Litigation success requires experience and knowledge of both the substantive jurisprudence and rules of procedure unique to each type and phase of an adversary proceeding.  The lawyers of the K&L Gates Appellate Constitutional and Governmental practice group have broad experience in the nuances of appellate practice, having argued cases in the United States Supreme Court, all United States Courts of Appeals, and in the appellate courts of most states across the nation. We have represented clients in hearings before state and federal administrative agencies and in courts reviewing the actions of those agencies. This experience adds exceptional value for clients in high-stakes appeals.  We litigate important appeals affecting business and public clients, ranging from overturning unfavorable and maintaining favorable trial results to cutting-edge constitutional and public policy issues.

The depth and breadth of the K&L Gates appellate practice has been twice recognized by the National Law Journal in its Appellate Hot List, a list of 20 firms with notable appellate practices. K&L Gates is one of the 12 firms out of the 20 listed that have appeared on both editions of the Appellate Hot List. The inaugural Hot List in 2008 described the firm’s emphasis on “precise arguments tailored to the fine points of the law.”

A list of representative matters is available by clicking here, but a few examples include: 

• Representing business clients in the full range of appeals including employment, securities, tax, ERISA, insurance coverage and environmental litigation.  For example, we obtained the reversal of unfavorable holdings in United States v. Allegheny Ludlum Corporation (3rd Cir., 2004) (reversing the imposition of large civil penalties under the Clean Water Act) and Albertson’s Inc. v. NLRB, 301 F.3d 441 (6th Cir. 2002).(overturning NLRB decision that employer violated the National Labor Relations Act) and obtained affirmance of a patent jury trial judgment in   Fuji Kogyo Co., Ltd. v. Pacific Bay Intern., Inc. ,461 F.3d 675, (6^th Cir 2006).
  
  
• Representing clients in high-profile appellate and trial court litigation involving large public infrastructure projects such as the construction of a large multi-model transportation system in Washington State, the construction of major league baseball fields in the District of Columbia and Seattle, and the post-construction problems at the “Big Dig” in Boston;
  
  
• Representing the prevailing party in a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld an alleged extreme partisan gerrymander, because we persuaded the Court that there are no “judicially discoverable and manageable standards”Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004);
  
  
• Representing taxpayers in successful challenges to secretive procedures used by U.S. Tax Court in Ballard v. CIR, 544 U.S. 40 (2005);
  
  
• Representing a respondent in the first case of the October, 2007 term heard by the United States Supreme Court, after we prevailed in the Ninth Circuit on a First Amendment challenge to a state voting law.  State of Washington v. Washington State Republican Party et al.

Our litigators combine exceptional written and oral advocacy skills with thorough substantive and procedural knowledge.   We understand how high-profile disputes should be litigated and resolved, and bring our collective experience to bear on every client matter.

Appellate Advocacy
For many litigants, the ultimate result comes down to an appeal.   An appeals court can take away a hard-won victory or correct a harsh defeat. 

K&L Gates appellate lawyers combine an understanding of the differences between appellate and trial work with a strong commitment to written composition of the highest quality.  We strive for clarity, conciseness and cogency on the type of arguments that matter on appeal in both oral and written advocacy to deliver results for our clients.   Whether we serve as primary, consulting, or amicus counsel before the appellate court, our role can be a crucial element to achieving appellate success.

Clients frequently retain K&L Gates to provide representation as special appellate counsel and to draft amicus curiae briefs on behalf of publicly and privately held companies, government entities, nonprofits and trade associations.  Our awareness of amicus opportunities in the appellate courts has been valuable to clients that have needed to influence the development of the law in cases to which they are not parties.  For example, we appeared as amici curiae in the U.S. Supreme Court in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), which held that Title X of the Civil Rights Act did not create a private cause of action for enforcement of disparate-impact regulations of federal agencies.  This holding narrowed the issues favorably to our clients in other pending cases, including S.Camden Citizens v. NJDEP (3^rd Cir., 2001).

We also advise lawyers during the course of trial or administrative agency proceedings to preserve issues for appeal, as well as evaluate the prospects of success on appeal.

