Civil and Constitutional Rights, Human Rights and Workplace Disputes
Caribou Coffee - Wage and Hour
We represent a nationwide class of current and former managers Caribou Coffee Company in a suit alleging violations of federal and state laws arising from the company's failure to pay overtime. The court has conditionally certified the class, and it has denied the defendant's summary judgment motion.
For information on this case, please contact Jon Tostrud.
Certified Tire - Wage and Hour
Concepcion vs. Certified Tire & Service Centers, Inc., Case No. RIC 455198 (California Superior Court, County of Riverside)
We represent a class of former managers and assistant managers of Certified Tire in a suit alleging violations of California law governing wages and overtime.
For information on this case, please contact Jon Tostrud.
Fairfax Flood - Property Rights
We represent over 100 Fairfax County, Virginia residents in a lawsuit under the Virginia Constitution against the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation seeking $20 million in compensation for damages to their homes caused by a June 2006 massive flood of Cameron Run. The flood resulted from the construction of the Washington Beltway, for which the Run was moved next to this neighborhood and the natural drainage system filled in.
For additional information, please contact Robert J. Cynkar.
Hungarian Gold Train - International Human Rights
Rosner v. United States, No. 01-1859-CIV (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida) We served as co-lead counsel in a landmark class-action against the U.S. government brought on behalf of Hungarian Holocaust survivors. The suit alleged that the plaintiffs' personal property was loaded on a train by the Hungarian Nazi government during the waning days of WWII; that the U.S. Army later accepted the train and its contents into custody; and that, rather than returning the property to its owners, the Army misappropriated it. In 2005, the court approved a $25.5 million settlement, which provided a minimum of $21 million for use by existing social welfare programs to aid Hungarian victims of Nazi persecution, allocated $500,000 to fund and create an archival collection of information and artifacts as part of the U.S. reckoning, and a first-of-its-kind statement by the U.S. government acknowledging its part in the events surrounding the Gold Train.
For additional information, please contact Jonathan Cuneo, R. Brent Walton, or David Stanley.
Republic of Sudan - International Human Rights
Presbyterian Church of Sudan, et al. v. Talisman Energy, Inc. and Republic of the Sudan, Case No. 07-0016 (Second Circuit Court of Appeals), on appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 01-Civ-9882 (DLC)
We represent a number of faith-based nonprofit humanitarian organizations protecting their interest in helping to prevent and, where possible, aid the victims of genocide in Sudan. On their behalf we recently submitted an amicus brief to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that detailed facts about Talisman Energy's involvement and the history of genocide in the Sudan. In the underlying action, plaintiffs sued Talisman because, in October 1998, Talisman partnered with the Republic of Sudan to explore and extract oil. At the time, Talisman knew its partner was perpetrating universally condemned abuses against non-Muslims, and Talisman knew its commercial oil venture would provide economic assistance to continue these abuses and exacerbate and aggravate the human suffering. Despite documented evidence-including findings by UN, US and Canadian investigations-Talisman continued this joint venture until March 2003 when Talisman sold its interests.
For additional information, please contact R. Brent Walton.
Rio Tinto - International Human Rights
Sarei v. Rio Tinto, No. CV 00-11695-MMM (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) (decisions reported at 221 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2002) and --- F.3d---, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 8430 (9th Cir. 2007))
We serve as co-counsel representing the victims of Rio Tinto's mining operation on the island of Bougainville. To build the mine, Rio dispossessed the people of Bougainville from their land and then chemically defoliated, bulldozed, and sliced off an entire mountainside of rain forest. During the years of the mine's operations, billions of tons of toxic mine waste was generated and dumped onto the land and into pristine waters, filling major rivers with tailings and polluting a major bay dozens of miles away and the Pacific Ocean. As a result of its disregard for the environment and the people of Bougainville, Rio's actions sparked an uprising designed to close the mine. When the uprising succeeded, Rio and the Papua New Guinea (PNG) government brought troops in to reopen the mine. Rio actively participated in the military reprisals. After initial unsuccessful efforts, PNG, acting at Rio's behest to "starve the bastards out," instituted a military blockade of the island that lasted for almost ten years. Its purpose was to coerce the Bougainville people into surrender so that the mine could be reopened. The blockade prevented medicine, clothing, and other essential items from reaching the people of Bougainville. The blockade alone directly caused the deaths of at least 10,000 people between 1990 and 1997. According to the Red Cross, the blockade killed more than 2,000 children in its first two years of operation. By the time the war ended in 1999, 15,000 had been killed.
Under the Alien Tort Claims Act, foreign nationals can bring suit in U.S. courts for egregious violations of international law. Rio Tinto is the parent company of subsidiary U.S. Borax Inc., headquartered in Los Angeles. The court has ruled that the claims against Rio for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and racial discrimination can be heard in U.S. courts. The Ninth Circuit has agreed to review the panel's opinion and will rehear the case en banc on October 11, 2007. The hearing is in San Francisco.
For additional information, please contact R. Brent Walton.Strip Search Cases - Civil Rights
We serve as co-lead counsel in nearly twenty pending class actions filed on behalf of arrestees who were strip searched in county jails after being arrested for minor crimes. The plaintiffs seek to prove that the county-defendants maintained an unconstitutional policy of strip searching arrestees without regard to the crimes charged. The Constitution's Fourth Amendment, as nearly all federal appellate courts have interpreted it, prohibits detention facility officials from strip searching arrestees charged with minor crimes without having "reasonable suspicion" that they are carrying weapons or contraband. If successful, the cases will benefit hundreds of thousands of people who have suffered, or will suffer, the indignity of being unlawfully strip searched.
The pending cases include:
Arizona:
- Land v. County of Maricopa, Case No.08-cv-1558 (U.S. District Court for Arizona) Download the Complaint PDF PDF
New Jersey:
- Hicks v. County of Camden, Case No. 05-CV-1857 (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey)
- Suggs v. County of Cumberland, Case No. 06-CV-0087 (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey)
- Wilson v. County of Gloucester, Case No. 06-CV-1368 (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey)
- Boiselle v. County of Mercer, Case No. 06-CV-2065 (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey)
- Graff v. County of Salem, Case No. 07-CV-2259 (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey)
- Moore v. Atlantic County, Case No. 07-CV-05444 (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey)
- Garcia v. Ocean County, Case No. 07-CV-5665 (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey)
- Haas v. Burlington County, Case No. 08-CV-1102 (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey)
- Sidieras v. Bergen County, Case No. 08-CV-1179 (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey)
- Takacs v. Union County, Case No. 08-CV-711 (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey)
New York:
- Pritchard v. County of Erie, Case No. 04-CV-0534 (U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York)
- McDaniel v. County of Schenectady, Case No. 04-CV-0757 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York)
- Mitchell v. County of Clinton, Case No. 06-CV-0254 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York)
- Williams v. County of Niagara, Case No. 06-CV-0291 (U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York)
Pennsylvania:
- Boone v. City of Philadelphia, Case No. 05-CV-1851 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
- Delandro v. County of Allegheny, Case No. 06-CV-0927 (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania)
- Reynolds v. County of Dauphin, Case No. 07-CV-1688 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) Download the Complaint PDF
Texas:
- Jackson v. County of Bexar, Case No. 07-CV-0928 (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas) Download the Complaint PDF
For additional information, please contact Charles J. LaDuca or Alexandra C. Warren.