PRACTITIONER BLOG
Read our analyses of developments in Impact Litigation and stay current on class action law
IMPACT FUND & AMICI to CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL: PROTECT CATALYST FEES
In June, Impact Fund filed an amicus brief on behalf of thirty-six other public interest law organizations in San Diego Tenant Union et al. v. San Diego Housing Commission et al., in the California Court of Appeal. Our brief asked the Court to affirm the availability of catalyst fees to plaintiffs' counsel in successful public interest lawsuits because nonprofit legal services organizations rely upon the fee-shifting provisions of catalyst fees to undertake important litigation. “Catalyst fees” are a legal mechanism by which defendants pay plaintiffs attorneys’ fees when plaintiffs’ lawsuit induces defendants to provide the relief sought by plaintiffs—in other words, when plaintiffs’ lawsuit “catalyzes” defendants’ change in conduct.
Protect Nutrition Assistance for Vulnerable Low-Income Adults, Say Impact Fund and Others in Amicus Brief
Last Thursday, the Impact Fund, Western Center on Law and Poverty, and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLC filed an amicus brief on behalf of our organizations and 27 additional legal and advocacy organizations in California, including a number of anti-hunger groups, in support of the plaintiffs in the D.C. case. Our brief focuses specifically on discretionary exemptions, which will be critical to California’s economic recovery. We detail the legislative debates considering and ultimately rejecting the very same changes that USDA seeks to implement, the plain language and history of the statute, and the harm that California faces if it loses its reserve of over 850,000 exemptions. California uses discretionary exemptions to prevent hunger in communities that face special difficulties in finding work, such as people who are formerly incarcerated or young adults aging out of the foster care system. If USDA’s rule goes into effect, it will eliminate the State’s reserve and could cause thousands of Californians to go hungry.
California Supreme Court Ponders Digital Discrimination Case, White v. Square
Along with Disability Rights Advocates and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, the Impact Fund has written an amicus brief urging the California Supreme Court to recognize that turning users away through discriminatory terms of service or other actions is illegal discrimination, and that users who are deterred by discriminatory terms should be able to bring legal claims in court.
Impact Fund Files Amicus On Behalf Of Military's Diabetic Kids
Standing is like a light switch; a plaintiff has either alleged an identifiable injury or not. The concept of Article III standing is used by the courts to distinguish between a dispute that is properly before the court, rather than an abstract interest intended to be addressed by the legislature. Given this, the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have consistently held that a minimal injury is sufficient to confer standing and have never weighed one’s injury relative to their resources.