Our appellate matters range from precedent-setting constitutional, intellectual property, insurance coverage, antitrust, and environmental issues to the more common evidentiary issues that can result in overturning trial court judgments.  We find that appellate courts appreciate precise, sophisticated arguments focused sharply upon the controlling principles the judges must apply.

Our appellate lawyers have experience at all levels of both federal and state courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, all twelve U.S. Courts of Appeals, including the Federal Circuit, and state courts from New York to California, Washington to Texas and Massachusetts to Florida.  Our members also include former appellate judges, a former U.S. Attorney General, a former state Attorney General, and many who have served as appellate law clerks.

This experience and knowledge is particularly effective in appellate advocacy, because having a solid grasp of the facts and legal principles in a case is only the beginning of the appellate process.

Constitutional Law
K&L Gates lawyers represent both private and public clients in federal and state constitutional law matters, including civil rights, First Amendment, election, initiative and referendum, public project, church-state, eminent domain, and governmental organization issues.

Our lawyers know how to create the trial court record necessary to support clients’ cases and then litigate the constitutional issues through state and federal appellate courts.

Our insight into constitutional law can create value for business clients.  For example, we successfully challenged, as a violation of equal protection, a provision of the Federal Aviation Act that would have foreclosed the development of a client’s project, Khodara v. Beckman (WD PA, 1999).

The firm’s constitutional experience includes groundbreaking First Amendment cases and leading defamation cases.  Our lawyers have successfully tried constitutional cases in state and federal courts, including trials before three-judge federal courts on statewide constitutional issues .  We have drafted and defended regulations of adult entertainment businesses on behalf of cities.   We represented the former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives in overturning Washington’s Term Limits Law.   In a civil rights case of first impression, we exposed fraudulent election practices in Philadelphia and obtained an injunction that changed the control of the state senate.  We also successfully defended the Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Public Facilities District in more than a dozen lawsuits aimed at preventing construction of Safeco Field.  We have represented government officers and bodies in litigation over public school funding and governance in Pennsylvania and Washington.  Additionally, our lawyers have represented governmental entities in some of Washington’s and Oregon's most important initiative litigation in the past quarter century.

Governmental Litigation
K&L Gates often represents clients in litigation, actual and threatened, brought by state and federal government agencies.  The types of cases run across almost the entire spectrum government regulation and government contracting.  We have also represented clients both in pursuing and in defending monetary claims involving insurance insolvencies, CERCLA cost recovery and many other areas where government asserts an interest.

K&L Gates also represents trade associations and individual clients in rulemakings and adjudications before state and federal administrative agencies and in challenges to agency actions brought in state and federal courts.  We strive to ensure that the agencies compile complete and balanced administrative records.  When necessary, we obtain judicial review of agency actions on rules, adjudications, licenses or permits.  In many cases, we have had success working in teams consisting of our lawyers and a client’s in-house counsel and specialists with substantive expertise in areas such as health care, environmental, securities, employment and banking.  By combining a client’s substantive expertise in a business with our decades of experience appearing before and litigating against state and federal agencies, such K&L Gates / client partnerships can create value in the form of novel approaches to administrative law challenges.

Building on the firm’s long tradition of community involvement and investment, K&L Gates works with an array of governmental clients in resolving varied litigation matters in state and federal court.   Clients include state government officials, municipalities, school districts, port authorities, and entities responsible for public infrastructure development.   This representation includes taxation, condemnation, land use, elections, public disclosure acts, and insurance coverage matters, as well as constitutional and appellate cases.   In addition, K&L Gates has extensive experience handling a wide variety of matters involving Indian law issues in the Pacific Northwest and Washington, D.C., from major construction projects to financing to health care.

The firm’s governmental litigators have special experience teaming with finance, policy, real estate and land use lawyers in representing public and private clients on matters involving public infrastructure projects.  We have represented public and private clients in relation to major projects involving the Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium (Safeco Field Project), Pike Place Market, the Washington Nationals’ Major League Baseball Stadium, King County, Sound Transit, the Philadelphia Convention Center and the Port of Seattle.

