biography

Government Litigation

Broker-Dealer

Federal Litigation

Commercial Litigation

Constitutional Law

Appellate

Through his many years of litigation experience, Ken Mennemeier sees a common thread in his work. “No matter what the legal issue, I recognize that I am protecting both the reputation and the business of each client.” Whether a client is a securities broker-dealer firm in arbitration, a government entity in litigation, or start-up business accused of misappropriating trade secrets, Ken knows that he is defending each client’s judgment and integrity.

With clients like Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley, Ken has earned such a stellar reputation in securities litigation that his clients retain him in actions throughout California.

Ken has litigated some of the highest profile cases for government entities over the past ten years.  He represented Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in litigation challenging the constitutionality of state statutes that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  He also has represented other public sector clients such as the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the California Department of Fish and Game, the County of Shasta, the Cities of Folsom and Sacramento, and a number of school districts.

In addition, he has represented Fortune 500 companies in complex commercial litigation, and a number of local businesses in cases involving allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets. This background has given Ken the best of both worlds–the privilege of representing national clients in a variety of venues and the satisfaction of serving local clients in his home community.

Ken recognizes that his future is directly connected with what he accomplishes for each of his clients. “Attorneys in some firms with long histories and broad client bases often take for granted that if they lose a client, another will immediately take its place. Our firm feels a greater urgency to deliver value. That means being responsive, delivering results, and doing it all with an eye on economy.”

Ken also has a history of public service, both in the legal arena and in his community. He has represented a variety of clients pro bono in complex litigation, recently working to protect the confidentiality of court records in juvenile dependency proceedings against a challenge by a major newspaper publisher. He chaired the Eastern District of California’s Judicial Advisory Committee for six years, and has served as an adjunct Professor at the University of California, Davis Law School, teaching legal writing. He coached his daughter's softball team for seven consecutive years. Most recently, he ran the California International and the Napa Valley Marathons.

B.A. magna cum laude, 1978, Northern Illinois University;
J.D. magna cum laude, 1981, University of Michigan

• In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 (2008), represented Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in defending the constitutionality of state statutes that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
• Proposition 83 Cases, representing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in numerous state and federal court actions challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 83 (also known as the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act: Jessica’s Law), which prohibits registered sex offenders from living near schools or parks where children regularly gather.
• Marquez v. Gutierrez, 322 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2003), represented prison inmate in Section 1983 action that arose from his having been shot by a prison guard during a prison yard disturbance.
• A.G. Edwards & Co. v. Several Former Employees, represented several former A.G. Edwards employees who left Edwards to join another brokerage firm following Wachovia Securities’ acquisition of Edwards, in federal court, state court, and arbitration proceedings.
• Vallejo City Unified School District v. Education Audit Appeals Panel, defended the Panel in a writ proceeding brought to challenge penalties assessed by the Panel against a school district.
• Fru-Con Construction Corporation v. SMUD, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64017 (E.D. Cal 2007), obtained a dismissal of SMUD's counterclaims against Fru-Con Holding Company on the grounds that the company is not an alter ego of its subsidiary.
• Stahl v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, defended brokerage firm and its registered representative against claims arising out of $5 million loss that claimant allegedly suffered following her failure to hedge a 110,000 share position in Cisco stock that she had acquired by exercising employee stock options.  NASD arbitration hearing lasted 12 days.
• GlobalStreams, Inc. v. Serious Magic, Inc., successfully defended several entrepreneurs and their start-up company against claims of trade-secret misappropriation made in connection with their development of a software program that enabled users to create and process video-graphics using only their personal computers and a video camera. 
• Kovanic v. GlobeSpan, Inc., obtained preliminary injunction for employee barring his employer from enforcing noncompete clause against him in connection with employee’s anticipated move to new employer. 
• Miller v. Magnum Industries, Inc., represented individual in litigation arising out of a former employer’s attempt to enforce a non-compete clause against her in California.
• Machado-Miller v. Mersereau & Shannon, 180 Ore. App. 586 (2002), represented plaintiff/appellant in an appeal that presented complex choice-of-law issues.
• County of Shasta v. Accounting Firms and Clearing Broker, represented a California county in litigation against two of its auditors and a clearing broker in connection with investment losses suffered as a result of a defunct broker-dealer firm having recommended investments in structured notes issued by Sallie Mae where the value at maturity was tied to the exchange rate between the dollar and the Japanese yen.
• Whitmore Union Elementary School Dist. v. County of Shasta, 87 Cal. App. 4th 574 (2001), superceded by grant of review, 2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 170 (2001), represented the County of Shasta in defending claims that arose from a loss suffered by County Investment Pool, including issues of sovereign immunity.
• Marinello v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 4 Civil D026627 (1997), represented brokerage firm in trial and appellate court proceedings to compel arbitration under written arbitration agreement.
• Bouchat v. PaineWebber Inc., 3 Civil No. C021298 (1997), obtained summary judgment in trial court for brokerage firm and several employees in defense of wrongful termination and related employment claims, and obtained judgment on appeal affirming lower court’s judgment.
• Donlon v. Smith Barney Inc., 3 Civil C021029 (1997), obtained summary judgment for brokerage firm dismissing customer claims for untimeliness under arbitration forum’s eligibility rules, and obtained judgment on appeal affirming lower court’s grant of summary judgment.
• Bartolemei v. Smith Barney Inc., defended brokerage firm against selling away claims brought by seventeen sets of claimants, alleging that the firm was liable for losses resulting from real estate investments that occurred away from the firm.  Pacific Stock Exchange arbitration hearing lasted 26 days.
• In re Keisha T., 38 Cal. App. 4th 220 (1995), successfully represented minors in an appeal to safeguard the confidentiality of court records in juvenile dependency proceedings.
• Alhambra City and High School Districts v. California State Board of Education, No. B084844 (1994), successfully represented San Gabriel Unified School District in appeal from trial court order that had invalidated the district’s unification. 
• San Luis Coastal Unified School Dist. v. Kunkel, 16 Cal. App. 4th 1407 (1993), review denied and decision ordered not published, 1993 Cal. LEXIS 5287 (1993), successfully represented unified school district in action to validate school district bond financing.
• Southern Pacific Pipelines, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 9 Cal. App. 4th 451 (1992), successfully represented County of Sacramento in defending against property owner’s attempt to invalidate a special assessment district.
• Ash v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 806 F.Supp. 1474 (E.D. Cal. 1992), defended Dean Witter against customer claims arising from customers’ investment in tax shelters purchased away from the firm.
• Russo v. Mason-McDuffie Investment Co., Case No. 89-16268 (9th Cir. 1991),  cert. denied (1991), won summary judgment for defendant in Northern District of California on statute of limitations grounds, won affirmance on appeal, and won denial of plaintiff’s petition for writ of certiorari.
• Beavers v. Allstate Insurance Co., 225 Cal. App. 3d 310 (1990), represented insurance company in appeal from judgment in case involving an alleged bad faith cancellation of an insurance policy.
• Diaz v. INS, 648 F.Supp. 658 (E.D. Cal. 1986), obtained preliminary injunction for several asylum applicants that enabled them to obtain work permits pending the INS’s determination of their asylum applications.