|
Public
Interest Cases |
| |
| With
over 60 lawyers in five offices, Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein, LLP has a comprehensive, diversified nationwide
civil litigation practice that is unique among law firms
in the United States that represent only plaintiffs. |
| A
long-standing and essential part of our practice has been
litigation to advance civil and human rights, to uphold
the interests of working families and the poor, and to obtain
compensation for victims or families of victims of genocide
and other violations of international law. We support organizations
and initiatives by the legal community that promote increased
access to justice and legal services by all members of our
society. |
| Lieff
Cabraser is particularly proud of the following cases in
which we believe we have met this standard. |
- September
11th Victim Compensation Fund
|
| Lieff
Cabraser represented pro bono seven victims and their decedents
in hearings before the September 11th Victim Compensation
Fund. The Fund was established by Congress as an alternative
to traditional state and federal court remedies. Its aim
was to compensate individuals who were physically injured
or who lost their loved ones during the terrorist activities
of September 11, 2001 in New York, Washington, D.C., and
Shanksville, Pennsylvania. We were proud to obtain compensatory
awards totaling over $5 million from the Fund for victims
of the terrorist attacks. |
| Lieff
Cabraser's clients included: the family of an employee at
Marsh & McLennan who was working on the 93rd Floor of
Tower One of the World Trade Center when the first plane
struck; the husband of a passenger on Flight 93 that crashed
in Shanksville; a New York City firefighter who spent more
than three months at the World Trade Center site tagging
body parts and who suffered extreme pulmonary injuries;
a volunteer NYC firefighter who assisted and directed victims
at Ground Zero to ambulances before he, himself, was enveloped
in the debris from the First Tower's collapse; a hotel worker
at the downtown Marriott who was injured after staying in
the building to warn his co-workers of the danger; an injured
passerby; and an undocumented Brazilian worker who escaped
just before the tower in which he worked fell. |
| Partners,
associates and paralegals from Lieff Cabraser’s New
York office worked with medical and economic experts to
prepare comprehensive briefings establishing their clients'
presence at the disaster site and their injuries, as well
as the financial impact of the disaster on their lives. |
| In
hearings before Special Master Kenneth Feinberg, Lieff Cabraser
was repeatedly praised on the record for the excellence
of its representation. Lieff Cabraser represented clients
independently and through the auspices of Trial Lawyers
Care, a non-profit corporation set up by volunteer trial
lawyers and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America
to provide free legal services to the victims of the 9/11
attacks. |
- Lawsuit
on Behalf of Tortured Iraqi and Afghani Civilians
|
| On March 1, 2005, eight men subjected to
torture in Iraq and Afghanistan filed a lawsuit in federal court against
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asserting that he
bears direct responsibility for the torture and abuse of civilian detainees in
U.S. military custody. Lieff Cabraser is serving as co-counsel for plaintiffs
with the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First. |
| The plaintiffs were imprisoned in U.S. detention
facilities in Iraq or Afghanistan. Each plaintiff alleges that he was
tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
while in U.S. military custody. The plaintiffs were ultimately released from
U.S. custody without ever being prosecuted for any wrongdoing. None of them has
received any compensation or other redress for the injuries they suffered. |
| Torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment is universally prohibited in clear and unambiguous terms under
the U.S. Constitution, numerous international human rights
treaties and the laws of war. The lawsuit against Secretary Rumsfeld seeks a
declaration that he violated the U.S. Constitution and international law by abandoning
long-standing prohibitions on torture. The lawsuit further alleges that Defense
Secretary Rumsfeld and other high-ranking military officials failed
to stop the torture of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan
even after credible reports of such treatment began to emerge in the media and
in military documents. |
| Please visit JusticeAdalah.com
to learn more. |
- Human
Rights Amicus Brief
|
| In
February 2004, Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel, filed an
amicus curiae brief in the case Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
on behalf of the World Jewish Congress ("WJC")
and the American Jewish Committee ("AJC") in a
case addressing whether foreign victims of human rights
abuses can file suit in U.S. courts under the Alien Tort
Statute. |
| Lieff
Cabraser served as Lead Counsel in several of the world-wide
class action lawsuits that were prosecuted and favorably
resolved on behalf of Holocaust victims and survivors. The
Alien Tort Statute functioned as a jurisdictional basis
for these cases filed in U.S. courts against Swiss, German
and Austrian banks, insurers, manufacturers, and other institutions
accused of converting Holocaust victim assets and participating
in Nazi slave and forced labor programs. |
| The
World Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee,
concerned that all victims of human rights abuse have every
avenue of redress available to them, filed the brief to
preserve the rights of victims under the Alien Tort Statute.
