government litigation

Because of its reputation for both outstanding advocacy and cost effective results, Mennemeier, Glassman & Stroud consistently serves as the counsel of choice for government agencies and officials that become embroiled in complex litigation involving government financing, constitutional claims, or other unique actions that require special litigation expertise.  We successfully represented a private corporation and the State in a reverse validation action challenging the issuance of $1 billion in bonds backed by proceeds from tribal gaming compacts.  We successfully defended the State in an inverse condemnation action seeking over $1 billion in damages arising from Governor Davis’ commandeering of energy contracts at the height of California’s energy crisis.  We have been retained by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the California Insurance Commissioner, the California Department of Water Resources and the California Science Center to represent their interests in litigation matters, large and small, and to offer advice as to litigation avoidance as well.  We have represented County officials in actions arising from alleged shortfalls in pooled investment accounts, and City Council members in actions challenging City ordinances.

• California Correctional Peace Officers' Association  v. Schwarzenegger, successfully defended Governor Schwarzenegger from claims that the Governor's official State website improperly contained ballot-advocacy materials. Court granted Governor's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
• In re Inverse Condemnation Cases, successfully defended the State of California in inverse condemnation actions filed by national energy companies seeking damages over $1 billion after Governor Davis commandeered energy contracts during California's 2001 energy crisis.   Summary judgment granted in favor of State.
• Shaw v. Chiang, represented the California Department of Finance and the Controller in a writ proceeding challenging $1.2 billion of appropriations in the 2007-2008 state budget.  The trial court upheld the constitutionality of the majority of the challenged appropriations. 
• 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.
• 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.
• Hallfeldt v. City of Folsom, defended City in challenge to Housing Element of City’s General Plan.  Case concluded with stipulated settlement designed to insure development of significant affordable housing opportunities while preserving City control over future development.
• Alhambra City and High School District v. California State Board of Education, successfully represented San Gabriel Unified School District in litigation challenging the process by which San Gabriel became a unified school district. 

Primary Contact:

Kenneth C. Mennemeier

kcm@mgslaw.com

Tel: (916) 551-2580