| PART III, LINE 4A |
COASTAL RIGHTS COALITION V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION. REPRESENTING COASTAL LANDOWNERS, PLF SUED IN CALIFORNIA STATE COURT TO CHALLENGE THE COASTAL COMMISSION'S ILLEGAL "UNDERGROUND" REGULATIONS THAT FORCE COASTAL HOMEOWNERS TO FOREVER WAIVE THEIR RIGHT TO BUILD A SEAWALL, OR OTHER SHORELINE PROTECTIVE DEVICE, AS A CONDITION OF GETTING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO BUILD OR SIGNIFICANTLY REPAIR OR REMODEL AN OCEANFRONT HOME. THE TRIAL COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION AND THE CLIENT OPTED NOT TO APPEAL. THE CASE IS CLOSED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. DONNELLY V. CITY OF SAN MARINO, CALIFORNIA. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUS) ARE RECOGNIZED AS A VALUABLE AND ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF CALIFORNIA'S HOUSING SUPPLY. IN 2019, THE STATE LEGISLATURE AMENDED A LAW TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW ADUS BY SETTING STANDARDS THAT SEVERELY RESTRICT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH AN ADU PERMIT MAY BE DENIED. NOTWITHSTANDING THIS STATE LAW, THE CITY OF SAN MARINO ENACTED RESTRICTIVE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT BAR ORDINARY ADU DEVELOPMENT. REPRESENTING HOMEOWNER CORDELIA DONNELLY, PLF IS ASKING THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW DONNELLY'S CHALLENGE TO THE SAN MARINO LAW BECAUSE IT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN ALLOWED BY STATE LAW AND NOT JUSTIFIED BY HEALTH, SAFETY, OR NUISANCE CONCERNS. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. EASTERN OREGON MINING ASSOCIATION V. OREGON DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. THE CLEAN WATER ACT REGULATES "ADDITION" OF POLLUTANTS TO NAVIGABLE WATERS. IN SMALL-SCALE SUCTION DREDGE MINING, WATER AND SOIL IS MOVED ABOUT, BUT NO MATERIAL IS ADDED TO THE STREAMS. NONETHELESS, THE STATE OF OREGON PROHIBITS SUCH MINING AS PURPORTEDLY VIOLATING THE CLEAN WATER ACT. REPRESENTING INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS AND A MINING ASSOCIATION, PLF FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE SUPREME COURT ASKING THE COURT WHETHER THE CLEAN WATER ACT REGULATES ACTIVITIES THAT SIMPLY MOVE PRE-EXISTING MATERIALS SUCH AS ROCK, SAND, OR GRAVEL, *WITHIN* A NAVIGABLE WATER. THE SUPREME COURT DENIED THE PETITION, ENDING THE CASE. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. GARRETT V. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA. PLF REPRESENTS HOMEOWNERS IN A FEDERAL TAKINGS/DUE PROCESS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, WHICH DEMOLISHED THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT NOTICE, HEARING, OR COMPENSATION. THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THEIR CASE ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY DOCTRINE REQUIRES THEM TO EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES BEFORE BRINGING A FEDERAL CASE. PLF TOOK OVER THE CASE ON APPEAL TO THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT. BECAUSE THE CASE REMAINS PENDING ON REMAND, PLF HAS NOT SOUGHT OR RECOVERED FEES. GREENE V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMM'N. PLF REPRESENTS THE GREENE FAMILY IN A CHALLENGE TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION'S DECISION TO IMPOSE TWO CONDITIONS ON THE APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THEIR HOME IN LOS ANGELES. THE FIRST CONDITION REQUIRES A FIVE-FOOT SETBACK FROM THEIR SEAWARD PROPERTY LINE, IN CONFLICT WITH CITY ZONING ORDINANCES AND THE CITY-APPROVED PERMIT. THE SECOND CONDITION REQUIRES THE FAMILY TO WAIVE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHTS TO CONSTRUCT NECESSARY PROTECTIVE DEVICES, SUCH AS A SEAWALL. THE TRIAL COURT UPHELD THE CONDITIONS THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION. PLF FILED A PETITION FOR REHEARING, WHICH WAS DENIED. THE CASE IS CLOSED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. HOLLISTER RANCH OWNERS ASSOCIATION V. BECERRA. HOLLISTER RANCH OWNERS ASSOCIATION IS A GROUP OF APPROXIMATELY 150 RANCH LANDOWNERS. THEIR PROPERTY, WHICH INCLUDES 8 MILES OF LARGELY UNDEVELOPED COASTLINE, HAS ALWAYS BEEN GATED AND PRIVATE. WANTING TO IMPOSE PUBLIC ACCESS ON THE RANCH WITHOUT COMPENSATION TO THE OWNERS, CALIFORNIA PASSED A NEW LAW THAT MANDATES GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS TO A PRIVATE, RESIDENTIALLY DEVELOPED COASTAL RANCH (HOLLISTER RANCH) FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING DATA TO IMPLEMENT AN UNCOMPENSATED PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN TO THE RANCH. PLF SUED ON BEHALF OF THE RANCH TO CHALLENGE THIS LAW BECAUSE THE STATE CANNOT COME ONTO DEVELOPED AREAS OF A PRIVATE RANCH TO SEARCH AND INSPECT, WITHOUT OBTAINING A WARRANT FOR THAT PURPOSE NOR CAN IT GIVE ITSELF A RIGHT OF WAY ON THE PRIVATE RANCH WITHOUT PAYING JUST COMPENSATION FOR TAKING AN EASEMENT. THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND THE ASSOCIATION CHOSE NOT TO APPEAL. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. KNICK V. SCOTT TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA. A CITY ORDINANCE PERMITS UNRESTRICTED PUBLIC ACCESS TO ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT MIGHT CONTAIN GRAVES AND AUTHORIZES TOWN AGENTS TO SEARCH THE PROPERTY FOR GRAVES WITHOUT ANY PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT GRAVES ARE ON THE LAND. PLF REPRESENTS ROSE MARY KNICK, A SINGLE WOMAN WHO LIVES ALONE ON HER PROPERTY WHICH IS ALLEGED TO CONTAIN OLD GRAVES. PLF SUED TO INVALIDATE THE LAW AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INFRINGEMENT OF PROPERTY OWNERS' RIGHT TO EXCLUDE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FROM THEIR LAND, AND A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION AGAINST WARRANTLESS SEARCHES. AFTER AN ADVERSE LOWER COURT DECISION THAT REQUIRED MS. KNICK TO PURSUE HER CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS IN STATE COURT INSTEAD OF FEDERAL COURT, PLF PREVAILED IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ON JUNE 21, 2019, AND RECOVERED $2,352.10 IN COSTS IN FY2019. WHILE ON REMAND IN FEDERAL COURT, THE PARTIES SETTLED WITH THE TOWNSHIP REVOKING THE ORDINANCE AND PAYING MS. KNICK $110,000 IN DAMAGES. PLF RECEIVED $340,000 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES. LENT V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION. PLF ATTORNEYS TOOK OVER THIS CASE ON APPEAL TO CHALLENGE A $4.2 MILLION FINE IMPOSED BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION FOR AN ALLEGED ACCESS VIOLATION. WHEN GOVERNMENT DEMANDS THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS ACROSS AND ON THEIR LAND, THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT THE GOVERNMENT PAY FOR IT. PLF COMPLETED BRIEFING IN THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS ONGOING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. MARKLE INTERESTS, LLC V. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. PLF FILED A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF MARKLE INTERESTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES CHALLENGING A CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE DUSKY GOPHER FROG THAT INCLUDED LAND WHERE THE FROG DID NOT LIVE AND COULD NOT LIVE WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE LAND THAT THE SERVICE HAS NO POWER TO DEMAND. THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UPHELD THE DESIGNATION, VASTLY EXPANDING THE AREA THAT MAY BE DESIGNATED AS CRITICAL HABITAT AND REDUCING THE ABILITY OF PROPERTY OWNERS TO MAKE PRODUCTIVE USE OF THEIR LAND. PLF SUCCESSFULLY PETITIONED FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THE COURT VACATED THE LOWER COURT DECISION AND REMANDED FOR RECONSIDERATION IN LIGHT OF WEYERHAEUSER V. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, IN WHICH PLF SUCCESSFULLY REPRESENTED MARKLE AS A RESPONDENT. THE CASE WAS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT, AND THE PARTIES SETTLED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. NEW MEXICO FARM AND LIVESTOCK BUREAU V. ZINKE. PLF CHALLENGED A CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR JAGUAR IN NEW MEXICO ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS, FARMERS, AND RANCHERS WHOSE PROPERTY WAS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE DESIGNATION. THE DESIGNATION DID NOT COMPLY WITH GOVERNING STATUTES BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE JAGUAR LIVED IN THE DESIGNATED AREAS AT THE TIME OF THE LISTING. IN 2017, PLF CONCLUDED BRIEFING ON A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE TRIAL COURT. AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION, PLF APPEALED. THE CASE WAS STAYED PENDING THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN WEYERHAEUSER V. