woocher drafted three bond propositions, Measure K, Measure R, and most recently, Measure Y, all of which were approved by the voters, providing LAUSD with nearly $19.2 billion for the largest school-construction program in the nation.

ECONOMIC REGULATION, UTILITIES, AND GOVERNMENT LAW

Among its most prominent work, Strumwasser & Woocher has served as Special Counsel to the California Insurance Commissioners, whom the firm has advised and represented in all phases of the implementation of Proposition 103, the 1988 insurance-reform initiative. Strumwasser & Woocher developed Commissioner John Garamendi’s rate-regulatory program, prosecuted the administrative cases on the insurance companies’ rebate liability, and successfully defended the Commissioner’s program in scores of state- and federal-court lawsuits, resulting in over $1 billion in consumer refunds.

• As Special Counsel to the California Insurance Commissioner, Strumwasser & Woocher played a pivotal role in implementation of Proposition 103, the insurance-reform initiative passed by the voters in 1988. The firm designed the Commissioner’s rate-regulation program, drafted the regulations, tried the test cases brought by the insurance industry, resulting in the program being upheld against all challenges. Amwest Surety Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 11 Cal. 4th 1243 (1995); 20th Century v. Garamendi, 8 Cal. 4th 216 (1994), cert. denied sub nom Century-National Ins. Co. v. Quackenbush, 513 U.S. 1153 (1995); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Quackenbush, 77 Cal. App. 4th 65 (1999); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies v. Quackenbush, 52 Cal. App. 4th 599 (1997); Safeco Ins. Co. v. Garamendi, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1141 (1992); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Garamendi, 12 Cal. App. 4th 206 (1992); Wilshire Ins. Co. v. Garamendi, 5 Cal. App. 4th 1573 (1992); California Auto. Assigned Risk Plan v. Garamendi, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1486 (1991); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Quackenbush, 87 F.3d 290 (9th Cir. 1996); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Garamendi, 790 F. Supp. 938 (N.D. Cal. 1992).

• In 2004, the California Insurance Commissioner retained Strumwasser & Woocher to lead his investigation into the title-insurance industry. The investigation produced the prosecution of illegal kick-back schemes and payment of tens of millions of dollars in penalties, the most comprehensive study of competitive conditions in the California title markets, and the promulgation of regulations to revolutionize the regulation of title insurance and escrow rates. Cal. Dept. Ins. (Docket No. RH05049799).

• The firm is regulatory counsel to the state agency created to write residential earthquake insurance after the private industry withdrew from the market following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Strumwasser & Woocher advises the Authority on regulatory, intergovernmental, and technical issues and represents it in judicial and administrative litigation.

• Strumwasser & Woocher represented a large avocado farmer who had been cut off from service by San Diego Gas & Electric Co. when the farmer refused to purchase high-cost electricity and instead self-generated. The case resulted in a multi-million-dollar settlement for the farmer. Strumwasser & Woocher also represented the same client in litigation against the County of San Diego, which had refused to authorize operation of a one-megawatt solar power plant. The litigation led to authorization of the solar facility’s operation and payment of damages for the delay.

• In 2001, when California’s electricity-deregulation experiment became an unprecedented disaster, Strumwasser & Woocher represented The Utility Reform Network (TURN), the state’s leading utility-ratepayer advocacy organization, in litigation to block a multi-billion-dollar bail-out of the utilities at the expense of consumers. The firm initially successfully defended actions of the California Public Utilities Commission obtained by TURN holding the utilities to the terms of the deregulation legislation. When the PUC entered a secret bail-out deal with one of the utilities, the firm succeeded in blocking the deal in a decision overturned by the California Supreme Court. Southern California Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2002); Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Lynch, 216 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2002); Southern California Edison Co. v. Peevey, 31 Cal. 4th 781 (2003); Southern California Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Com’n, 117 Cal. App. 4th 1039 (2004).

ELECTION LAW

Strumwasser & Woocher has developed a statewide and national reputation for its active elections law and ethics-in-government practice, representing candidates, political committees, corporations, citizen groups, and public agencies in compliance matters and in litigation on initiative and referendum law, ballot access issues, campaign finance and ethics regulations, and contested elections. Over the years, the firm has represented numerous political committees and citizens groups in both drafting state and local ballot measures and in litigation over the qualification of initiative and referendum petitions for the ballot.