Supported by many multinational corporations, the Bush Administration
urged the Supreme Court to deny the rights of noncitizens
to sue for human rights violations in U.S. federal courts. |
| In
July 2004, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush Administration’s
position and held that Alien Tort Statute would be available
in the future to victims of genocide, slave labor, and other
clear violations of international human rights to file suit
in U.S. federal courts. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,
542 U.S. ___, 159 L. Ed. 2d 718, 741, 124 S. Ct. 2739 (2004). |
| Lieff
Cabraser also filed an amicus curiae brief in the case of
Benitez v. Mata on behalf of The Lawyers Committee
for Human Rights (now known as Human Rights First), Human
Rights Watch, and Amnesty International USA. Benitez came
to the United States from Cuba as part of the Mariel boatlift. |
| Along
with other Mariel Cubans, Benitez was categorized upon arrival
in the United States as an "inadmissible" alien,
meaning that he was not legally viewed as having "entered"
the United States, even though he made his home here. Later,
because of his criminal record, Benitez was ordered deported
to Cuba. Cuba does not accept deportees from the United
States, leaving Benitez and others like him facing indefinite
detention by U.S. authorities even after they had served
any legitimate prison sentences. |
| The
human rights groups argued that the government's policy
of indefinitely detaining aliens without permitting them
a meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention in
court violates international law, and that the governing
federal statute, which does not expressly authorize indefinite
detention, should be construed so as to comply with the
international standard. The Benitez case was consolidated
with Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct.
716, 160 L. Ed. 2d 734 (2005). |
| In
January 2005, in an opinion authored by Justice Scalia,
the Supreme Court decided, 7-2, that an "inadmissible"
alien is entitled to the same protections as an "admissible"
alien, and must be conditionally released after a 6-month
period if removal to another country is not reasonably foreseeable.
This opinion recognizes that the artificial distinction
between "admissible" and "inadmissible"
aliens must not be used to deprive individuals of basic
protections under U.S. law. |
- California
Prisoners' Rights Suit
|
| California
corrections officials will revamp procedures used to keep
thousands of prisoners isolated in tiny cells in some of
the most remote lockups in the state as part of a settlement
of a 10-year-old lawsuit brought by prisoner Steve Castillo.
Lieff Cabraser served as co-counsel for Castillo with attorneys
from the California Prison Focus. |
| The
settlement, reached in June 2004, alters policies for the
use of secured housing units, known as SHUs, which have
been criticized as inhumane by human rights groups and many
mental health professionals. About 3,000 California prisoners
spend 22 or 23 hours a day in 8-foot-by-10-foot cells with
little human contact. California Department of Corrections
regulations allow for inmates who are declared members of
a prison gang to be confined indefinitely in SHUs. |
| Under
the settlement, the Department of Corrections agreed to
modify criteria that prison officials rely on for sending
prisoners to SHUs, including the following: |
- Disclosure
of the evidence used to indefinitely confine prisoners
to solitary confinement or the super maximum security
units;
- Providing
an opportunity for prisoners to refute the evidence
relied upon to label them as members or associates of
prison gangs;
- Implementing
significant changes to the evidence required to label
prisoners as gang members, requiring prison officials
to articulate and document why considered evidence is
indicative of illegal gang activity;
- Disallowing
the reliance on confidential sources to place prisoners
in solitary confinement without proof of participation
in illegal gang activity;
- Improved
training of prison staff in identification of prison
gang members; and
- Incorporation
of these changes into state law - Title 15 of the Code
of Regulations or in the Department of Corrections Operations
Manual.
|
| "It
is inhumane and unfair to indefinitely subject a prisoner
to solitary confinement without due process," commented
Lieff Cabraser partner Joy Kruse.
"The settlement ensures that prisoners who are labeled
gang members by prisoner informants or guards may not be
subjected to solitary confinement without corroborating
evidence that the prisoner is permitted to review and challenge." |
- Swiss
Banks Holocaust Victims Litigation
|
| Lieff Cabraser took a leading role in prosecuting claims
by Holocaust survivors against banks, private manufacturers and other corporations
that enslaved and/or retained or looted the assets of Jews and other minority
groups persecuted by the Nazi Regime during the Second World War era. In the
Swiss Banks case, we served as Settlement Class Counsel
for Holocaust survivors and their families who alleged that the Swiss banks had
blocked their efforts to reclaim money that they deposited in the banks or that
the Nazis had looted and stored in the banks. |
| On July 26, 2000, U.S. District Court Judge Edward R.
