Litigation

Lozano Smith's Litigation Practice Group provides a long history of dedicated and successful representation, in turn allowing for the continued success of a wide variety of clients and their respective missions. The Litigation Practice Group is highly regarded in the legal community and in the judiciary, even being selected by superior court judges to pursue lawsuits on their behalf. Lozano Smith has successfully represented districts and other government entities at all levels of state and federal jurisdiction, and is a constant, powerful, advocate for its clients when they often need it the most.

The Litigation Practice Group ensures the success and protection of its clients by specializing in:

• Personnel disputes
• Discrimination claims
• Civil rights
• Personal injury
• Environmental issues
• Fee mitigation
• Administrative hearings involving grievances, unfair practice charges, layoffs and dismissals, arbitrations, expulsions, and special education.

The Litigation Practice Group works in partnership with clients, regularly communicating the status of their case, with an eye toward cost containment and ensuring they're timely informed about the progress of their case. When litigation is undertaken, a case budget is prepared, the client's approval is obtained for that budget and regular communication is maintained to keep the client informed of the status of the case as it is proceeding. Lozano Smith's Litigation attorneys also support and proactively encourage clients to consider alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures in appropriate cases. The firm is experienced and well versed in various forms of ADR, including arbitration, mediation and both informal and formal settlement conferences. Examples of successful litigation include:

• Obtaining $14.2 million in driver training monies for school districts throughout the state. (Salinas Union High School Dist. v. Honig (1992) 5 Cal. Rptr. 626.)
• Helping define the legal principle that plaintiffs suing school districts must first comply with the Tort Claims Act. (Dilts v. Cantua Elementary School Dist. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 27.)
• Successfully defending a county superintendent of schools against civil rights litigation, establishing that a county office of education is a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment protection. (Eaglesmith v. Ward (9th Cir. 1995) 73 F.3d 857.)
• Settlement of Special Education Mandated Cost Claim providing all school districts, county offices, and SELPAs with $520 million in retroactive general fund reimbursement and $100 million as a permanent increase to the A.B. 602 base funding special education programs and services. (Education Code sections 56836.156 and 56836.157.)
• Successful representation of the Education Mandated Cost Network and member districts in recovery of costs associated with teacher salaries arising from mandated science courses. (San Diego U.S.D. v. Commission on State Mandates, Sacramento Sup. Ct. Case No. 03 CS 01401.)
• Assisted eleven school districts in invalidating audits of several state mandated cost reimbursement claims worth more than $30 million, based upon the use of invalid, underground auditing documentation rule by the State Controller's Office. The firm was later able to receive an award of $240,000 from the superior court for fees and costs incurred in the litigation efforts, largely offsetting the school districts' legal costs in the case. (Clovis Unified School District v. Chiang (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 794.)
• Successfully defended Davis Joint Unified School District on all counts in federal civil rights litigation arising out of a special education dispute. Most notably, the District's successful motion to dismiss resulted in one of the first published decisions applicable in California to stand for the proposition that a plaintiff cannot predicate a suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for alleged violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (Alex G. v. Bd. of Trustees (E.D. Cal. 2004) 332 F.Supp.2d 1315.)