• Strumwasser & Woocher was California State Counsel for the 2008 Obama presidential campaign, representing it in litigation and working with the campaign’s California staff on voter protection matters. The firm will serve as California State Counsel for the 2012 Obama campaign. Since the 2008 election, the firm also successfully defended President Obama and Vice President Biden in litigation challenging the President’s citizenship. Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647.

• The firm generated an important precedent protecting public control over elections through multi-year litigation on behalf of clients seeking a recount of an election conducted on electronic voting machines. Americans for Safe Access v. County of Alameda, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2009). The firm organized the non-partisan, public-interest suit to vindicate the statutory guarantee of a meaningful recount when local elections officials denied access to electronic voting machine data. The decision rejected the position adopted by local elections officials seeking to exempt new voting technologies from statutes that guarantee transparency in elections.

• The firm represented LandWatch Monterey and the Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition in a successful three-year effort to qualify a County General Plan Amendment Initiative for the ballot and to overcome the Monterey County Board of Supervisors’ repeated attempts to prevent a citizen vote on the initiative and on a related referendum measure. After helping to draft the initiative and qualify it for the ballot, Strumwasser & Woocher sued the Board of Supervisors over its refusal to place the initiative and a subsequently drafted referendum petition on the ballot, ultimately prevailing in federal district court and on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Re County of Monterey Initiative Matter (N.D. Cal. Nos. C 06-01407 JW, C 06-01730 JW).

• Strumwasser & Woocher also represented the community organization Save Loma Linda in defending the validity of referendum measures challenging the approvals of two massive land development projects in the City of Loma Linda. The developer had sought to invalidate those referenda on a variety of technical grounds, but the firm successfully argued on appeal that the measures fully complied with the provisions of the Elections Code. Friends of Loma Linda v. Verjil, No. E040974, 2008 WL 3845407 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2008).

• Strumwasser & Woocher recently won a landmark appellate ruling striking down California’s requirement that circulators of city and county initiative and referendum petitions must be residents of the local jurisdiction. On behalf of the proponents of a land use referendum measure seeking to protect property rights in the City of San Clemente, the firm successfully argued that the restriction violated the First Amendment rights of ballot measure supporters by limiting their opportunity to petition their government and soliciting political support for their position. Preserve Shorecliff Homeowners v. City of San Clemente, 158 Cal. App. 4th 1427 (2008).

• The firm helped draft Proposition 62, a citizen-sponsored open-primary initiative that appeared on California’s November 2004 ballot. The firm challenged the California Legislature’s effort to undermine Proposition 62 by placing a competing measure on the ballot that unconstitutionally combined two unrelated proposed amendments to the California Constitution in violation of the California Constitution’s separate-vote requirement. Both the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Proposition 62 and held that the Legislature improperly conjoined issues in its competing measure. The Supreme Court also held that the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the Legislature’s measure to appear on the ballot as two separate proposed constitutional amendments. Californians for an Open Primary v. McPherson, 38 Cal. 4th 735 (2006).

• In a series of cases spanning almost half a decade, Strumwasser & Woocher represented a number of parties supporting the development of the abandoned El Toro Marine Air Station as a commercial airport in lieu of further expansion of existing airports in urban centers. The representation included a successful legal challenge to a ballot measure that would have prohibited the redevelopment of the El Toro property as an airport and litigation over proposed amendments to the Orange County General Plan, compliance with federal environmental statutes, and the annexation of the property into the City of Irvine. Citizens for Jobs and the Economy v. County of Orange, 94 Cal. App. 4th 1311 (2002); Songstad v. Superior Court, 93 Cal. App. 4th 1202 (2001).

• The firm has represented and advised the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians on electoral and constitutional issues, including the negotiation of its 1999 Gaming Compact with the Governor of California. The firm drafted for the Tribe Proposition 70 on the November 2004 California ballot, and has handled election-law litigation in connection with that and other subsequent ballot measures related to Indian gaming.

• Strumwasser & Woocher successfully represented the winner of the Compton mayoral election in an appeal that overturned the trial court’s decision to remove him from office on the mistaken theory that the runner-up would have won the election had his name been listed first, rather than second, on the ballot. Bradley v. Perrodin, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1153 (2003).

