Energy
- Representing bulk fuel storage terminals and refineries in responding to the California State Water Resources Control Board’s orders to investigate and sample for dozens of PFAS chemicals.
- Representing a multinational energy company challenging a de facto moratorium on the issuance of well stimulation permits by the State of California, including claims that the state officials lack statutory authority to adopt a de facto moratorium and that the agency has implemented an underground regulation.
- Representing energy companies challenging ordinances adopted by the City and County of Los Angeles, declaring oil operations as a nonconforming use. The City’s ordinance also prohibits the drilling, redrilling, and maintenance of existing wells. The lawsuits include claims that the ordinances are preempted by state law, and that the ordinances interfere with the operator’s vested rights and represent an unconstitutional taking of property without the payment of just compensation. During the Phase I trial, the trial court held that the City’s ordinance is preempted by state law, which vests exclusive authority with the state to regulate the methods and practices of oil production. The trial court issued a writ of mandamus for the City to set aside the ordinance.
- Representing an energy company in several matters in southern California. Defending against a local agency’s efforts to eliminate or amortize oil operations. Negotiated a settlement agreement with Culver City regarding the city’s amortization ordinance to eliminate oil operations. Facilitated a permitting dispute in the City of Los Angeles to allow for redevelopment of the site.
- Represented a multinational energy corporation and one of the largest public companies worldwide in a challenge to a countywide ballot initiative that would immediately prohibit well stimulation and the drilling of new wells, and would impose a sunset date for the injection or impoundment of produced water. If implemented, the ballot initiative would have shut down all operations in the eight-largest oil field in the state. The California Supreme Court held that the initiative was preempted by state law, and that local governments cannot contradict a state statute by providing that the state agency has authority to determine the appropriate methods of oil production in each suitable case.
- Defended one of the world’s largest private sector energy companies against multiple lawsuits brought by various California municipalities, who were alleging claims for public and private nuisance, product liability, and deceptive sales while also attempting to shift liability for national and international climate change policy choices onto energy producers. The municipalities sought damages tied to greenhouse-gas emissions between 1965 and 2015. The client was dismissed from the lawsuits with prejudice.
Proposition 65
- Counsel for the largest U.S. retail corporation, and largest company worldwide by revenue, defending the company against dozens of claims involving alleged exposures to heavy metals, diethanolamine, airborne and unbound titanium dioxide, BPA, phthalates, PFAS, and other Proposition 65-listed chemicals.
- Counsel for a Fortune 500 consumer packaged goods holding company, defending the company in all Proposition 65 matters.
- Defending cosmetic companies in a coordinated action concerning alleged exposures to airborne and unbound titanium dioxide in powder cosmetics.