David Urban

John Doe v. Private Art Institute – Represent Institute in legal action in which student challenges expulsions for sexual misconduct and has asserted petition for writ of mandate alleging denial of due process.

John Doe v. Private Art Institute – Represent Institute in legal action in which student alleges invasion of privacy torts and alleged breach of contract based on interactions with administration.  Institute has responded with an Anti-SLAPP motion under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code section 425.16.

John Doe 2, 3, 4 v. Private College – Represented College in three separate legal actions in which students challenged their expulsions for sexual assault, and made allegations under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

Department of Labor Standard Enforcement v. Temple – Represented Temple in meal and rest break lawsuit brought by an agency on behalf of teachers, in which First Amendment “Ministerial Exception” was successfully invoked as a defense.

Tenured Faculty Member v. Community College District – Represent District in arbitration proceedings in which professor challenges his termination, based on Academic Freedom and First Amendment grounds, for his use of sexist and gender-biased statements in class.

Tenured Faculty Member v. Community College District – Represented Community College District in federal court First Amendment lawsuit by the faculty member who claimed the right to use racial epithets in classroom instruction.  Lawsuit settled favorably to District.

Student v. Community College District – Represented Community College District in federal court First Amendment lawsuit by a student who alleged that free speech areas on campus were subject to an unduly restrictive procedures.  Lawsuit settled promptly upon District’s decision to implement new free expression procedures.

Batts et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (2010) – Successfully defended the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Police Department, Chief William Bratton, and other high-level Police Department command staff in a retaliation action brought by nine police department sergeants who alleged they had suffered adverse employment actions because of their participation in a wage and hour litigation against the City. The Court granted nine separate motions for summary judgment, resulting in a defense victory on all claims.

City of Palmdale, et al. v. Antelope Valley Community College District (2009) – Successfully represented the District in an action instituted by the City of Palmdale and a local resident seeking to invalidate the District Board’s action to approve a substantial development project.  The action sought invalidation based on Ralph M. Brown Act violations.

Rathbun v. County of Los Angeles, et al – Successfully represented County and officials in First Amendment retaliation lawsuit brought by Sheriff’s deputies.

Channel Islands Logistics adv. Teamsters – Represented logistics companies in successful union elections, and in subsequent unfair labor practice proceedings; obtained relief from NLRB to block union strike as prohibited secondary activity.

Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale (2022) – A public safety officer filed a petition for writ to challenge a 44-hour suspension that the City’s Personnel Board imposed. The trial court denied Meinhardt’s petition and upheld the discipline. Meinhardt appealed. The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision because Meinhardt’s Notice of Appeal was filed too late. This appellate victory clarified when an appeal is timely under the California Rules of Court.

Employee v. Public State Agency (2022) – Successfully defeated former employee’s writ petition in the California Court of Appeal seeking further production of text messages exchanged between members of the Agency’s governing body under the California Public Records Act (“PRA”).  We successfully argued that the employee failed to exhaust the Agency’s internal processes prior to seeking relief from the Court of Appeal on her PRA request.

Court of Appeal Decision re Faculty Member Termination (2021) –  In a case involving a college sociology professor charged with harassing students on the basis of their gender and LGBTQ status and for interfering with an investigation directive by contacting a student witness, the Court of Appeal issued a 2-1 unpublished decision in the District’s favor. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and ordered that it issue a writ instructing the arbitrator to terminate the faculty member’s employment. The decision emphasized that the unfit faculty member should not be reinstated, and that his lack of remorse further confirmed dismissal as the appropriate remedy. The majority opinion also recognized the harm the faculty member’s conduct had on students. LCW handled the disciplinary appeal arbitration, Petition for Writ of Mandate and the appeal.

Lopez v. Candaele (2010) – The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of trustees and officials of the Los Angeles Community College District in an appeal of a preliminary injunction order issued by the Trial Court.  The Trial Court had precluded the District, on First Amendment grounds, from enforcing a sexual harassment policy which the Plaintiff, a student at the District, claimed chilled his expression of religious views on campus.  The Ninth Circuit issued a published decision ruling that the preliminary injunction was improper because the Plaintiff lacked standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to challenge the policy.

Crosby v. South Orange Community College District (2009) – The Court of Appeal sustained a trial court ruling that a college could impose reasonable time, place and manner regulations on the use of internet access in a college library.

O’Connor v. City of Desert Hot Springs, et al (2014) – The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a First Amendment retaliation case brought by a police officer under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

Brumbaugh v. City of Torrance (2013) – The Court of Appeal found for the City in a case involving the fitness hearing of a previously terminated officer, determining that the doctrine of law of the case applied and that the fitness hearing provided to an officer and formulated by City complied with due process.

Petersen Law Firm v. City of Los Angeles (2011) – The Court of Appeal affirmed the grant of a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the “Anti-SLAPP” statute) in favor of the City and individual defendants in a case challenging investigation of police officers.  The Court decided further that the fee and cost award had to be re-evaluated on remand to determine if it should be higher.  The Court also rejected a First Amendment right to petition challenge to the fee award.

Long Beach Police Officers Association v. City of Long Beach (2014) – Prepared amicus curiae brief for Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association in California Supreme Court case involving rights of media to identify officers in shooting incidents; argued in California Supreme Court on March 4, 2014.

Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) – Prepared an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the League of California Cities in the landmark California Supreme Court case Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158.  In that case, the Court held that under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, individual supervisors cannot be personally liable for retaliation.

Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture (2008) – Prepared an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties for the United States Supreme Court case Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture (2008) 553 U.S. 591, 128 S. Ct. 2146. There, the Court held that public employees cannot challenge employment actions as violating the Equal Protection clause under a “class of one” theory.  Under such a theory, public employees could have argued that the United States Constitution’s Equal Protection clause required virtually all employment actions to have a “rational basis.”

San Leandro Teachers Ass’n v. Governing Bd. of San Leandro Unified School Dist. – Prepared amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, the School Employers Association of California, and the California School Boards Association in the California Supreme Court case of San Leandro Teachers Ass’n v. Governing Bd. of San Leandro Unified School Dist. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 822.  In that case, the Court held that teacher mailboxes at the district’s schools constituted “equipment” under California Education Code section 7054, which prohibits the use of school district funds, services, supplies or equipment to support or oppose political candidates or ballot measures.  The Court held that the school district could properly prohibit teacher unions from distributing political materials in the teacher mailboxes.  The Court rejected arguments by the appellant teacher unions based on federal and state constitutional free speech principles, statutory construction of section 7054, and unions’ limited statutory right of access to the school premises.