• In every election cycle, Strumwasser & Woocher advises and represents candidates and campaign committees in election law matters. Issues typically involve ballot designations and official voter-pamphlet arguments, candidate qualifications, recounts, and election contests. Jeffrey v. Superior Court, 102 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2002); Nicolopulos v. City of Lawndale, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1221 (2001); Woo v. Superior Court, 83 Cal. App. 4th 967 (2000); Schweisinger v. Jones, 68 Cal. App. 4th 1320 (1998); Dornan v. Sanchez, 978 F. Supp. 1315 (C.D. Cal. 1997).

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Strumwasser & Woocher regularly represents a wide range of environmental organizations, homeowner groups, and public agencies in environmental and land-use litigation under the California Environmental Quality Act, the Clean Air Act, California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65), the Subdivision Map Act, historic-preservation laws, and various local planning laws.

• The firm represented the County of Santa Barbara when it was sued by Exxon, challenging, on commerce clause grounds, a county ordinance seeking to prevent oil-spill damage to county beaches by requiring the use of pipelines, rather than oil tankers, to transport oil to a Santa Barbara refinery.

• The firm represented the Senate Rules Committee in a challenge to the Senate’s power to require a gubernatorial appointee seeking confirmation to hold hearings before licensing a nuclear-waste dump. California Radioactive Materials Management Forum v. Department of Health Services, 15 Cal. App. 4th 841 (1993).

• The firm successfully prosecuted a plumbing fixtures manufacturer, under California’s Proposition 65, for failing to warn its employees of lead-poisoning, securing compliance with the Act’s notice requirements and a substantial settlement for injured employees.

• The firm successfully represented a group of Native Americans to block construction of a parking lot and strip-mall on a sacred site located on a state-college campus. Native American Heritage Com. v. Board of Trustees, 51 Cal. App. 4th 675 (1996).

• The firm serves as counsel to the Hearing Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the air-pollution control agency for the 16 million people living in the Southern California air basin. Strumwasser & Woocher advises the Hearing Board on administrative, constitutional, and environmental law, and represents the board in state and federal litigation.

• The firm represents several Los Angeles area homeowner associations in actions against private developers and local governmental bodies alleging non-compliance with land use and environmental laws. On behalf of these organizations, Strumwasser & Woocher has successfully challenged a number of proposed developments in the Century City area and the Westside of Los Angeles, and recently prevailed in a CEQA and general plan challenge to the City of Los Angeles’ hastily drafted plan to convert two local streets into one-way thoroughfares without any mitigation for the affected neighborhoods.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & CIVIL RIGHTS

Strumwasser & Woocher represents an array of public agencies and private parties in selected matters involving constitutional, regulatory, and environmental issues, particularly with respect to local land use regulation, as well as in other matters of public interest. For example, Strumwasser & Woocher defended the Los Angeles Ethics Commission in a challenge to the city’s conflict-of-interest legislation and defended the City of Huntington Beach in a federal lawsuit seeking to invalidate city-imposed campaign-finance limits. The firm has won precedential cases applying California’s “anti-SLAPP” statute protecting citizens who participate in a public environmental review process from retaliatory defamation suits.

• Strumwasser & Woocher a secured settlement of a federal class action alleging race discrimination in employment of probation officers and in delivery of services to juvenile probationers.

• In 1994 California passed legislation to protect the victims of “SLAPP” cases (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) — suits brought against individuals and groups that appear before government agencies in opposition to development permits. Strumwasser & Woocher won early landmark cases applying the law to defend an archaeologist on a development project, and has successfully represented other private citizens and public-interest organizations who have been sued for their public speech. Dixon v. Superior Court, 30 Cal. App. 4th 733 (1994).

• On behalf of the California Insurance Commissioner and in conjunction with several local and national civil rights and consumer rights organizations, Strumwasser & Woocher won a judgment declaring new state insurance legislation invalid and unconstitutional. The statutory amendments in question discriminated against previously uninsured drivers — in direct violation of Proposition 103, a sweeping pro-consumer initiative regulating the insurance industry. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights et al. v. Garamendi, 132 Cal. App. 4th 1354 (2005).

