PRACTITIONER BLOG

Read our analyses of developments in Impact Litigation and stay current on class action law

IMPACT FUND & AMICI to CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL: PROTECT CATALYST FEES
Class Actions, Catalyst Attorneys Fees Teddy Basham-Witherington Class Actions, Catalyst Attorneys Fees Teddy Basham-Witherington

IMPACT FUND & AMICI to CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL: PROTECT CATALYST FEES

In June, Impact Fund filed an amicus brief on behalf of thirty-six other public interest law organizations in San Diego Tenant Union et al. v. San Diego Housing Commission et al., in the California Court of Appeal. Our brief asked the Court to affirm the availability of catalyst fees to plaintiffs' counsel in successful public interest lawsuits because nonprofit legal services organizations rely upon the fee-shifting provisions of catalyst fees to undertake important litigation. “Catalyst fees” are a legal mechanism by which defendants pay plaintiffs attorneys’ fees when plaintiffs’ lawsuit induces defendants to provide the relief sought by plaintiffs—in other words, when plaintiffs’ lawsuit “catalyzes” defendants’ change in conduct.

Read More
Talking Turkey: Impact Fund Files Amicus Brief To Protect Catalyst Fees For Plaintiffs
Catalyst Attorneys Fees, Public Interest Law Teddy Basham-Witherington Catalyst Attorneys Fees, Public Interest Law Teddy Basham-Witherington

Talking Turkey: Impact Fund Files Amicus Brief To Protect Catalyst Fees For Plaintiffs

In Direct Action Everywhere v. Diestel Turkey Ranch, the plaintiff filed a false advertising lawsuit alleging that Diestel was deceiving customers about the condition in which it kept animals on its properties. Several days into the trial, Diestel voluntarily removed the allegedly false statements from its website as part of a “website refresh.” The trial court denied Direct Action’s motion for catalyst fees for multiple reasons, two of which stood out to the Impact Fund and its allies. First, the court scorned the plaintiff’s reason for bringing the lawsuit and, second, it criticized the plaintiff’s activities outside the courtroom.

Read More
Ninth Circuit Panel Decertifies Class of Janitorial & Maintenance Workers:  Impact Fund & Amici Urge Rehearing
Class Actions, Amicus Brief, Class Action Cert Ashley LaFranchi Class Actions, Amicus Brief, Class Action Cert Ashley LaFranchi

Ninth Circuit Panel Decertifies Class of Janitorial & Maintenance Workers: Impact Fund & Amici Urge Rehearing

A certified class of janitorial and maintenance workers survived two motions for decertification, successfully proved employer wrongdoing at summary judgment, and received significant damages in a jury bellwether trial before seeing their efforts undone by the Ninth Circuit. The recent panel opinion in Bowerman v. Field Asset Services, Inc., 39 F.4th 652, 661-63 (9th Cir. 2022), reversed certification after over seven years of litigation as a certified class. In doing so, the panel blatantly ignored the district judge’s repeated conclusion that the case was best managed as a class action.

Read More
Impact Fund & Amici Support State Efforts to Protect Vulnerable Workers During Deadly Pandemic
Worker Protection, COVID-19 Teddy Basham-Witherington Worker Protection, COVID-19 Teddy Basham-Witherington

Impact Fund & Amici Support State Efforts to Protect Vulnerable Workers During Deadly Pandemic

The California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health has a duty to keep California workers safe. Our amicus briefs make clear that the state fulfilled its duty in this instance. The Emergency Temporary Standards provide basic, necessary workplace protections for all workers and serve as an important step toward mitigating the health, income, and racial inequities caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Read More
Protect Nutrition Assistance for Vulnerable Low-Income Adults, Say Impact Fund and Others in Amicus Brief
SNAP, Amicus Brief Upgrow SNAP, Amicus Brief Upgrow

Protect Nutrition Assistance for Vulnerable Low-Income Adults, Say Impact Fund and Others in Amicus Brief

Last Thursday, the Impact Fund, Western Center on Law and Poverty, and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLC filed an amicus brief on behalf of our organizations and 27 additional legal and advocacy organizations in California, including a number of anti-hunger groups, in support of the plaintiffs in the D.C. case. Our brief focuses specifically on discretionary exemptions, which will be critical to California’s economic recovery. We detail the legislative debates considering and ultimately rejecting the very same changes that USDA seeks to implement, the plain language and history of the statute, and the harm that California faces if it loses its reserve of over 850,000 exemptions. California uses discretionary exemptions to prevent hunger in communities that face special difficulties in finding work, such as people who are formerly incarcerated or young adults aging out of the foster care system. If USDA’s rule goes into effect, it will eliminate the State’s reserve and could cause thousands of Californians to go hungry.

Read More