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. WHEN THE STAY WAS LIFTED, PLF COMPLETED BRIEFING AND ARGUED IN THE TENTH CIRCUIT, WHICH ISSUED A FAVORABLE DECISION AND REMANDED ON ONE ISSUE RELATED TO THE REMEDY. PLF SUBMITTED A MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES FOR WORK DONE ON THE APPEAL, WHICH IS PENDING. IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES IN THE DISTRICT COURT. NORTHERN NEW MEXICO STOCKMAN'S ASSOCIATION V. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. CHALLENGING THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE'S DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE NEW MEXICO MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE, IN VIOLATION OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE DESIGNATION IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE THE SERVICE FAILED TO PROPERLY CONSIDER THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE DESIGNATION PRIOR TO ADOPTING THE FINAL RULE. THE SERVICE ALSO FAILED TO EXCLUDE ANY AREAS FROM THE DESIGNATION BASED ON THE SUBSET OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS THAT IT DID CONSIDER. PLF FILED A COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL COURT AND LITIGATION IS ONGOING. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. |
| PART III, LINE 4A |
PAKDEL V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. A CITY ORDINANCE REQUIRES ANYONE WHO CONVERTS A TENANCY-IN-COMMON APARTMENT INTEREST INTO A CONDOMINIUM INTEREST TO GIVE ANY EXISTING NON-OWNING TENANT A RIGHT TO A LIFETIME LEASE. ON BEHALF OF APARTMENT OWNERS PEYMAN PAKDEL AND SIMA CHEGINI, PLF IS CHALLENGING THE LAW AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING AND A VIOLATION OF PRIVACY INTERESTS PROTECTED BY SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. BRIEFING WAS COMPLETED AND ARGUED. THE COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION AND PLF FILED A PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. PAVLOCK V. INDIANA. THE PAVLOCK FAMILY HAS OWNED PROPERTY ALONG INDIANA'S LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE FOR GENERATIONS. LAST YEAR, A RULING BY THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT REDEFINED STATE LAW TO MOVE LAKEFRONT OWNERS' PROPERTY LINES FROM THE WATER'S EDGE OR BELOW TO THE LAKE'S ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK, TURNING LARGE SWATHS OF PRIVATE BEACH INTO PUBLIC PROPERTY WITHOUT COMPENSATION. THAT JUDICIAL DECISION TOOK THEIR PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH THE PAVLOCKS WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE 2018 CASE. BECAUSE A COURT, LIKE THE REST OF THE GOVERNMENT, CANNOT TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT, THE PAVLOCKS ARE FIGHTING BACK. REPRESENTING THE PAVLOCKS, PLF FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT FILED TO RESTORE BEACHFRONT PROPERTY RIGHTS. LITIGATION IS ONGOING. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. PEREZ V. WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. IN 2012, ERICA PEREZ AND HER FATHER BOUGHT A PROPERTY CONTAINING A FOUR-UNIT APARTMENT HOME AND A DILAPIDATED SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IN DETROIT FOR $60,000. THEY SPENT THREE YEARS FIXING UP THE PROPERTY FOR RENTERS, WITH PLANS TO MOVE THERE THEMSELVES WHEN HER FATHER RETIRED. THOUGH THEY PAID PROPERTY TAXES EACH YEAR, THEY UNKNOWINGLY UNDERPAID THEIR 2014 TAXES BY $144. BY 2017, WAYNE COUNTY TACKED ON ANOTHER $359 IN INTEREST, PENALTIES AND FEES, FORECLOSED ON THEIR PROPERTY, SOLD IT FOR $108,000 AND KEPT EVERY CENT. PLF FILED A COMPLAINT FILED IN FEDERAL COURT CHALLENGING THE TAX SURPLUS FORFEITURE LAW AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE TAKINGS AND EXCESSIVE FINES CLAUSES. THE CASE IS ON HOLD PENDING A DECISION BY THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT IN RAFAELI V. OAKLAND COUNTY (SEE BELOW). BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. PRESERVE RESPONSIBLE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT V. CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON. PLF TOOK OVER REPRESENTATION OF A COALITION OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND HOMEOWNERS TO CHALLENGE THE CITY'S SHORELINE REGULATIONS AS A VIOLATION OF MULTIPLE STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. BECAUSE THE CASE PRESENTS MANY OF THE ISSUES TO BE HEARD IN OLYMPIC STEWARDSHIP FOUNDATION V. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY IN THE WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS, PLF SOUGHT AND RECEIVED A STAY OF THE LITIGATION. THE STAY WAS LIFTED IN 2017 AFTER THE COURT RULED AGAINST PROPERTY OWNERS IN OLYMPIC STEWARDSHIP FOUNDATION AND LITIGATION IS ONGOING. PLF SUCCESSFULLY MOVED TO MODIFY THE RULING, SUBMITTED BRIEFING AND ARGUED THE CASE. AFTER AN ADVERSE DECISION, PLF FILED A PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. RAFAELI, LLC V. OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AFTER FILING AN AMICUS BRIEF IN THE APPELLATE COURT, PLF TOOK OVER REPRESENTATION OF RAFAELI, LLC, AND ANDRE OHANESSIAN TO ASK THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW A LOWER COURT DECISION THAT PERMITS COUNTIES TO CONFISCATE ENTIRE PROPERTIES TO SATISFY TAX DEBTS WITHOUT REFUNDING ANY OF THE SURPLUS PROCEEDS OF THE SALE TO THE FORMER OWNER. THIS CONFISCATION VIOLATES THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS THAT PROHIBIT THE GOVERNMENT FROM TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. THE COURT AGREED TO REVIEW THE CASE AND PLF FILED BRIEFS AND ORALLY ARGUED. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. SACKETT V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. AFTER WINNING THE RIGHT FOR THE SACKETTS TO GO TO COURT TO CHALLENGE THE EPA'S ASSERTION OF JURISDICTION OVER ALLEGED WETLANDS ON THEIR PROPERTY IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, PLF CONTINUED IN 2017 TO REPRESENT THE SACKETTS ON REMAND. PLF FILED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SEEKING A RULING THAT THE SACKETTS' PROPERTY DOES NOT CONTAIN WETLANDS SUBJECT TO REGULATION UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT. THE TRIAL COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION AND PLF APPEALED ON BEHALF OF THE SACKETTS. THE EPA WITHDREW ITS COMPLIANCE ORDER ON MARCH 13, 2020. IT REMAINS UNCLEAR WHETHER THE EPA STILL ASSERTS THAT SACKETTS PROPERTY IS UNDER AGENCY'S JURISDICTION, AND PLF ASKED THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO REVIEW THIS. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. SANTA BARBARA CHANNELKEEPER V. STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD. PLF IS DEFENDING THE GROUNDWATER RIGHTS OF ROBIN BERNHOFT AND OTHER HOMEOWNERS IN OJAI, CALIFORNIA, AGAINST LITIGATION BY THE CITY OF VENTURA, 20 MILES AWAY, TO TAKE OR CURTAIL THOSE RIGHTS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OR JUST COMPENSATION. LITIGATION IS ONGOING. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. SHANDS V. CITY OF MARATHON, FLORIDA. THE CITY OF MARATHON IMPLEMENTED A SCHEME THAT ALLOWED THE CITY TO TAKE THE SHANDS FAMILY'S PROPERTY AND AVOID LIABILITY BY PROMISING CREDITS TOWARDS SOME POSSIBLE BUILDING PERMIT SOMEWHERE ELSE IN MONROE COUNTY AT SOME INDETERMINATE TIME IN THE FUTURE, PERHAPS TO BE ENJOYED BY SOME THIRD PARTY. REPRESENTING THE SHANDS FAMILY, PLF FILED A LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA STATE TRIAL COURT CHALLENGING THE CITY'S TOTAL TAKING OF THE FAMILY'S REAL PROPERTY IN THE FLORIDA KEYS WITHOUT THE PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION. PLF SEEKS TO ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT HOLDING THAT "TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS" DO NOT ALLOW A GOVERNMENT TO AVOID A FINDING OF A TAKING, AND, MOREOVER, THAT THEY ARE NOT JUST COMPENSATION BECAUSE "JUST COMPENSATION" EQUALS FINANCIAL COMPENSATION, NOT A CHIT TO BE TRADED FOR HARD-TO-DEFINE VALUE. LITIGATION IS ONGOING. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. SMYTH V. FALMOUTH CONSERVATION COMMISSION. PLF REPRESENTS PROPERTY OWNER JANICE SMYTH IN A TAKINGS CHALLENGE AGAINST THE LOCAL CONSERVATION COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT ON A VACANT RESIDENTIAL LOT IN AN ESTABLISHED SUBDIVISION, DESTROYING 90% OF THE LOT'S VALUE. PLF FILED AN APPLICATION FOR FURTHER REVIEW IN THE MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT. THE PETITION WAS DENIED AND PLF FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THE PETITION WAS DENIED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. BERNHARDT/CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. BERNHARDT/ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND V. BERNHARDT. IN 2019, THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR CHANGED THE WAY THAT IT APPLIES THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT BY RESCINDING AN ILLEGAL RULE. THE CHANGES OFFERED ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS-LIKE KEN KLEMM, WHO RUNS A 4,000-ACRE RANCH IN KANSAS. THE CHANGES ALSO INCENTIVIZED PROPERTY OWNERS TO ASSIST IN THE RECOVERY OF SPECIES BY LOOSENING RESTRICTIONS ON THE WAYS THAT THEY CAN PRODUCTIVELY USE THEIR PROPERTY. SEVENTEEN STATES AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS PROMPTLY SUED TO OVERTURN THE CHANGES. REPRESENTING KEN KLEMM, HIS COMPANY BEAVER CREEK BUFFALO CO., AND THE WASHINGTON CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, PLF SUCCESSFULLY INTERVENED IN THE LAWSUITS TO MAINTAIN THESE PROTECTIONS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS. BECAUSE THESE CASES ARE PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. STATE OF COLORADO V. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. REPRESENTING PLF CLIENTS MIKE AND CHANTELL SACKETT (SEE SACKETT V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ABOVE), PLF MOVED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY THE STATE OF COLORADO TO CHALLENGE EPA'S NAVIGABLE WATERS RULE. THE SACKETTS SEEK TO INTERVENE TO DEFEND THE PORTION OF THE RULE THAT DEFINES "ADJACENT WETLANDS." UNDER THE CHALLENGED RULE'S DEFINITION OF "ADJACENT WETLANDS," THE SACKETTS' IDAHO PROPERTY IS EXCLUDED FROM AGENCY AUTHORITY UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT. ITS LACK OF SURFACE WATER CONNECTION TO ANY OTHER JURISDICTIONAL WATER AND ITS SEPARATION FROM THE CLOSEST SURFACE WATER BY AN IMPERMEABLE ARTIFICIAL BARRIER ARE FEATURES WHICH PRECLUDE CLEAN WATER ACT JURISDICTION UNDER THE NEW RULE. THIS EXCLUSION AFFECTS LANDOWNERS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. |
| PART III, LINE 4A |
STAVRIANOUDAKIS V. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE. PLF REPRESENTS FALCONERS AND A FALCONRY CONSERVANCY ORGANIZATION TO CHALLENGE STATE AND FEDERAL RULES REQUIRING WARRANTLESS INSPECTION OF THEIR HOMES (A FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION) AND PROHIBITING PHOTOGRAPHY OR FILMING OF FALCONS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (A FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION). THE LAWSUIT ALSO CHALLENGES THE PROMULGATION OF THESE RULES BY A SUB-LEVEL BUREAUCRAT AS A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION'S APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE. PLF FILED A COMPLAINT AND A MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AND LITIGATION IS ONGOING. THE STATE FILED MOTIONS TO DISMISS. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. UNITED STATES V. LAPANT. PLF JOINED THIS LITIGATION ALONGSIDE LAPANT'S PRIVATE COUNSEL. JACK LAPANT IS AN ELDERLY PROPERTY OWNER AND FARMER TARGETED BY A CLEAN WATER ACT ENFORCEMENT SUIT FOR ALLEGEDLY ILLEGAL PLOWING. PLF ARGUES THAT PLOWING FARMLAND TO GROW WHEAT, USING NORMAL FARMING PRACTICES, WITHOUT AN ARMY CORPS WETLAND PERMIT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CLEAN WATER ACT IF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE PLOWED, AND, EVEN IF IT IS A TECHNICAL VIOLATION, SHOULD NOT INCUR ANY SIGNIFICANT PENALTY. LITIGATION IS ONGOING. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. UNITED STATES V. ROBERTSON. PLF TOOK OVER THIS CASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILING A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THE MATTER INVOLVES THE DEFINITION OF "WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN ASSERT JURISDICTION TO REGULATE PRIVATE LAND. MR. ROBERTSON WAS PROSECUTED FOR WORKING HIS LAND WITHOUT OBTAINING A FEDERAL PERMIT UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT. PLF FILED THE PETITION IN NOVEMBER, 2018. MR. ROBERTSON PASSED AWAY IN MARCH, 2019, AND HIS WIDOW SUBSTITUTED AS PETITIONER. IN APRIL, THE COURT GRANTED THE PETITION, VACATED THE NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION, AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER IT IS MOOT. THE NINTH CIRCUIT ISSUED A FAVORABLE DECISION, VACATING THE CONVICTION AND RESTITUTION ORDER. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS ONGOING ON COLLATERAL MINOR MATTERS, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. WALL V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION. IN 2018, THE WALL FAMILY WANTED TO BUILD A SWIMMING POOL NEXT TO THEIR HOME ON THEIR PROPERTY IN HOLLISTER RANCH, CALIFORNIA. LIKE ALL LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE 14,500-ACRE, CENTURY-OLD WORKING CATTLE RANCH, THE WALLS NEEDED A PERMIT. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APPROVED THE PROJECT; HOWEVER, THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION DENIED THE PERMIT. THE COMMISSION SAID THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD VIOLATE THE COASTAL ACT'S PUBLIC ACCESS RULES, EVEN THOUGH THE WALLS' PROPERTY IS NEARLY A MILE FROM THE SHORELINE AND NO ONE HAS EVER USED THEIR PROPERTY TO GET TO THE COAST. PLF FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT IN SANTA BARBARA SUPERIOR COURT. LITIGATION IS ONGOING. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. WAYSIDE CHURCH V. COUNTY OF VAN BUREN. IN MICHIGAN, WHEN LANDOWNERS FAIL TO PAY THEIR PROPERTY TAXES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TAKE THE PROPERTY, SELL IT, AND KEEP ALL THE PROFITS-NO MATTER HOW SMALL THE DEBT OR HOW VALUABLE THE PROPERTY. AS A RESULT, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS PROFIT HANDSOMELY OVER THE MISFORTUNE OF THEIR RESIDENTS. FOR EXAMPLE, A FEW YEARS AGO, WAYSIDE CHURCH LOST A PIECE OF LAND WORTH A LITTLE OVER $200,000. EVEN AFTER DEDUCTING OUTSTANDING TAX DEBTS, INTEREST, PENALTIES, AND FEES, VAN BUREN COUNTY MADE $189,250 IN PROFIT BY FORECLOSING AND AUCTIONING THE PROPERTY. HAVING LOST IN THE LOWER COURTS, PLF TOOK OVER REPRESENTATION OF WAYSIDE CHURCH AND OTHERS WHO HAVE LOST THEIR HOMES AND EQUITY TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THE COURT DENIED THE PETITION. PLF SUCCESSFULLY MOVED TO REOPEN THE CASE IN THE TRIAL COURT AND FILED AN AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT. THE CASE IS STAYED PENDING RESOLUTION OF RAFAELI. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. WEYERHAEUSER V. U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE. PLF REPRESENTS RESPONDENT MARKLE INTERESTS, LLC, IN THIS SUPREME COURT CASE CHALLENGING THE EPA'S OVERBROAD CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE DUSKY GOPHER FROG IN AN AREA THAT IS BOTH UNSUITABLE FOR THE FROGS AND WHERE NO FROGS RESIDE. (SEE MARKLE INTERESTS V. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE). PLF SUBMITTED A MERITS BRIEF AND PREVAILED IN A UNANIMOUS DECISION ISSUED NOVEMBER 27, 2018. THE CASE WAS SETTLED ON REMAND. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. WILKINS V. UNITED STATES. PLF REPRESENTS MONTANA RESIDENTS LARRY WILKINS AND JANE STANTON, BOTH OF WHOM OWN PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE BITTERROOT NATIONAL FOREST. THE GOVERNMENT INVADED THEIR PROPERTY INTERESTS BY ADVERTISING A PUBLIC ACCESS ROAD ACROSS THEIR LAND, RESULTING IN TRESPASSING, ILLEGAL HUNTING, AND OTHER INJURIES. THEY SUED IN A QUIET TITLE ACTION TO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF AN EASEMENT HELD BY THE UNITED STATES OVER THEIR PRIVATE LAND. THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE FOR ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS WHOSE PROPERTY ABUTS FEDERAL LAND. REJECTING FAVORABLE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY A MAGISTRATE, THE TRIAL COURT ORDERED DISMISSAL OF THE CASE ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS. PLF MOVED TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. YAWN V. DORCHESTER COUNTY. PLF REPRESENTS MITCH RANDALL YAWN AND JUANITA MAE STANLEY, WHO OWN THE FLOWERTOWN BEE FARM AND SUPPLIES IN DORCHESTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. IN 2016, THE COUNTY CONDUCTED AERIAL SPRAYING OF PESTICIDES WHICH KILLED MILLIONS OF YAWN'S BEES. HE SUED ALLEGING THE DESTRUCTION WAS A TAKING REQUIRING COMPENSATION. THE DISTRICT COURT REJECTED THAT CLAIM ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT LIABLE UNDER THE TAKINGS CLAUSE FOR DESTRUCTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN IN PURSUIT OF PUBLIC HEALTH. PLF IS TAKING OVER THE APPEAL ON BEHALF OF YAWN AND STANLEY TO ESTABLISH THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHILE GOVERNMENT CAN CERTAINLY PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, WHEN IT DESTROYS NON-HARMFUL COMMODITIES IN THE PROCESS IT MUST PAY FOR THEM. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. YIM V. CITY OF SEATTLE (YIM I). PLF REPRESENTS LANDOWNERS OF SMALL RENTAL PROPERTIES IN A CHALLENGE TO SEATTLE'S "FIRST IN TIME" RENTAL ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES THEM TO RENT THEIR PROPERTY TO THE FIRST QUALIFIED APPLICANT. THIS DEPRIVATION OF THE OWNERS' RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR TENANTS TAKES AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS, IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S PROTECTION AGAINST TAKINGS WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. THE TRIAL COURT INVALIDATED THE ORDINANCE, ADOPTING ALL OF PLF'S ARGUMENTS. THE CITY APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT AND PLF COMPLETED BRIEFING AND ARGUED THE CASE. THIS YEAR, PLF SUBMITTED A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF. THE COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION AND PLF PETITIONED THE SUPREME COURT TO HEAR THE CASE. THE PETITION WAS DENIED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. YIM V. CITY OF SEATTLE (YIM II). PLF REPRESENTS OWNERS OF SEVERAL SMALL RENTAL PROPERTIES TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEATTLE'S "FAIR CHANCE HOUSING ORDINANCE," WHICH RESTRICTS A RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD FROM CONSIDERING A TENANT APPLICANT'S CRIMINAL HISTORY WHEN DECIDING TO WHOM HE OR SHE WILL RENT THE PROPERTY. PLF FILED THE COMPLAINT IN WASHINGTON STATE COURT AND SEATTLE REMOVED IT TO FEDERAL COURT. THE PARTIES FILED CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. WHILE THESE WERE PENDING, SEATTLE SUCCESSFULLY MOVED TO CERTIFY THE QUESTION OF WHAT STANDARD OF REVIEW IS APPROPRIATE TO THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT AND THE FEDERAL LITIGATION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY STAYED. PLF MOVED TO LIFT THE STAY REGARDING THE FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CERTIFICATION TO THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT. THE COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION AND THE CASE CONTINUES ON REMAND. PLF SUBMITTED SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON DUE PROCESS ISSUES. BECAUSE THE CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. ZITO V. NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL RESOURCE COMMISSION. WHEN MICHAEL AND CATHY ZITO'S BEACH HOME BURNED TO THE GROUND, ALL THEY WANTED TO DO WAS REBUILD IT ON THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS THE OLD ONE. THE TOWN AND STATE REFUSED TO GIVE PERMISSION TO REBUILD ANYTHING AT ALL ON THEIR LOT BECAUSE THE HOME WOULD BE TOO CLOSE TO THE OCEAN TO MEET MORE RECENT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, EVEN THOUGH THEIR STREET IS LINED WITH NEIGHBORING HOMES JUST AS CLOSE TO THE WATER. CURRENTLY, THE ZITOS CAN ONLY USE THEIR PROPERTY FOR TENT CAMPING, WHILE THE TOWN ENJOYS THEIR LOT AS PUBLIC BEACHFRONT OPEN SPACE, FREE OF CHARGE. PLF FILED A COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL COURT, ARGUING THAT THIS VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THE NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION'S PROHIBITIONS ON GOVERNMENT TAKINGS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. THE CASE WAS DISMISSED ON SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY GROUNDS. PLF IS BRIEFING AN APPEAL TO THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. |
| PART III, LINE 4A |
SEPARATION OF POWERS: TO PROTECT LIBERTY, THE CONSTITUTION ESTABLISHED A SEPARATION OF POWERS-A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES AMONG CO-EQUAL BRANCHES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALONG WITH A DIVISION OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS. PLF LITIGATES IN SUPPORT OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, INCLUDING BRINGING CASES AIMED AT ENDING THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE STATE. PLF FIGHTS TO END THE MODERN ADMINISTRATIVE STATE, INCLUDING LIMITING JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENTS; RESTORING SEPARATION OF POWERS AGAINST IMPROPER DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO BUREAUCRATS; DEFINING THE LIMITED SCOPE OF FEDERAL POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE; REVIVING THE DOCTRINE OF ENUMERATED POWERS; AND ENSURING DUE PROCESS OF LAW. BIKEYAH V. TRUMP. REPRESENTING LANDOWNERS, HUNTERS, OUTDOOR SPORTSMEN, AND RANCHERS, PLF ATTORNEYS SUCCESSFULLY MOVED TO INTERVENE IN THIS CASE BROUGHT BY ENVIRONMENTALISTS TO CHALLENGE THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY TO RESCIND OR REDUCE PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED NATIONAL MONUMENTS AND FILED BRIEFS IN THE CASE. LITIGATION IS ONGOING. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (CBD) V. ZINKE. CBD SUED THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR BECAUSE CONGRESS USED THE CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT TO RESCIND AN ALASKA WILDLIFE RULE. PLF REPRESENTS ALASKAN SPORTSMEN AND OTHER PARTIES AS INTERVENORS IN SUPPORT OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT AND IN SUPPORT OF THE RULE'S RESCISSION. THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED PLF'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE. CBD APPEALED AND PLF FILED A RESPONDENTS' BRIEF. THE NINTH CIRCUIT ISSUED A FAVORABLE DECISION IN DECEMBER. REPRESENTING DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS, PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. HAWKINS V. BERNHARDT. IN 2013, THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS (BIA) AND THE KLAMATH TRIBES ENTERED INTO A PROTOCOL AGREEMENT IN WHICH THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AGREED NOT VETO TRIBAL CALLS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE WATER RIGHTS HELD BY THE UNITED STATES IN TRUST FOR THE TRIBES. SINCE 2013, THE TRIBES HAVE MADE YEARLY CALLS, THE ENFORCEMENT OF WHICH RESULTS IN THE NEAR-TOTAL CUT-OFF OF IRRIGATION FOR PASTURE IN THE UPPER KLAMATH BASIN OF SOUTHERN OREGON. PLF REPRESENTS AFFECTED LANDOWNERS IN A CHALLENGE TO THE PROTOCOL AGREEMENT. PLF ARGUES THAT THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE TRIBES IS AN UNLAWFUL SUBDELEGATION OF GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY FROM A FEDERAL AGENCY TO AN INDIAN TRIBE AND A "MAJOR FEDERAL ACTION" REQUIRING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT UNDER FEDERAL LAW. AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE CASE, PLF APPEALED TO THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. JOOCE V. U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION/HOBAN V. U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION/ RAVE SALON, INC. V. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. REPRESENTING VAPE SHOPS IN WASHINGTON D.C., MINNESOTA, AND TEXAS, RESPECTIVELY, PLF SUED THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION TO INVALIDATE REGULATIONS ENACTED IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT REGULATIONS MUST BE ISSUED ONLY BY "OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES," THAT IS, PEOPLE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE. THESE REGULATIONS, ENACTED BY AN FDA BUREAUCRAT, DEEMS E-CIGARETTES TO BE TOBACCO PRODUCTS EVEN THOUGH THEY CONTAIN NO TOBACCO, AND IMPOSE NEW, SEVERE REGULATIONS THAT WILL ONLY HARM THIS BURGEONING INDUSTRY AND PERHAPS OVERALL PUBLIC HEALTH-CONTRARY TO THE AGENCY'S VERY MISSION. PLF FILED COMPLAINTS IN THREE DIFFERENT FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS TO INVALIDATE THE REGULATIONS AS VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION'S APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE. THE GOVERNMENT SUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT TO CONSOLIDATE THE CASES, A RULING THAT PLF IS CHALLENGING IN THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. ON THE MERITS IN JOOCE, THE LEAD CASE, THE GOVERNMENT PREVAILED ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT. PLF APPEALED TO THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. BECAUSE THESE CASES ARE PENDING, IN WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. KANSAS NATURAL RESOURCE COMM'N V. U.S. DEPT. OF INTERIOR. IN 2003, THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CREATED THE "POLICY FOR EVALUATING CONSERVATION EFFORTS WHEN MAKING LISTING DECISIONS." THIS VERY HELPFUL RULE ENCOURAGES STATES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, PROPERTY OWNERS, AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS TO COLLABORATE ON INNOVATIVE AND SUCCESSFUL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS. ALTHOUGH THE RULE ENJOYS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, THE SERVICE NEVER SUBMITTED IT TO CONGRESS AS REQUIRED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT. ON BEHALF OF THE KANSAS NATURAL RESOURCE COALITION, WHICH DEVELOPED A CONSERVATION PLAN TO KEEP THE LESSER PRAIRIE CHICKEN OFF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST, PLF SUED THE SERVICE TO REQUIRE IT TO SUBMIT ITS RULE TO CONGRESS SO IT CAN LEGALLY TAKE EFFECT AND ALLOW GOOD CONSERVATION WORK TO CONTINUE. THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE CASE AND PLF APPEALED TO THE TENTH CIRCUIT. BRIEFING AND ORAL ARGUMENT ARE COMPLETE. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. MASSACHUSETTS LOBSTERMEN'S ASSOCIATION V. ROSS. REPRESENTING FISHERMAN AND LOBSTERMEN WHO ARE LOCKED OUT OF VALUABLE FISHING GROUNDS, PLF FILED A COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENT OBAMA'S NORTHEAST CANYONS AND SEAMOUNTS MARINE NATIONAL MONUMENT DESIGNATION UNDER ANTIQUITIES ACT. AN AREA IN THE OCEAN THE SIZE OF CONNECTICUT CANNOT QUALIFY AS A MONUMENT - WHICH THE ACT DESCRIBES AS BEING THE SMALLEST POSSIBLE AREA OF LAND NECESSARY TO PRESERVE AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE. THE MONUMENT DESIGNATION ALSO THREATENS TO UNDERMINE YEARS' WORTH OF EFFORT BY OUR CLIENTS TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE FISHING IN THE REGION. BY SHUTTING OFF THE AREA TO FISHERMEN, THE PROCLAMATION FORCES THEM TO RELOCATE FROM THIS HEALTHY FISHERY TO OTHER AREAS THAT ARE LESS SUSTAINABLE. THE STATE SUCCESSFULLY MOVED TO DISMISS THE CASE AND THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED AND PLF'S PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC WAS DENIED. PLF INTENDS TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE SUPREME COURT. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. ROXY NAILS DESIGN, LLC V. LAMONT. IN EARLY MARCH 2020, LUIS RAMIREZ CLOSED HIS NAIL SALON IN HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, FOLLOWING GOVERNOR NED LAMONT'S EXECUTIVE ORDERS FOR STATEWIDE SHUTDOWN DUE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC. MR. RAMIREZ HAS SINCE STRUGGLED TO EARN INCOME AND PAY RENT ON THEIR SALON. WHEN HE THOUGHT HE'D BE ABLE TO REOPEN ON MAY 20, HE SCRAPED TOGETHER $800 TO COMPLY WITH THE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS TO SAFELY SERVE CUSTOMERS. BUT THE STATE, UNDER THE UNLAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNOR, INEXPLICABLY PUSHED BACK NAIL SALONS' REOPENING TO JUNE 17-OR LATER-DESPITE ALLOWING HAIR SALONS TO OPEN ON JUNE 1. REPRESENTED BY PLF, ROXY NAILS DESIGN AND LUIS RAMIREZ FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNOR'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDER THAT ROBBING THEM OF THEIR RIGHT TO RESPONSIBLY OPEN THEIR BUSINESS. THE GOVERNMENT'S SHUTDOWN AND REOPENING ORDERS RELATED TO COVID-19 MUST TREAT SIMILAR BUSINESSES EQUALLY AND FAIRLY. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. TUGAW RANCHES, LLC V. U.S. DEPT. OF INTERIOR. THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE ISSUED REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE SAGE GROUSE (A BIRD) ACROSS IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA AND UTAH. THESE CONTROVERSIAL SAGE GROUSE RULES IMPOSE STRICT RANGELAND MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS ON BUREAU AND FOREST SERVICE LANDS. THE AGENCIES WERE REQUIRED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT TO SUBMIT THESE RULES TO CONGRESS FOR APPROVAL BUT THEY FAILED TO DO SO. CHALLENGING THIS FAILURE, PLF REPRESENTS TUGAW RANCHES, LLC, WHICH RUNS CATTLE ON SEVERAL BUREAU AND FOREST SERVICE GRAZING ALLOTMENTS COVERED BY THE SAGE GROUSE RULES. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBJECT TO FOREST SERVICE MONITORING PURSUANT TO THE RULE AND, AS THE RULE IS FULLY IMPLEMENTED, WILL SUFFER FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON ITS GRAZING ACTIVITIES, DRIVING UP THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS. THE PARTIES AGREED TO STAY THE LITIGATION PENDING SUBMISSION OF SAGE GROUSE PLAN AMENDMENTS TO CONGRESS. THE AMENDMENTS WERE SUBMITTED IN FEBRUARY AND THE PARTIES STIPULATED TO DISMISSAL. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. |
| PART III, LINE 4A |
WASHINGTON CATTLEMEN'S ASS'N V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/OREGON CATTLEMEN'S ASS'N V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/NORTH DAKOTA V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/PIERCE V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/ NEW MEXICO CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION V. EPA. THE EPA ISSUED AN "INTERNAL GUIDANCE" DOCUMENT REDEFINING JURISDICTIONAL WATERS UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT IN VIOLATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT RULE-MAKING PROCEDURES AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. REPRESENTING CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS WHOSE MEMBERS ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE OVERLY-EXPANSIVE REACH OF THE EPA'S "NAVIGABLE WATERS RULE," PLF FILED COMPLAINTS IN WASHINGTON, OREGON, MINNESOTA (PIERCE) AND NEW MEXICO, AND INTERVENED IN EXISTING LITIGATION IN NORTH DAKOTA TO OVERTURN IT. PLF SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THE OREGON CASE. EPA ISSUED A NEW RULE ON APRIL 21, 2020. PLF FILED SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINTS AND A MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS ONGOING IN ALL THESE CASES, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. WILLIAMS V. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE. REPRESENTING COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN, PLF FILED A COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO CHALLENGE THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICES' ADOPTION OF "HARD CAPS" FOR WEST COAST SWORDFISH GILL NET FISHERY. THE CAPS VIOLATE BOTH THE MAGNUSON STEVENS FISHERIES ACT AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION'S APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE AND HAVE A SEVERELY ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE FISHING INDUSTRY. LITIGATION IS ONGOING. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. ECONOMIC LIBERTY: PLF SEEKS TO ESTABLISH PRECEDENT GIVING MEANINGFUL PROTECTION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING. PLF CONSTRUES THAT RIGHT BROADLY, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO START A BUSINESS, ENGAGE IN AN OCCUPATION, AND FREELY BUY AND SELL GOODS AND SERVICES. RELATEDLY, PLF OPPOSES THE MISUSE OF GOVERNMENT POWER TO FAVOR SOME BUSINESSES AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS, I.E., ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM. ABAD V. BONHAM. SEVERAL STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS PROTECT ENDANGERED SPECIES AFFECTED BY COMMERCIAL SWORDFISH FISHING. THE GOVERNMENT ISSUED NEW RULES, HOWEVER, THAT THREATEN TO DESTROY THE FREEDOM OF RESPONSIBLE FISHERMAN TO EARN A LIVING. PLF REPRESENTS COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN IN A FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING CALIFORNIA'S BAN ON THE CATCH OF SWORDFISH BY DRIFT GILL NETS IN FEDERAL WATERS PURSUANT TO A FEDERAL PERMIT, AND THE BAN ON LANDING AND SALE OF SUCH SWORDFISH IN THE STATE AS PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION'S SUPREMACY CLAUSE. LITIGATION IS ONGOING. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. BARILLA V. CITY OF HOUSTON. TONY BARILLA IS AN ACCOMPLISHED ACCORDIONIST WHO WISHES TO BUSK-THAT IS, PLAY IN PUBLIC FOR TIPS-IN THE STREETS OF HOUSTON. BUT HOUSTON BANS PERFORMING FOR TIPS IN MOST OF THE CITY. AND IN THE FEW BLOCKS WHERE PERFORMING FOR TIPS IS ALLOWED, PERFORMERS MUST SECURE A PERMIT AND PERMISSION FROM ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE PERFORMANCE SITE, ESTABLISHING A "HECKLER'S VETO" OVER THE BUSKER'S SPEECH. THE FIRST AMENDMENT, HOWEVER, PROTECTS TONY'S RIGHT TO EARN EXTRA MONEY WHILE ENGAGING IN FREE EXPRESSION. REPRESENTING BARILLA, PLF FILED A COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO VINDICATE HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND ESTABLISH THE PRINCIPLE THAT SPEECH THAT IS MOTIVATED BY MONEY IS JUST AS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AS ANY OTHER KIND OF SPEECH. THE COURT GRANTED THE CITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLF PLANS TO SEEK RECONSIDERATION. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. FONTENOT V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA. PLF REPRESENTS PEGGY FONTENOT, A NATIVE AMERICAN ARTIST WHO SELLS HER HAND-MADE JEWELRY AND ART AT ART SHOWS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. AT THE BEHEST OF POLITICALLY POWERFUL TRIBES, OKLAHOMA PASSED A LAW THAT PERMITS ONLY MEMBERS OF FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES TO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES OR THEIR ART AS NATIVE AMERICAN. BECAUSE FONTENOT IS A MEMBER OF A VIRGINIA STATE-RECOGNIZED TRIBE, SHE MAY NOT MARKET HER ART AS "INDIAN MADE." PLF FILED A LAWSUIT ON THE GROUNDS THAT THIS LAW VIOLATES THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS. THE TRIAL COURT ISSUED A FAVORABLE DECISION ON PREEMPTION GROUNDS. OKLAHOMA APPEALED AND PLF CROSS-APPEALED ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND SOUGH ATTORNEYS' FEES. THE PARTIES SETTLED, WITHDRAWING ALL APPEALS AND THE FEE MOTION. PLF RECEIVED REIMBURSED COSTS OF $1,199.67. FONTENOT V. SCHMITT. PLF REPRESENTS PEGGY FONTENOT, A NATIVE AMERICAN ARTIST WHO SELLS HER HAND-MADE JEWELRY AND ART AT ART SHOWS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. AT THE BEHEST OF POLITICALLY POWERFUL TRIBES, MISSOURI PASSED A LAW THAT PERMITS ONLY MEMBERS OF FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES TO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES OR THEIR ART AS NATIVE AMERICAN. BECAUSE FONTENOT IS A MEMBER OF A VIRGINIA STATE-RECOGNIZED TRIBE, SHE MAY NOT MARKET HER ART AS "INDIAN MADE." PLF FILED A LAWSUIT ON THE GROUNDS THAT THIS LAW VIOLATES THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS. DISCOVERY IS COMPLETE AND CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARE AWAITING DECISION. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. MINNESOTA ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS V. MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT. PLF REPRESENTS A CONSTRUCTION FIELD TRADE ORGANIZATION TO CHALLENGE STATE-MANDATED CONTRACT PROVISIONS THAT REQUIRE PUBLIC EMPLOYERS TO HIRE EMPLOYEES THROUGH UNION HIRING HALLS AND REQUIRE CONTRACTORS TO PAY DUPLICATIVE UNION FRINGE BENEFITS THAT THE CONTRACTORS' EMPLOYEES MAY NEVER SEE. PLF FILED A COMPLAINT IN DISTRICT COURT BUT SHORTLY THEREAFTER VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED THE CASE. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. SHOCK (KUNATH) V. CITY OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. THE CITY OF SEATTLE ADOPTED AN INCOME TAX THAT TARGETS THE CITY'S "HIGH-INCOME" RESIDENTS BY IMPOSING A 2.25 PERCENT TAX ON ANY INDIVIDUAL EARNING MORE THAN $250,000, AND AN INITIAL RATE OF 0 PERCENT ON EVERYONE ELSE. PLF REPRESENTS SEATTLE RESIDENTS IN A CHALLENGE TO THE CITY'S DISCRIMINATORY "ACHIEVEMENT TAX" THAT VIOLATES THE STATE CONSTITUTION'S PROHIBITION ON INCOME TAXES, AND, WHEN TAXES ARE PERMITTED, REQUIRES UNIFORMITY AMONG CITIZENS. THE TRIAL COURT STRUCK DOWN THE ORDINANCE AND THE CITY FILED A DIRECT APPEAL TO THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT, WHICH REMANDED TO THE WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS. PLF FILED BRIEFS IN BOTH COURTS. THE APPELLATE COURT ISSUED A FAVORABLE DECISION. SEATTLE PETITIONED THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW, AND PLF FILED AN OPPOSITION. THE PETITION WAS DENIED. PLF RECOVERED THE MAXIMUM $200 IN STATUTORY ATTORNEY FEES. TAYLOR V. POLHILL. REPRESENTING DAN TAYLOR, AN EXPERIENCED BUT UNLICENSED SELLER OF HEARING AIDS, PLF SUED TO CHALLENGE A FLORIDA OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING STATUTE THAT PROHIBITS THE DISPENSING OF HEARING AIDS BY UNLICENSED PERSONS. FLORIDA'S LICENSING SCHEME, DEVELOPED FOR LESS ADVANCED DEVISES COMMON DECADES AGO, INCREASES COST AND REDUCES ACCESS TO MODERN HEARING AIDS. TAYLOR'S LAWSUIT ARGUES THAT THE REGULATIONS ARE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAWS AIMED AT REDUCING UNNECESSARY REGULATION AND A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING. THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE CASE AND PLF APPEALED TO THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FILING BRIEFS IN THAT COURT AND ORALLY ARGUING THE CASE. BECAUSE THE CASE IS ONGOING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. TRUESDELL V. FRIEDLANDER. PHILLIP TRUESDELL AND HIS FAMILY LAUNCHED LEGACY MEDICAL TRANSPORT, NON-EMERGENCY AMBULANCE COMPANY IN ABERDEEN, OHIO, IN 2017. THE BUSINESS HAS GROWN FROM ONE TO SEVEN VEHICLES. LOCATED JUST MILES FROM THE KENTUCKY BORDER, THE COMPANY OFTEN TAKES CLIENTS FROM OHIO TO KENTUCKY. KENTUCKY LAW, HOWEVER, PROHIBITS LEGACY FROM RETURNING THOSE CLIENTS TO OHIO WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF NEED. CERTIFICATE OF NEED LAWS GRANT EXISTING BUSINESSES A VETO POWER OVER ANY NEW COMPETITION. REPRESENTED BY PLF, THE TRUESDELLS ARE FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING FREE OF IRRATIONAL GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. PLF FILED A COMPLAINT FILED IN FEDERAL COURT AND LITIGATION IS ONGOING. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. |
| PART III, LINE 4A |
FREEDOM OF SPEECH: THE FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS AND INFORMATION IS VITAL FOR HUMAN PROGRESS IN BOTH OUR INTELLECTUAL AND MATERIAL LIVES. PLF PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO SPEAK (OR NOT TO SPEAK) IN A WIDE RANGE OF CONTEXTS. WE LITIGATE AGAINST SPEECH RESTRICTIONS BASED ON THE CONTENT OF IDEAS OF THE IDENTITY OF PARTICULAR SPEAKERS; AGAINST COMPELLED SPEECH; IN SUPPORT OF SPEECH IN COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL CONTEXTS. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF JOURNALISTS AND AUTHORS V. BECERRA. IN AN EFFORT TO REGULATE THE EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, CALIFORNIA PASSED A LAW FORCING COMPANIES IN THE STATE TO RECLASSIFY MOST FREELANCERS AS EMPLOYEES. UNDER AB 5, FREELANCE JOURNALISTS AND PHOTOGRAPHERS MUST CAP THEIR SUBMISSIONS AT 35 PER YEAR, PER PUBLISHER. OTHER PROFESSIONS, LIKE MARKETING AND GRAPHIC DESIGN, FACE NO SUCH RESTRICTIONS ON FREELANCING. SUCH SELECTIVE AND UNEQUAL TREATMENT AMONG MEMBERS OF SPEAKING PROFESSIONS VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING FREE FROM BOTH IRRATIONAL GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE AND REGULATION BASED SOLELY ON THE CONTENT OF THEIR SPEECH. REPRESENTING ASSOCIATIONS OF FREELANCE JOURNALISTS AND PHOTOGRAPHERS, PLF FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING AB 5'S UNLAWFUL CARVEOUTS THAT RESTRICT THEIR MEMBERS' PROFESSIONAL SPEECH AND PREVENT THEM FROM MAKING A LIVING AS FREELANCERS. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS WAS GRANTED AND PLF APPEALED TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. COLORADO UNION OF TAXPAYERS FOUNDATION V. CITY OF DENVER. A PLF ATTORNEY IS ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN A GOLDWATER INSTITUTE LAWSUIT TO ALLOW NONPROFIT GROUPS THAT ADVOCATE FOR OR AGAINST BALLOT ISSUES TO SHIELD THE IDENTITY OF THEIR DONORS, CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS WERE FILED IN 2018, FOLLOWED BY A TRIAL IN 2019. THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE CASE FOR LACK OF STANDING AND THE NONPROFIT GROUPS APPEALED TO THE COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS. THE APPELLATE COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION AND NEXT STEPS ARE BEING CONSIDERED. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. ELSTER V. CITY OF SEATTLE. A SEATTLE LAW AUTHORIZES THE CITY TO ISSUE "DEMOCRACY VOUCHERS" EVERY ELECTION CYCLE TO RESIDENTS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. THE RESIDENTS MAY THEN CONTRIBUTE THESE VOUCHERS TO ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES FOR CITY ELECTED OFFICES. PLF REPRESENTS SEATTLE TAXPAYERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS IN A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE VOUCHERS AS VIOLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND EQUAL PROTECTION. THE KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT UPHELD THE LAW AND PLF APPEALED, COMPLETING ALL APPELLATE BRIEFING. THE APPELLATE COURT THEN CERTIFIED THE QUESTION TO THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT, WHERE PLF ARGUED THE CASE. AFTER AN ADVERSE DECISION, PLF PETITIONED THE U.S. SUPREME COURT FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. THE PETITION WAS DENIED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. FREEDOM FOUNDATION V. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY. PLF REPRESENTS A NON-PROFIT FOUNDATION THAT SOUGHT TO ENGAGE IN LEAFLETTING IN THE LOBBY OF A BUILDING HOUSING A STATE AGENCY TO INFORM PUBLIC EMPLOYEES OF THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO REFRAIN FROM SUBSIDIZING PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS. THE AGENCY PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED OTHER ORGANIZATIONS TO ENGAGE IN EXPRESSIVE ACTIVITIES ON THE PREMISES AND ITS SELECTIVE, CONTENT-BASED REFUSAL TO ALLOW THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION TO DO SO VIOLATES THE SPEAKERS' FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION AND PLF APPEALED TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. JACKSON V. NAPOLITANO. PLF REPRESENTS TWO WORKERS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SAN DIEGO WHO WISH TO EXERCISE THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO REFRAIN FROM PAYING DUES TO A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION. CALIFORNIA ENACTED SEVERAL LAWS TO BLUNT THE IMPACT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT VICTORY IN JANUS V. AFSCME, COUNCIL 31, BY MAKING IT ILLEGAL FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYERS TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES ABOUT THE EXERCISE OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL SPEECH AND ASSOCIATIONAL RIGHTS. PLF FILED A COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL COURT. STATE OFFICIALS AND THE TEAMSTERS UNION MOVED TO DISMISS. PLF COMPLETED BRIEFING ON THE MOTIONS. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. KOTLER V. SHIOMOTO. PLF REPRESENTS A CALIFORNIA MOTORIST CHALLENGING THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES' REFUSAL TO PERMIT A PERSONALIZED LICENSE PLATE BECAUSE THE CONFIGURATION (COYW), WHICH REFERS TO A SOCCER TEAM, MAY BE MISINTERPRETED TO HAVE RACIAL CONNOTATIONS. THIS VIOLATES KOTLER'S FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH RIGHTS. PLF FILED A COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AND DEFEATED A MOTION TO DISMISS. SUBSEQUENTLY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES AGREED TO SETTLE, GIVING KOTLER HIS LICENSE PLATE AND PAYING PLF $75,000 IN FEES AND COSTS. OGILVIE V. GORDON. PLF REPRESENTS SEVERAL CALIFORNIA MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERS WHO WISH TO HAVE PERSONALIZED LICENSE PLATES. THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES DENIED THEIR REQUESTS BASED ON A STATE REGULATION THAT BANS PERSONALIZED PLATE CONFIGURATIONS THAT DMV OFFICIALS DETERMINE TO BE "OFFENSIVE TO GOOD TASTE AND DECENCY." PLF FILED SUED IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ON BEHALF OF THE VEHICLE OWNERS AFTER THE SETTLEMENT OF THE RELATED CASE, KOTLER V. SHIOMOTO (SEE ABOVE). BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. OSTREWICH V. TRAUTMAN. PLF REPRESENTS A TEXAS VOTERS WHO WENT TO HER POLLING PLACE WEARING A FIREFIGHTER UNION SHIRT. ELECTION OFFICIALS FORCED HER TO REMOVE THE APPAREL BEFORE BEING ALLOWED TO VOTE BECAUSE THE UNION SUPPORTED ONE OF THE INITIATIVE MEASURES ON THE BALLOT. IN THIS FOLLOW-UP CASE TO MINNESOTA VOTERS ALLIANCE V. MANSKY, PLF FILED A COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ARGUING THAT A STATUTE FORBIDDING VOTERS FROM WEARING APPAREL RELATED TO ANY CANDIDATE, POLITICAL PARTY, OR ISSUE VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF SPEECH. THE COURT DENIED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND DISCOVERY CONTINUES. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS ONGOING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. PULLEY V. THOMPSON. DEBBIE PULLEY HAS BEEN A CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL MIDWIFE (CPM) SINCE 1995, GUIDING MOTHERS THROUGH UNCOMPLICATED PREGNANCIES AND HELPING THEM DELIVER THEIR BABIES, OFTEN AT THE MOTHER'S HOME OR A BIRTHING CENTER. IN 2015, GEORGIA GAVE THE BOARD OF NURSING POWER TO DECIDE WHO CAN PRACTICE MIDWIFERY AND THE BOARD SAID YOU NEEDED A NURSING LICENSE TO WORK AS A MIDWIFE. BECAUSE PULLEY IS NOT A NURSE, SHE NO LONGER CAN PRACTICE MIDWIFERY IN GEORGIA. INSTEAD, SHE IS ADVOCATING FOR LEGAL REFORMS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION SO THAT GEORGIA MOTHERS HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO CHOOSE A CPM. THE BOARD RESPONDED BY ISSUING A GAG ORDER THAT PROHIBITS PULLEY FROM DESCRIBING HERSELF TRUTHFULLY AS A MIDWIFE. PLF FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT ON HER BEHALF TO PROTECT HER RIGHT TO SPEAK THE TRUTH. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. RENTBERRY V. CITY OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. SEATTLE ENACTED A LAW FORBIDDING LANDLORDS AND POTENTIAL TENANTS FROM USING ONLINE RENT-BIDDING PLATFORMS FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR, WHILE THE CITY STUDIES WHETHER THE PLATFORMS RUN AFOUL OF ANY MUNICIPAL RENTAL HOUSING ORDINANCES. REPRESENTING DELANEY WYSINGLE, A LANDLORD WHO RENTS ONE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IN THE CITY WHO WOULD LIKE TO USE RENT-BIDDING PLATFORMS AS A MEANS TO IDENTIFY AND RENT TO POTENTIAL TENANTS, AND RENTBERRY, A PLATFORM COMPANY, PLF SUED TO INVALIDATE THE MORATORIUM AS A VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S PROTECTION FOR FREE SPEECH. THE TRIAL COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION AND PLF APPEALED. BRIEFING IS COMPLETE. BECAUSE THE CASE IS ONGOING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW: PLF'S OPPOSES DISCRIMINATION BY GOVERNMENT ON THE BASIS OF RACE AND SEX. OUR LITIGATION IS MOST FOCUSED ON DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC EDUCATION AND PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT. CHRISTA MCAULIFFE INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL PTO, INC. V. DE BLASIO. PLF REPRESENTS ASIAN-AMERICAN FAMILIES IN A CHALLENGE TO THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY DECISION TO ALTER THE ADMISSIONS CRITERIA TO THE CITY'S SPECIALIZED HIGH SCHOOLS. PLF FILED A COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS DENIED. PLF APPEALED THE DENIAL TO SECOND CIRCUIT, WHICH DENIED RELIEF. PLF FILED A PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC. MEANWHILE, LITIGATION CONTINUES IN THE DISTRICT COURT. BECAUSE THE CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. |
| PART III, LINE 4A |