Korman gave final approval to a $1.25 billion accord to settle
the claims. In September 2002, Lieff Cabraser donated its
attorneys' fee award in the Swiss Banks case, in the amount of $1.5 million,
to endow a clinical chair in Human Rights at Columbia University Law School,
to train future lawyers to help victims of human rights abuses. |
| Discussing the litigation, Lieff Cabraser
partner Morris
Ratner explained, "The Swiss Banks matter is an
example of the type of case that we at the firm care about,
and of our pro bono efforts. We are fortunate to have the
resources and proud to dedicate our time to prosecute cases
that are in the public interest, serve compelling moral
interests, and seek to vindicate the most fundamental human
rights of Americans and people around the world."
|
- German
Industry Holocaust Settlement
|
|
Lieff Cabraser brought litigation against German corporations
for their use of slave and forced labor during the Nazi
era, and against German (and other) banks and financial
institutions for "aryanizing" the property of
victims of Nazi persecution. We served as one of the leading
participants in the negotiations for the creation of a 10
billion Deutschemark (US $4.5 billion) German Foundation
announced at the end of 1999. The settlement resolved all
Nazi-era claims against German entities, including all Holocaust-era
banking, insurance, and slave labor claims. |
| Commenting
on the work of Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel in the case,
U.S. District Court Judge William G. Bassler stated on November
13, 2002: |
"Up
until this litigation, as far as I can tell, perhaps
with some minor exceptions, the claims of slave and
forced labor fell on deaf ears. You can say what you
want to say about class actions and about attorneys,
but the fact of the matter is, there was no attention
paid to this very, very large group of people by Germany,
or by German industry until these cases were filed...
What has been accomplished here with the efforts of
the plaintiffs’ attorneys and defense counsel
is quite incredible...I want to thank counsel for the assistance in bringing
us to where we are today. Cases don't get settled just by litigants. It can only
be settled by competent, patient attorneys." |
- California
Students With Disabilities Class Action
|
| In Chapman v. California Department of Education,
Lieff Cabraser with co-counsel, Disabilities Rights Advocates,
a non-profit organization that works on behalf of the disabled,
brought suit against the California Department of Education
in 2001 claiming that the California High School Exit Exam
denied students with disabilities the opportunity to pass
the exam and obtain a diploma with reasonable accommodations. |
| Plaintiffs alleged that the Exit Exam discriminated against
students with disabilities in multiple ways, and as designed and implemented
it was inevitable that great numbers of such students would fail no matter how
intelligent or hard working they might be. For example, students with severe
dyslexia or similar learning disabilities were not permitted
reasonable accommodations, such as word processors with spell checking programs
or readers, to assist them on the exam. |
| In February 2002, the trial court directed
the Department of Education to permit students to take the Exit Exam with
appropriate accommodations. In September 2002, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mixed ruling that granted in part and denied
in part the trial court’s order.
The same month, the California Department of Education revealed
that more than 90% percent of the disabled students, or
26,393 students, that took the March 2002 California High
School Exit Exam did not pass the test. Subsequently, the
Department of Education postponed making passing the test
a requirement for graduation from 2004, as originally scheduled,
until 2006. |
- California
Gun Dealer and Distributors Litigation
|
| With co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser represents Los Angeles,
San Francisco and 10 other cities and counties in California in litigation aimed
at reducing gun violence in the state. |
| The
cases charge that the gun dealers, distributors and manufacturers
contribute to a public nuisance and violate California law
by selling guns without ensuring safe sales practices to
prevent sales by retailers to straw purchasers and gun traffickers.
In April 2003, the Court allowed the cases against the dealers
and distributors to proceed to trial. The Court, however,
dismissed the manufacturer-defendants from the suit, a ruling
that has been appealed by the municipalities. |
| In August 2003, the cities and counties entered into
an unprecedented settlement in which several gun distributors
and dealers have agreed to take steps to prevent firearms
from being sold to criminals. For example, two of the state's leading gun dealers
-- Traders' Sports Inc. in San Leandro and Andrew's Sporting Goods in Southern
California -- agreed to adopt as store policy verification of the identity of
the actual purchaser of a firearm and to end the sale of firearms at gun shows.
In addition, three major gun distributors have agreed to restrictions on sales
that go beyond state and federal regulations. Lieff Cabraser served as co-counsel
for the California cities and counties. To learn more about the settlement, click here. |
|
|
|
|
LIEFF
CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Notice: Lieff
Cabraser attorneys provide legal advice and practice law for clients in
federal district courts throughout the United States and in state courts
where we are licensed to practice. In states in which our lawyers are not
licensed to practice, we have affiliations with local attorneys who serve
as co-counsel with our firm. Please read our disclaimer. |
|
|
Copyright © 2008 Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP
|
|