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
Class Actions, Catalyst Attorneys Fees Teddy Basham-Witherington Class Actions, Catalyst Attorneys Fees Teddy Basham-Witherington

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.

Read More
Talking Turkey: Impact Fund Files Amicus Brief To Protect Catalyst Fees For Plaintiffs
Catalyst Attorneys Fees, Public Interest Law Teddy Basham-Witherington Catalyst Attorneys Fees, Public Interest Law Teddy Basham-Witherington

Talking Turkey: Impact Fund Files Amicus Brief To Protect Catalyst Fees For Plaintiffs

In Direct Action Everywhere v. Diestel Turkey Ranch, the plaintiff filed a false advertising lawsuit alleging that Diestel was deceiving customers about the condition in which it kept animals on its properties. Several days into the trial, Diestel voluntarily removed the allegedly false statements from its website as part of a “website refresh.” The trial court denied Direct Action’s motion for catalyst fees for multiple reasons, two of which stood out to the Impact Fund and its allies. First, the court scorned the plaintiff’s reason for bringing the lawsuit and, second, it criticized the plaintiff’s activities outside the courtroom.

Read More
Impact Fund Files Amicus On Behalf Of Military's Diabetic Kids
Article III Standing, Disability Rights Teddy Basham-Witherington Article III Standing, Disability Rights Teddy Basham-Witherington

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.

Read More
Racial Discrimination, Amicus Brief, Equal Employment Opps Teddy Basham-Witherington Racial Discrimination, Amicus Brief, Equal Employment Opps Teddy Basham-Witherington

Standing Up for the Full Promise of Equal Employment Opportunity

Victor Guerrero applied twice for employment as a Corrections Officer with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Both of his applications were subject to a multi-step review process, one step of which was a background investigation questionnaire.  Since 2009, the background investigation questionnaire has included the following question: “Have you ever had or used a social security number other than the one you used on this questionnaire?” This question, known as Question 75, exclusively eliminated Latino applicants—including Mr. Guerrero—from the review process. Mr. Guerrero filed suit, alleging Question 75 has a disparate impact on Latino applicants.

Read More