CONNECTICUT PARENTS UNION V. CARDONA. PLF REPRESENTS A PARENT ORGANIZATION TO CHALLENGE A STATE STATUTE THAT REQUIRES ALL MAGNET SCHOOLS IN CONNECTICUT TO MAINTAIN A RACIAL BALANCE OF AT LEAST 25% WHITE STUDENTS. THIS MEANS THAT IN SCHOOLS THAT DO NOT MEET THIS QUOTA, MINORITY STUDENTS ARE TURNED AWAY FROM EMPTY SEATS. THE STATE SUCCESSFULLY MOVED TO DISMISS THE CASE ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE PARENT ORGANIZATION LACKED STANDING. PLF APPEALED TO THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. IN THE MATTER OF [MINOR BOY]. REPRESENTING FOSTER PARENTS IN AN EQUAL PROTECTION CHALLENGE TO THE FEDERAL INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT, WHICH COMPELS STATE COURTS TO FAVOR THE PLACEMENT OF INDIAN CHILDREN WITH INDIAN RELATIVES, SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE CHILD'S AND FOSTER PARENTS' RACES. THE JUVENILE-COURT MAGISTRATE OVERSEEING MINOR BOY'S CASE FOUND THAT A NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE TESTIFIED THAT MINOR BOY'S FATHER WAS AN ENROLLED MEMBER. MINOR BOY WAS BORN IN A STATE 2,000 MILES FROM THIS NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE'S RESERVATION, AND HE HAS LIVED IN THAT STATE HIS WHOLE LIFE. MINOR BOY'S MOTHER IS DECEASED, AND HIS FATHER STRUGGLED WITH ADDICTIONS. THE TRIBE INTERVENED IN THE CASE AND SOUGHT TO PLACE MINOR BOY ON ITS RESERVATION WITH RELATIVES WHOM MINOR BOY HAD NEVER MET. MINOR BOY'S FOSTER PARENTS, REPRESENTED BY PLF, SOUGHT LEGAL CUSTODY OF MINOR BOY. THE JUVENILE COURT ISSUED A FAVORABLE DECISION GRANTING LEGAL CUSTODY TO THE FOSTER FAMILY. THERE IS NO POTENTIAL TO RECOVER FEES IN THIS CASE. MELAND V. PADILLA. IN 2018, CALIFORNIA ENACTED A WOMAN QUOTA LAW, WHICH REQUIRES ALL PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES THAT ARE INCORPORATED OR HEADQUARTERED IN THE STATE TO HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF FEMALES ON THEIR BOARDS OF DIRECTORS. THIS LAW IGNORES THAT WOMEN ARE MAKING GREAT STRIDES IN THE BOARDROOM WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT MANDATE, AND THEREFORE PERPETUATES THE MYTH THAT WOMEN CAN'T MAKE IT TO THE BOARDROOM WITHOUT GOVERNMENT HELP. MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE LAW FORCES ANYONE SELECTING BOARD MEMBERS TO CONSIDER THEM AS MEMBERS OF A SEX-BASED GROUP, RATHER THAN AS INDIVIDUALS. PLF'S LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF CREIGHTON MELAND CHALLENGES THE STATE LAW AS A BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION'S EQUAL PROTECTION GUARANTEE. THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE STATE'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLF APPEALED TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. THE CASE REMAINS PENDING, SO IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. QUAD KNOPF, INC. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. PLF REPRESENTS QUAD KNOPF, AN ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND CONSULTING FIRM IN CALIFORNIA THAT CONTRACTS TO PERFORM SERVICES WITH CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. BECAUSE OF THE COMMISSION'S REGULATIONS REQUIRING THAT CONTRACTORS UTILIZE A SET PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN- AND MINORITY-OWNED SUBCONTRACTORS, QUAD KNOPF IS REQUIRED TO SUBCONTRACT WORK THAT COULD BE PERFORMED BY ITS OWN EMPLOYEES. THESE REGULATIONS VIOLATE THE STATE CONSTITUTION'S COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC CONTRACTING WITHOUT REGARD TO THE RACE OR SEX OF CONTRACTORS, ENACTED AS PROPOSITION 209 IN 1996. PLF PETITIONED THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION TO RESCIND ITS REGULATIONS TO THE EXTENT THEY OFFER PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BASED ON RACE AND SEX. THE PETITION WAS DENIED AND PLF APPLIED FOR REHEARING. SUBSEQUENTLY, PLF FILED A NEW PETITION TO REPEAL OR TO REFUSE TO ENFORCE THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS. BECAUSE THE CASE IS ONGOING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. ROBINSON V. WENTZELL. THE CITY OF HARTFORD RUNS A NUMBER OF WORLD-CLASS MAGNET SCHOOLS. THESE SCHOOLS ARE SO SUCCESSFUL THAT DEMAND OUTSTRIPS THE SCHOOLS' CAPACITY, AND A LOTTERY IS USED TO DECIDE WHO CAN ATTEND. BUT BECAUSE STATE LAW IMPOSES RACIAL QUOTAS ON THESE SCHOOLS-ENROLLMENT MUST BE AT LEAST 25% WHITE OR ASIAN-BLACK AND HISPANIC STUDENTS ARE DENIED ADMISSION IF THEIR ENROLLMENT AT A SCHOOL WOULD RAISE MINORITY ENROLLMENT ABOVE 75%-EVEN IF IT MEANS SEATS REMAIN EMPTY. REPRESENTING SEVEN FAMILIES, PLF SUED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION'S EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE TO ENSURE THAT BLACK AND HISPANIC STUDENTS HAVE THE SAME EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AS ALL CHILDREN IN CONNECTICUT. THE CITY FILED A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, WHICH PLF BRIEFED. THE COURT DENIED THE CITY'S MOTION. SUBSEQUENT TO A FAVORABLE SETTLEMENT IN A RELATED CASE, PLF VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED THIS CASE. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. AMICUS CASES: PLF FILED AMICUS BRIEFS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES, FURTHERING THE OBJECTIVES DESCRIBED ABOVE. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION V. NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION (U.S. SUPREME COURT) AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION V. BECERRA (U.S. SUPREME COURT) ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. V. CHRISTIAN (U.S. SUPREME COURT) AURELIUS INVESTMENT, LLC V. COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO (U.S. SUPREME COURT) BALEY V. UNITED STATES (U.S. SUPREME COURT) BRANCH V. COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD (U.S. SUPREME COURT) BRNOVICH V. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (U.S. SUPREME COURT) C.K. V. TAHOE (SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ALBANY COUNTY) CHERNAIK V. BROWN (OREGON SUPREME COURT) CTIA V. CITY OF BERKELEY (U.S. SUPREME COURT) ESPINOZA V. WALBORN (U.S. SUPREME COURT) FLECK V. WETCH (U.S. SUPREME COURT) FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE V. DOLLIVER (FLORIDA SUPREME COURT) FREED V. THOMAS (SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) FRITZ V. WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA (U.S. SUPREME COURT) GALARZA V. CITY OF NEW YORK (N.Y. SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION) HIGGINSON V. BECERRA (U.S. SUPREME COURT) HOTOP V. CITY OF SAN JOSE (NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) HUMANE SOCIETY V. KIENZLE (TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) JACKSON V. RAFFENSBERGER (GEORGIA SUPREME COURT) JARCHOW V. STATE BAR OF WISCONSIN (U.S. SUPREME COURT) JOHNSON V. CITY OF SUFFOLK (VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT) LECH V. CITY OF GREENWOOD VILLAGE (U.S. SUPREME COURT) MOUNTAIN-LANDS CONSERVANCY V. CAL. COASTAL COMM'N (CAL. CT. APP.) MURPHY AUTO GROUP V. FLORIDA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION (FLA. CT. APP.) OLSON V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA (NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) PIZZA DI JOEY, LLC V. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE (MARYLAND CT. APP.) POLONSKY V. TOWN OF BEDFORD (N.H. SUPREME COURT) RAYMOND J. LUCIA COS. V. SEC (NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) REISMAN V. ASSOCIATED FACULTIES OF THE UNIV. OF MAINE (U.S. SUPREME COURT) ROZENBLIT V. LYLES (N.J. SUPERIOR COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION - ORAL ARGUMENT); (N.J. SUPREME COURT) SEILA LAW LLC V. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU (U.S. SUPREME COURT). SPEECH FIRST, INC. V. FENVES (FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS V. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE (FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) SZONYA V. BARR (U.S. SUPREME COURT) UNITED STATES V. LAPANT (E.D. CAL.) UNITED STATES V. LUCERO (NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) VUGO V. CITY OF NEW YORK (U.S. SUPREME COURT) WINBERRY REALTY PARTNERSHIP V. BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD (NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT) |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11B |
THE TAX PREPARER AND PLF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PROVIDE THE FORM 990 TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, ALONG WITH EACH TRUSTEE, GIVING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE ANY CONCERNS AND/OR ASK QUESTIONS PRIOR TO THE FILING DATE. A DEADLINE IS GIVEN TO THE TRUSTEES TO INSURE TIMELY FILING OF THE TAX RETURN. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C |
EACH TIME A NEW CASE COMES UP, PLF CHECKS FOR CONFLICTS. EACH DECISION MADE BY THE BOARD, IF SOMEONE HAS A CONFLICT, THE BOARD MEMBER WILL ABSTAIN FROM THE VOTE AND/OR DISCUSSION. ON AN ANNUAL BASIS THE TRUSTEES REVIEW THE POLICY PROVIDING WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. ANY CONFLICTS OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS ARE RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15 |
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD MEETS ANNUALLY AND USES COMPARABILITY DATA PROVIDED BY DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES TO DETERMINE THAT THE COMPENSATION DOES NOT EXCEED THE LEVEL OF THE BENEFITS PROVIDED. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 |
COPIES ARE AVAILABLE ON THE ORGANIZATIONS WEBSITE OR UPON REQUEST. |
| FORM 990, PART XI, LINE 9: |
SFAS NO.247 ADJUSTMENT FOR SPLIT INTEREST AGREEMENTS -46,601. RECEIVABLES DEEMED UNCOLLECTABLE -218,910. |
| PART XII, LINE 2C |
NO CHANGE FROM PRIOR YEAR |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.