We represent students in university disciplinary and Title IX proceedings, and have obtained findings of non responsibility in multiple cases. In fact, no student represented by us has ever been found responsible for misconduct in any administrative proceeding. We also represent students in writ proceedings in Superior Court challenging university findings of misconduct leading to suspension or expulsion. We have obtained stays and remands from the Superior Court, and know how to challenge school disciplinary findings when the procedures underlying those findings violate a student’s due process rights. In this rapidly changing legal area, we have obtained extraordinary results in multiple cases.
We bring our experience to bear in every case, and know how to win on the papers and in the courtroom. We have worked for judges at the trial and appellate levels and we know what persuades them. We often go toe-to-toe with bigger firms and the government in numerous cases, obtaining phenomenal results for our clients.
Case in Point
On Monday, May 18, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood (Case No. 14-1080), a False Claims Act case involving allegations of Medicaid overbilling and potential damages exceeding $600 million.
The allegations were deemed insufficient and implausible by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a ruling issued last year. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case brings to an end a seven-year litigation odyssey for the Planned Parenthood affiliates in California, who were fully vindicated in successive rulings by the United States District Court for Central District of California and the Ninth Circuit.
In April 2016, the firm won a long, hard-fought dismissal of all criminal charges in a high-profile criminal case brought by the California Attorney General against a nursing home. On the eve of trial, the firm uncovered exculpatory evidence that had been withheld by the prosecution and that demonstrated our client’s innocence. The firm brought the evidence to the Court’s attention by way of a motion to dismiss and convinced the Court to dismiss the case due to the constitutional violation that the evidence had been withheld prior to the preliminary hearing. The judge held, “I do think there was Brady violation. I do think that had the magistrate had this information or had the defense had this information… that would have potentially led to a different result.” All charges were dismissed against our client, and the co-defendants.