• Strumwasser & Woocher advised the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Civil Rights on enforcement of anti-redlining rules under the Fair Housing Act, and served as special counsel in hearings the Secretary conducted on a possible rulemaking.

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

FREDRIC D. WOOCHER (Partner) entered private practice after serving two years as Special Counsel to California Attorney General John Van de Kamp, whom he represented and advised on government ethics, environmental law, and consumer-protection issues, including implementation of Proposition 103.

MICHAEL J. STRUMWASSER (Partner) has litigated some of California’s largest constitutional, governmental, and consumer-protection cases on behalf of public officials and agencies and public-interest groups. He is a nationally-recognized authority on insurance- and utility-regulation, having successfully represented consumers and regulators in state and federal courts and agencies and before Congress and the California Legislature. He was lead counsel for the California Insurance Commissioner, developing regulations to implement Proposition 103 and successfully defending the program against numerous industry challenges.

GREGORY G. LUKE (Partner) joined Strumwasser & Woocher after serving as staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. At the firm, Mr. Luke devotes much of his practice to elections, civil rights, education, and local government litigation. He organized the firm’s path-breaking lawsuits to ensure the transparent use of new voting technologies, generating the first judicial interpretation of the critical recount provisions of Elections Code section 15630. He also led the firm’s novel litigation on behalf of the Los Angeles Unified School District to secure the full measure of property tax revenues due to schools under the Community Redevelopment Law. He has secured court victories for numerous candidates and political committees in connection with candidate and initiative campaigns, and has successfully defended the rights of individuals and citizens’ groups under the anti-SLAPP law.

BRYCE GEE (Partner) has developed a practice that includes a variety of election law matters involving initiative, referendum, and recall measures, candidate statements and ballot designations, and official voter-pamphlet arguments. Mr. Gee has also represented public agencies and local governments. Mr. Gee has successfully argued in trial and appellate courts, and has experience in all aspects of discovery. Before Strumwasser & Woocher, Mr. Gee worked at Irell & Manella, focusing on copyright and securities law.

BEVERLY GROSSMAN PALMER (Senior Associate) joined Strumwasser & Woocher after serving as a law clerk for the Honorable Dorothy W. Nelson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ms. Grossman Palmer represents clients in the fields of election law, land use and environmental law, economic regulation, and education law. She has appeared in both state court and administrative proceedings, and before local governments. She also advises clients on compliance with campaign finance and reporting laws as well as provides guidance and analysis on the initiative process.

BYRON F. KAHR (Associate) joined Strumwasser & Woocher in 2010 with a diverse background. Mr. Kahr clerked for two federal judges: the Honorable Dean D. Pregerson of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and the Honorable A. Wallace Tashima of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He received his J.D. from Yale Law School where he served as a Research Assistant to Professor Yochai Benkler, took part in the San Francisco Affirmative Litigation Project (a collaboration with the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office), and published The Right to Exclude Meets the Right to Ride: Private Property, Public Recreation, and the Rise of Off-Road Vehicles, 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 51 (2009).

RACHEL DEUTSCH (Associate) joined Strumwasser & Woocher last year after clerking with the Honorable Marsha Berzon of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She previously summered at Grant & Eisenhofer, which specializes in financial law. Ms. Deutsch was a Peggy Browning Fund Fellow at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), assisting with developing and executing legislative and regulatory strategies. She previously led negotiations and developed workplace policies while at SEIU United Healthcare Workers – West. Prior to that, Ms. Deutsch was an organizer/field representative with the AFSCME Local 3299. Ms. Deutsch has also developed and implemented job readiness for low income adults in a culinary arts training program offered at the Women’s Housing & Economic Development Corporation.

PATRICIA PEI (Associate) joined Strumwasser & Woocher after serving as a law clerk to the Honorable Jeffrey T. Miller of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

GIULIA GOOD STEFANI (Associate) joined Strumwasser & Woocher in 2011. Ms. Good Stefani brings a love for local government and environmental law to her practice. Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Good Stefani was a Robert M. Cover Fellow at Yale Law School. She co-taught a seminar on local government law and supervised the San Francisco Affirmative Litigation Project (SFALP). The SFALP works in collaboration with the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office to bring that city’s leading affirmative lawsuits.