Representative Cases

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=100 BGCOLOR="#006699" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="08478783.jpg"> <div> LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL S. SORGEN<FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#660000" FACE="Korinna BT" >   </FONT>   </div> <div> 240 Stockton Street, 9th Floor, San Francisco, CA  94108</div> <div> Tel: (415) 956-1360    Fax: (415) 956-6342</div> <bR> <bR> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=20% BGCOLOR="#FFCC66" TEXT="#080000" background="08478783.jpg"> <bR> <div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="sorgen.net home"><U>Home</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="index_practice_areas.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="sorgen.net home"><U>Practice Areas</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id20.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Attorney Bios"><U>Attorneys</U></A></div> <div> Representative</div> <div> Cases</div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id22.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Prospective Client Questionnaire"><U>Prospective Client</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id22.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Prospective Client Questionnaire"><U>Questionnnaire</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id21.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Employment"><U>Employment</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id23.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Contact Us "><U>Contact Us</U></A>   </div> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" height=380 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="08982823.jpg"> <div> Representative Cases</div> <bR> <div> The breadth of the firm’s practice is illustrated by recent and pending cases:</div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>Employment Discrimination</B></div> <bR> <div> Just recently in 2011, the firm settled its first discrimination case involving immigrant workers, <I>Figueroa v. DCD, </I>Alameda Superior Court Case No. RG10532465.</div> <bR> <div> In <I>Moralez v. Chao</I>, N.D. Ca. No. C073807 EDL, we secured in 2010 a substantial settlement in the amount of $365,000 for a failure of reasonable accommodation by which the OFCCP essentially, and contrary to its very mission, forced plaintiff, an EEO Specialist, to take a disability retirement. In 2011 we settled a disability case for $80,000 for Pearl Howell against the City of San Francisco and another for Carolyn Epple against CSU Sonoma for $90,000 and a bridge to retirement. Disability rights in employment is a significant part of our law practice.</div> <bR> <div> In <I>Stockwell v. City and County of San Francisco</I>, 9th Cir. No. 12-15070, Plaintiffs are appealing denial of a motion to certify a class of police officers over the age of 40 who were qualified for promotion to investigator positions but blocked by the City’s practice of promoting younger officers from a different classification which had a disparate impact on the older eligible candidates.</div> <bR> <div> In <I>Taybron v. City and County of San Francisco </I>(9th Cir. 2003) 341 F.3d 957, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment on claims of two San Francisco Municipal Railway employees who were subjected to vulgar and pervasive sexual harassment. The case settled for $300,000 after remand to the District Court.</div> <div> The San Francisco Superior Court awarded a $1.6 million judgment to the plaintiff in a sexual harassment case against the San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA), which was subsequently upheld by the California Court of Appeal, and SFHA's petition to the California Supreme Court was denied. <I>Walker v. SFHA </I>(2003) 100 Cal. App. 4th 685. Defendant paid more than $3 million in 2008, including<B> </B>for<B> </B>numerous appellate and enforcement proceedings and interest.</div> <bR> <div> In <I>Hall v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District</I> (2001) Case No. 311038, a San Francisco Superior Court jury awarded $300,000 to an African American employee who was subjected to illegal race-based discrimination and retaliation in the denial of promotions.  </div> <bR> <div> Persistence paid off in <I>Mayfield v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District </I>and in <I>Harris v. City & County of San Francisco </I>(1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th 1306, where the plaintiff lost a split decision in the California Court of Appeal, but then pursue related claims in federal court and parlayed them into a promotion and a substantial settlement.</div> <bR> <div> We successfully represented five plaintiffs who opted out of a class settlement in <I>Ling, et al. v. Regents</I> <I>of the University of California</I>, Alameda Superior Court No. 2001-035654, in which Asian-American scientists and engineers at the Lawrence Livermore Lab claimed racial discrimination in pay and promotion. After defeating summary judgment, our five individual plaintiffs settled for more than defendant had  paid for the entire class.</div> <bR> <div> <I>Norris v. City and County of San Francisco</I>, 900 F.2d 1326 (9th Cir.1990), is a race discrimination case where the 9th Circuit reversed the trial judge decision on the merits and ordered that a finding of discrimination be made in the plaintiff's favor.  The case settled after remand.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Employment Class Actions</B></div> <bR> <div>      In <I>Wahid </I>and <I>Saavedra v. Nations</I>, Alameda County Superior Court Nos. RG 05246866 and RG 08421015, we represented restaurant managers who had been mis-classified as exempt and denied overtime as well as rest and meal breaks and thereby achieved a substantial settlement. <I>Neu-Helms v. (defendant’s identity is confidential)</I>, involves a group of non-exempt employees who were compelled allegedly by the nature of the work to sign a waiver of their labor code rights to off duty meal and rest breaks.  