1. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION Michael Rawson Co-Director, Public Interest Law Project The Public Interest Law Project 449 15 th Street, Suite 301 Oakland, CA 94612 510 891 9794 www.pilpca.org

2. Public Interest Litigation What is it?

3. It’s Exactly the Same…. “Services Cases” Administrative Actions Impact Litigation

4. But, It’s Completely Different Supported by Program Resources, not Client Resources Clients Unable to Bear Costs of Loss Resources Severely Limited = – Inherent Tension Between Individual and Impact Cases Legal Services Corporation Restrictions

5. LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION RESTRICTIONS Not Permitted – Class Action Limitations – Representation of Undocumented Immigrants – Collection of Attorneys Fees – Prohibition on Lobbying Permitted – Suits seeking injunctive relief and writ relief – OK if Injunction provides class-wide relief

6. In the Public Interest 1. Not Private Business or Government 2. Never Only for the Client Results will have broad impact 3. Never in Isolation—Part of Coordinated Advocacy – Partners: Community Based Organizations (CBOs) – Labor, Faith-Based, Social Justice, Environmental Sometimes Government – Types: Legislative, Administrative, Political

7. Urban Habitat v. City of Pleasanton – Court of Appeal Reinstated Exclusionary Zoning Suit – With Public Advocates, Urban Habitat & Local Housing Activists Watkins v. Alameda County – TRO Halting County from Implementing Time Limits on General Assistance – With Bay Area Legal Aid – Coordinated Advocacy Strategy w/ EBCLC & CBOs Arroyo Vista Tenants Association v. City of Dublin – TRO Requiring Housing Authority and City Stop Involuntary Relocation of Tenants – With Bay Area Legal Aid and AVTA Price v. Stockton Redevelopment Agency – Injunction and Settlement Halting Displacement of SRO residents and requiring the development of 360 affordable units downtown Examples from PILP

8. THE NUTS & BOLTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION Federal & State Court See “Choice of Relief in Calif. State Courts….” Richard Rothschild (WCLP)

9. Federal Court – Options Limited Class Action Sometimes—Class-Wide Injunction In Non-Class Action If Relief Necessary to Redress Injury Group Plaintiffs Generally Needed-- See Price v. Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105 (9 th Cir. 2004) Injury to Mission & Expenditure of Resources

10. Class Action Requirements Significant FRCP 23 – (a) numerosity, commonality typicality and adequacy of class rep – (b) injunctive relief – (c) damages—greater commonality nexus Injunctive Relief Available Only After Class Cert.

11. Federal Jurisdictional & Procedural Hurdles Standing (Constitution, Article III) – Individual Injury “In Fact” – Proximate Cause – Redress By Courts Possible Private “Right of Action” – Congress Intended to Create Individual Right? – Congress Intended Judicial Enforcement by Individual? Alexander v. Sandoval, 121 S.Ct. 1511 (2001) Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002)

12. 42 USC §1983: Provides Redress and Enforceability Against Government  Requires deprivation of a “federal right” secured by the “Constitution and laws”  By a person acting under color of state law  So, IF Congress created Individual Right,  1983 Provides Presumption of Enforceability  Attorneys’ Fees available (42 USC §1988)

13. State Court – More Options In Suing Government - Individual Suit– Broader Standing - Organizational Suit—Broader Standing - Class Action (CCP 382 et seq.)—More Flexible PLUS: - Taxpayer Suit (CCP §526a) - Writ of Mandate (CCP §1085)

14. More Options Suing Private Entity Individual Suit & Organizational Suit Unlawful Business Practice (B & PC §17200) – Caveat : Since Prop. 64 plaintiffs must be individually injured and meet the class action requirements. -Class Action (CCP 382 et seq.) More flexible requirements Injunctive Relief Easier to Obtain

15. INDIVIDUAL & ORGANIZATIONAL STANDING Individual Suits – Stocks v. City of Irvine, 114 Cal.App.3d 520 (1981) Persons Living Outside Jurisdiction Can Attack Exclusionary Zoning Significant Public Interest can be sufficient for standing Organizational Suits – Injury to Mission can establish standing if: Strong Public Interest Writ of Mandate (Enforcing Duty of Government to Obey Law

16. WRIT OF MANDATE—CCP 1085 To Compel Government to Obey Law – To Perform any Mandatory Duty Standing—Extremely Broad – Any “beneficially interested” person – Anyone having interest in execution of the laws – Green v. Obledo, 29 Cal.3d 126, 144 (1981) Relief—Class-like Effect

17. TAX PAYER SUIT (CCP 526a) Standing to Sue Government – Blair v. Pitchess, 5 Cal.3d 258, 267-70 (1971) Payment of Sales Tax Possibly Not Enough – Torres v. City of Yorba Linda, 13 Cal.App.4th at 1046-48 But Homeless People Have Standing to Challenge No-Camping Law – Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1086 (1995)

18. CLASS ACTIONS in Calif. (CCP 382) Requirements: (Similar to Feds) – Ascertainable Class – “Well defined community of interests” – Common Questions of Law & Fact “Predominate” – Typicality – Adequacy of Representation Relief – Injunctive Relief Before Certification (CCP 527) – Non-Unanimous Jury – Cy Pres

19. “CAREERS” IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION --Or Something Else…

20. More than a Job— A Different Kind of Wealth Many Options – Legal Services – Nonprofit Public Interest – Labor Law – Consumer Class Action Firm – Some Government Jobs Provide Professional Opportunities Equal to Big Firms Court Awarded Attorneys Fees—The Equalizer – Federal: 42 U.S.C. §1988 (and other Civil Rights Statutes) – State: CCP §1021.5 (and other Statutory Provisions) – California– Catalyst Fees Still Available