Skip to main content
Office of the County Counsel
Office of the County Counsel

County Counsels’ Association of California Litigation Awards

The Litigation Award for Deputy County Counsels was created by the County Counsels’ Association of California in 1998 to recognize the very significant work done on behalf of the Litigation Coordination Program by deputies throughout the State.  The program depends on county counsel offices working in a cooperative and coordinated way to achieve the highest standards of advocacy for their clients. Recipients of the Litigation Award are deputies who have made a substantial contribution of their legal research and writing to one or more amicus briefs or portions of such briefs.  

The legal term amicus curiae is a Latin phrase that literally means “friend of the court.” An amicus brief may be filed by a party not involved in a case, in support of one of the parties to the case. 

 

Susan Greenberg recognized for Amicus Brief in Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal v. City of Oakland 

In 2019, Deputy County Counsel Susan P. Greenberg received the award for her work on an amicus brief filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal v. City of Oakland, Case Nos. 18-16105, 18-16141.   

In this lawsuit, the developer of a large marine terminal challenged the City of Oakland’s determination that a local ordinance banning bulk handling or shipping of coal within city confines applied to the plaintiff’s development. The amicus brief argued for deference to the City’s judgments in matters of local public health and safety, including in particular the City’s determination after a public hearing process about how particular uses of the terminal would impact the surrounding residents. The trial court, the amicus brief urged, had erred in revisiting and supplanting Oakland’s judgments and, in turn, by admitting and relying on evidence that the developer had not presented to the City Council as part of the public hearing process. 

 

Tony LoPresti and Laura Trice Recognized for Amicus Brief in County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. 

In 2019, County Counsel Tony LoPresti and Deputy County Counsel Laura Trice received the award for their work on an amicus brief filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., Case No. 18-15499.   

San Mateo County, along with several other cities and counties, filed a state court nuisance, negligence, and strict liability action against oil and gas companies. The complaint alleged that the companies knew, and went to great lengths to hide, that their methods of fuel extraction, promotion, and consumption would lead to environmental harms, including the climate change that will result in a sea level rise and cause significant damages to plaintiff jurisdictions.   

The oil and gas companies attempted to remove the action to federal court on the basis of federal common law and federal preemption. The federal district court granted San Mateo County’s motion to remand the case back to the state court. In arguing for that outcome, the Santa Clara County Counsel’s amicus brief explained that all counties have an interest in preserving the right of local governments to pursue their claims in their venue of choice.  

 

Jenny Lam Recognized for Amicus Brief in Douglas v. California Office of Administrative Hearings 

In 2016, Deputy County Counsel Jenny Lam received the award for her work on an amicus brief filed with the California Fifth District Court of Appeal in Douglas v. California Office of Administrative Hearings, Case No. F071023.   

The case presented important issues related to funding the California Children’s Services program (CCS), which provides publicly funded diagnostic, treatment, case management, and physical and occupational therapy services to California children with challenging chronic medical conditions. While the CCS program is an important part of California’s safety net for vulnerable children, the amicus brief argued that in the interest of preserving scarce public resources, CCS is required to fund only those services that are medically necessary. 

 

Danny Chou Recognized for Amicus Brief in Sheehan v. City and County of San Francisco 

In 2015, former Assistant County Counsel Danny Chou received the award for his work on an amicus brief filed with the United States Supreme Court in Sheehan v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. 13-1412.   

The case concerned whether the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to police interactions with armed and potentially dangerous mentally ill persons. The amicus brief advised the Court of the practical reality faced by police officers who must routinely confront seriously mentally ill suspects who are armed and violent. The United States Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the police officers but declined to address the issue of whether the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to police encounters with armed individuals who suffer from serious mental illnesses. 

 

Greta Hansen and Danny Chou Recognized for Amicus Brief in Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America v. County of Alameda 

In 2014, former Chief Assistant County Counsel Greta Hansen and former Assistant County Counsel Danny Chou received the award for their work on an amicus brief filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America v. County of Alameda, Case No. 13-16833.   

Alameda County had enacted a “Safe Drug Disposal Ordinance” in 2012 to protect its residents from the many environmental and health-related harms associated with unsafe disposal of unused prescription medications. The ordinance required that producers of prescription drugs sold in Alameda County create and fund programs that provide for the collection, transportation, and disposal of unwanted prescription drugs, thereby decreasing the risk to public health and the environment associated with improper drug disposal. Three organizations representing the interests of pharmaceutical manufacturers brought a facial challenge to the ordinance, alleging it violated the dormant Commerce Clause. The district court upheld the ordinance, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.   

The amicus brief argued that cities and counties have broad authority to create new and innovative regulations targeting issues impacting the health and wellbeing of their residents, and that the Alameda County ordinance did not unlawfully regulate interstate commerce in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. In September 2014, the Ninth Circuit upheld Alameda County’s ordinance. In June 2015, the County of Santa Clara adopted its own safe drug disposal ordinance modeled after Alameda County’s ordinance. 

 

Aryn Harris Recognized for Amicus Brief in County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (Atlantic Richfield)  

In 2009, Deputy County Counsel Aryn P. Harris received the award for her work on the amicus brief to the Sixth District Court of Appeal in County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (Atlantic Richfield) 161 Cal.App.4th 1140 (6th Dist. Apr. 8, 2008) (H031540).   

The brief concerned whether public entities could use outside counsel who will be paid a contingent fee to prosecute public nuisance abatement actions.  

The counties brought an action against the lead paint industry that included a claim for abatement of a public nuisance. The trial court found that pursuant to People ex rel. Clancy v. Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 740, the counties could not use outside counsel who would be paid a contingent fee to support their work protecting the public.  The counties filed a writ petition, and the Sixth District granted the writ.   

Ms. Harris prepared the amicus brief in support of the counties’ position. The Sixth District concluded that Clancy did not bar the public entities’ contingent fee agreements with their private counsel.  

Subsequently, the California Supreme Court granted review in the case and determined that public entities were not categorically barred from engaging private counsel under contingent-fee arrangements to prosecute consumer protection actions on behalf of the public, but that their retainer agreements must specify that government attorneys retain ultimate control and decision-making authority.