We certified a class and settled for $3.5 million. In <I>Kauffman v. Bank of America MDL No. 2138 In re: B of A Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation</I>, we represent personal bankers throughout California who were forced to work overtime in order to meet sales quotas but were not allowed to record the overtime and were not paid for it.  The case has been removed to Federal Court and coordinated as part of a multi-district litigation in the District of Kansas. At least six other employment class actions are pending and active in local courts in 2012.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>Health Care, Constitutional & Whistleblowing Issues</B></div> <bR> <div> In <I>Children’s Hospital v. Belshe</I>, 188 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 1999), the federal court invalidated the California reimbursement system for out-of-state hospitals treating California Medicaid patients. The San Francisco Superior Court awarded retroactive reimbursement, interest, and attorneys’ fees totaling $8 million. The Court of Appeal affirmed in<I> Children’s Hospital v. Bonte (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 740, </I>finding both that California’s reimbursement system discriminates and thereby violates the Interstate Commerce Clause and that the award of attorney’s fees was fully warranted.  Plaintiffs ultimately collected $13 million in reimbursements and forced the state to change the system.  In <I>Asante v. Maxwell-Jolly</I>, No. 10-cv-3828 CRB (NDCA), we secured for out of state hospitals more than $3 million, their fair share of federal surplus medicaid funding.</div> <bR> <div> In August 2003 an Alameda Superior Court jury awarded $175,000 to an employee who suffered illegal retaliation for reporting waste and misuse of government funds.<I> Tolchin v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District et al.</I>, Case No. C-833314-4. After more than half a million dollars in attorneys’ fees were also awarded, the case settled during defendant's appeal.</div> <bR> <div> In<I> Nguyen v. City & County of San Francisco</I>, N.D. Ca. No. C98-2077 SBA (2001), we obtained a jury verdict affirming the First Amendment rights of an orchid vendor to protest graft and corruption at the City-operated Farmer’s Market.  </div> <bR> <div> <I>Allen v. Scribner</I>, 812 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1987), is a leading 9th Circuit case on First Amendment whistle blowing and involved the chief entomologist during the Med Fly crisis, who was transferred, demoted and physically threatened for speaking out on the status of the Med Fly and its potential threat to consumers of California agricultural produce.</div> <bR> <div> Pending in the Supreme Court since assignment on October 3, 2011 is the 9th Circuit decision to enjoin the State of California from cutting Medicaid rates without complying with Federal Statutory requirements to assure the beneficiaries continuing access to quality health services. The injunction was based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court is not reviewing the state’s statutory compliance, but only the procedural right of providers and beneficiaries to sue for equitable relief. <I>Douglas v. Santa Rosa Medical Hospital </I>Supreme Court No. 10-238.  Health care reimbursement and related constitutional issues are a significant part of the firm’s practice, including petitions for writ of mandate in the superior court to secure retroactive reimbursement.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>Rights of Military Service personnel and Veterans</B></div> <bR> <div> In <I>Doe v. Hagee,</I> N.D. Ca. No. C06-1777 MHP (2008), we forced the Marines to take steps to prevent sexual abuse during recruitment and to pay a substantial sum to the victims. We are currently pursuing damage claims against the individual perpetrators. We also consulted with plaintiffs’ counsel in <I>Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki </I>No. 08–16728 where the 9th Circuit ruled in May 2011 that unreasonably delays in providing mental health care to returning combat veterans violated their rights. </div> <bR> <div> In <I>United States v. Arcata</I>, No. 629 F. 3 d (9th Cir. 2011), we defended the City of Arcata’s Youth Protection Act, a ballot initiative which passed overwhelmingly to prevent military recruiters from attempting to recruit minors under the age of 17 without prior parental consent.  We also invoked a treaty ratified by the United States which contains a similar prohibition. Although the ordinance tracked federal statutory restrictions, the court found that the local enforcement provisions were pre-empted.</div> <bR> <div> In <I>Doe v. Rumsfeld</I>, 297 F. Supp. 2d 119, 135 (D.D.C. 2003)<I>,</I><B> </B>a decorated combat veteran serving in the Army Reserve filed the first of several unsuccessful challenges to the Army's "stop loss" program, under which a National Guard member had his enlistment term extended involuntarily for combat duty in Iraq.  The reservist is identified as "John Doe" for reasons of privacy.  Our office also filed a "friend of the court" (amicus) brief in support of another soldier's challenge to the stop loss "backdoor draft" deployment to Afghanistan, <I>Santiago v. Rumsfeld,</I> 425 F.3d 549 (9th Cir. 2005) , and represented three other decorated combat veterans in the National Guard or the Army Reserve who gained release from further deployments.  </div> <bR> <div> Under the stop loss program, the Army has prevented tens of thousands of soldiers from retiring or leaving the military upon completing their enlistment terms so that they could be deployed to or kept in Iraq or Afghanistan.  The petition asserted that the program was unfair, unconstitutional, unauthorized by law, and in breach of Doe's standard enlistment contract.  The stop loss program has been widely criticized as a "backdoor draft” and was phased out in 2010.