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="_"><U>Home</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="index_practice_areas.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="_"><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> <div> In <I>Doe v. Hagee</I>, No. C06-1777 MHP (N.D. Ca), 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. </div> <bR> <div> <B>Stop Loss "Back Door Draft" Challenges</B></div> <bR> <div> In <I>Doe v. Rumsfeld</I>, a decorated combat veteran serving in the Army Reserve filed the first of several unsuccessful challenges to the Army's current "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.  <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="arial" >Our office also filed a "friend of the court" (amicus) brief in support of another soldier's challenge to the stop loss "backdoor draft" in <I>Santiago v. Rumsfeld</I>, (9th Cir.) 425 F.3d 549, and represented three other decorated combat veterans in the National Guard or the Army Reserve who gained release from further deployments.  </FONT></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 may be deployed to or kept in Iraq.  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.</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B> </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>Santiago v. Rumsfeld (9th Cir.) &</B></FONT></div> <div> <B>Doe v. Rumsfeld (E.D. Cal.)</B></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id35.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Santiago Amicus"><U>Santiago Amicus Brief</U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id34.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="StopLoss 2 page 4"><U>Stop Loss Surrebuttal</U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id33.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="StopLoss 2 p3"><U>Stop Loss Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction</U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id30.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="StopLoss2 page 2"><U>Stop Loss Memorandum of Law</U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id29.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="StopLoss 2 page 1"><U>Stop Loss Petition </U></A></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>Employment Discrimination </B></div> <bR> <div> In <I>Moralez v. Chao</I>, N.D. Ca. No. C073807 EDL, we are currently litigating a failure of reasonable accommodation by which the OFCCP forced an EEO Specialist to take a disability retirement. </div> <bR> <div> In <I>Taybron v. City and County of San Francisco</I>, 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 after remand to the District Court.</div> <bR> <div> The San Francisco Superior Court awarded more than $1.6 million to the plaintiff in a sexual harassment case against the San Francisco Housing Authority.  The award 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.  </div> <bR> <div> In <I>Hall v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District</I>, (2001) Case No. 311038, a San Francisco jury awarded $300,000 to an African American employee who was subjected to illegal race-based discrimination and retaliation.  </div> <bR> <div> Persistence paid off in <I>Mayfield v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District</I> and<I> Harris v. City & County of San Francisco</I> (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th 1306, where the plaintiffs each lost a split decision in the California Court of Appeal, but then salvaged their most significant claims and parlayed them into a promotion and a substantial settlement of their federal lawsuits.      </div> <bR> <div> We successfully represented plaintiffs who opted out of a class settlement in <I>Ling v. Regents, </I>Alameda Superior Court No. 2001-035654, in which Asian-American scientists and engineers at the Lawrence Livermore Lab claimed discrimination in pay and promotion. After defeating summary judgment, our five individual plaintiffs settled for more than was 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 refers to the trial judge decision on the merits and ordered that a finding of discrimination be made in the plaintiff's favor.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Education and Children's Rights</B></div> <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. Our firm has also successfully prosecuted several consumer class actions on behalf of disappointed students enrolled in private vocational or post secondary schools.  </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> (Case No. C 96 3483 MHP), for a class of disabled foster care children who have been denied access to appropriate educational and health services.</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, <I>ASUCR v. Regents of the University of California</I> (N.D. Ca. C98-00021 CRB).  </div> <bR> <div> We also settled a lawsuit 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).  </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) which established due process for students in school disciplinary proceedings; <I>T.N.G. v. Superior Court</I>,  4 Cal.3d 767 (1970), where the California Supreme Court vindicated the rights of minors to have their juvenile court records sealed; and<I> In Re William M</I>. 3 Cal.3d 16 (1970) granting 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 an injunction against the use of I.Q. tests for placing African-American children in classes for the mentally retarded and awarding attorneys' fees. </div> <div>                      <I>  </I></div> <div> <B>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, </I>97<I> </I>Cal.App.4th 740, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 629 (2002) the 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. </div> <bR> <div> In August 2003 an Alameda Superior Court jury awarded $175,000 to a Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) employee who was illegally retaliated against for reporting suspected waste and misuse of government funds.  <I>Tolchin v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District et al.</I>, Case No. C-833314-4</div> <bR> <div> In <I>Nguyen v. City & County of San Francisco</I>, United States District Court Case No. C98-2077 SBA (ND Ca 2001), we obtained a jury verdict and fees 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 for 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 crisis and its potential threat to consumers of California agricultural produce.</div> <bR> <div> <B>International Human Rights </B></div> <div> In cooperation with leading attorneys in this field, we represented plaintiffs in <I>Bowoto v. Chevron</I>, (N.D. Ca. 312 F. Supp. 2d 1229 2004), a federal case under the Alien Tort Claims Act, and <I>Bowoto v. Chevron</I>, Case San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC-03-417580, a state case under the California Business & Professions Code §17200 prohibitions against unfair business practices.  These cases involve environmental and human rights abuses in Nigeria, as well as fraudulent representations made in California about Chevron's oil production and development overseas. Trial in the federal case is scheduled for October 2008.</div> <bR> <div> In <I>Doe v. Liu</I>, ND Ca 349 F. Supp. 2d 1258, 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> <B>Contract and Business </B></div> <div> In<I> Singer v. Regents</I>, the California Court of Appeal reinstated a jury verdict assuring inventors of the MRI a fair royalty. 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 patent.      </div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>