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Education and Children's Rights</B></div> <bR> <div> In <I>Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation</I> (2006) 39 Cal 4th 1164, the California Supreme Court authorized proceedings as private attorneys general to curb sham practices by charter schools engaged in "distant learning" for home-educated children throughout the state. <I>Wells</I> settled in 2010 for $250,000. Our firm has also successfully prosecuted several consumer class actions on behalf of disappointed students enrolled in private vocational or post-secondary institutions.  </div> <bR> <div> We have litigated other matters involving children not receiving education programs and resources to which they are legally entitled. For example, in<I> Martin v. UHS of Delaware Inc. </I>Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2009-044335<I>, </I>plaintiffs sued in Sacramento Superior Court as private attorneys general under the California False Claims Act, charging the for-profit, non-public school operator with fraud and unfair business practices, including falsifying<B> </B>records to charge<B> </B>for students not present, understaffing its classrooms, employing uncertified teachers and evading state oversight efforts designed to prevent such abuses.  </div> <bR> <div> In<I> Adam G. v. Heald, </I>N.D. Ca. No. CV 11-01490, we recovered damages in 2011 and 2012 against school officials and police for denying educational services and for using pepper spray to control a seven year old emotionally disturbed first grader.</div> <bR> <div> In 2005 we achieved a substantial settlement, including damages, attorneys' fees, and prospective relief in <I>Laurie Q. v. Contra Costa County </I>304 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (2004), for a class of disabled foster care children who<B> </B>were<B> </B>denied access to appropriate educational and health services.</div> <bR> <div> In <I>Newton v. County of Napa </I>(1990)<I> </I>217 Cal. App.3d 1551, we protected the rights of children and their parents from abusive practices by the County's Child Protective Service.</div> <bR> <div> In 1999, we won a federal ruling vindicating the right of the Associated Students to use the mandatory student fee for lobbying on issues affecting their education.<I> ASUCR v. Regents of the University of California </I>(1993) 4 Cal.4th 843.  </div> <bR> <div> We also settled lawsuits in federal court after demonstrating a pattern of discrimination against disabled (special education) students who sought interdistrict transfers. <I>Skudra v. Berkeley Unified School District </I>(2002) and just recently in a case involving the school district’s handling of a 16 year old high school student’s sexual harrassment complaint against her school counselor, <I>Lilah R. v. Smith, </I>N.D. Ca., Case No. CV 11-1860 MEJ.</div> <bR> <div> <I>Charles S. v. Board of Education</I>, 20 Cal.App.3d 83 (1971) and <I>Wong v. Hayakawa</I>, 464 F.2d 1282 (9th Cir. 1972) established due process for students in school disciplinary proceedings; in <I>T.N.G. v. Superior Court</I> (1970) 4 Cal.3d 767, the California Supreme Court vindicated the rights of minors to have their juvenile court records sealed; and<I> In Re William M</I>. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 16, granted a right to pretrial release in lieu of bail. Michael Sorgen was the originating attorney in <I>Larry P. v. Riles</I>,  502 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1974), affirming a statewide injunction against the use of I.Q. tests for placing African-American children in classes for the mentally retarded and awarding attorneys' fees.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Contract and Business Practices</B></div> <bR> <div> In <I>Singer v. Regents, </I>52 F.3d 343 (Fed. Cir. 1995), the California Court of Appeal reinstated a jury verdict assuring inventors of the MRI a fair royalty based on their contract with the university. The total recovery exceeded $4 million. In a similar case in federal court, the parties resolved a dispute as to proprietorship and value of a patient.</div> <bR> <div> In <I>Schmidt v. Oakland Unified School District</I>, 662 F.2d 550 (9th Cir. 1981), Michael Sorgen successfully defended the validity of Oakland’s $150 million school construction program, which stated that a “responsible bidder” for purposes of the California statute must use minority-owned contractors or subcontractors for at least 25% of the dollar amount of the total bid.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>International Human Rights</B></div> <bR> <div> In cooperation with leading attorneys in this field, we represented plaintiffs in <I>Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco Corp.</I>, 312 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (2004), a federal case to establish corporate responsibility under the Alien Tort Claims Act, and in its companion state case for unfair business practices, including environmental and human rights abuses in Nigeria, as well as fraudulent representations made in California about Chevron's oil production and development overseas. We are currently consulting in <I>Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum</I>, No. 10-1491 and <I>Mohamad v. PLO</I>, No. 11-88, where the Supreme Court will hear argument on February 28, 2012, regarding corporate responsibility under the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act.</div> <bR> <div> In<I> Doe v. Liu,</I> 349 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (2004), brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act and Torture Victims Protection Act, we obtained declaratory relief on claims against former Beijing Mayor Liu Qui for his role in the persecution and torture of Falun Gong practitioners.  </div> <bR> <div> Following the Supreme Court ruling in <I>Samantar v. Yousuf</I>, 130 S. Ct. 49 (2009), we have been advising plaintiffs’ counsel on preparation for the trial set for February 21, 2012, in <I>Yousuf v. Samantar </I>No. 4-cv-1360 (E.D.Va)</div> </td> </tr></table></body>