Court Experience
K&L Gates appellate, constitutional and governmental litigation lawyers have briefed and/or argued cases in the following courts:

• Federal Appellate Courts
  
  
  
  • Supreme Court of the United States 
  • All twelve U.S. Courts of Appeals
    

Representative work from our appellate, constitutional and governmental litigation practice includes matters in the following categories:

• Appellate Advocacy Experience
• Constitutional Law Experience
• Governmental Litigation Experience

Appellate Advocacy Experience
Listed below are some reported cases that show the breadth of our appellate practice in recent years:

Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. (US 2008): Represented amicus curiae in one of the most important federal securities law cases to reach the Supreme Court in recent years. Relying on some of the same arguments made in our brief, the Supreme Court rejected “scheme liability” theories of plaintiffs' class action lawyers seeking to bring federal securities fraud claims against a wide range of parties that deal with public companies, even if those parties never made a false representation to the plaintiffs in particular or to the public in general.

Singer v. Franklin Box Board Co. (In re American Pad & Paper Company) (3d Cir. 2007): Successfully argued that bankruptcy trustee's suit to avoid and recover voidable preference was time-barred.

LULAC v. Perry (US 2006):  Represented amicus curiae in case challenging mid-decade congressional redistricting by Texas legislature.

National Fuel Gas Co. v. Equimeter, Inc. (3d Cir. 2006):  Successfully argued that client had no legal obligation to pay for costs of replacing alleged defective equipment.

Kuhnle v. Prudential Securities, Inc. (3d Cir. 2006):  Obtained decision barring lawsuit that was nearly identical to one filed in another jurisdiction

Hirth v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (5th Cir. 2006):  Successfully defended against claim to benefits under a disability insurance policy.

Evans v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (5th Cir. 2006):  Successfully defended against plaintiff’s claim under ERISA of entitlement to long-term disability benefits.

Fuji Kogyo Co. LTD v, Pacific Bay International, Inc.   (6th Cir. 2006):  Successfully defended trial court decision finding non-infringement of patent.

Washington State Republican Party v. Washington (9th Cir. 2006):  Represented   political party in successful challenge to state’s open primary system.

Trage v. 311 Meridian & 3^rd Street, LLC (Fla. App., 2006):  Represented the purchaser of real estate against claims by a competing purchaser that the competitor had already been assigned an interest in the real estate.  The court held that assignment to the competitor had been made without lawful authority.

Merkle v. Health Options, Inc. (Fla. App. 2006):  Represented amici curiae in litigation regarding the manner in which an HMO must reimburse emergency service providers.

Mann v. Granite Reeder Water & Sewer Dist. (Id. 2006):  Obtained a reversal of a trial court decision invalidating ordinance approving a local improvement district.

O’Brien v. Pearson (Mass. 2006):  Obtained a reversal of a lower court ruling on a claim that majority stock owners breached their fiduciary duty to a minority stock owner.

Oregon Telecommunications Association v. Oregon State Department of Transportation (Or. 2006):  Represented amici to support successful argument that state transportation agency had no authority to charge utilities for costs incurred conducting planning activities concerning relocation of utility facilities for road improvements.

Chester-Upland School District v. Pennsylvania Department of Education(Pa. 2006):  Obtained reversal of peremptory judgment in mandamus entered against financially and academically distressed school district in lawsuit by state seeking control of district.

Stilp v. Commonwealth(Pa. Cmwlth, 2006):  Obtained dismissal of constitutional challenge to legislative audit statute.

Pierce County v. State (Wash. 2006):  Successfully argued that forced redemption of bonds would constitute an unconstitutional impairment of contract.

Gourley v. Gourley (Wash. 2006):  Successfully argued for the admission of evidence over hearsay and due process objections.

Wright v. Jeckle (Wash. 2006):  Represented amici   in arguing successfully that statute was an “anti-kickback” law and did not prevent a health care provider from making a profit on furnishing goods or care to patients.

Larson v. Seattle Popular Monorail Authority (Wash. 2006):  Successfully represented a local transportation authority against challenge to its taxing authority and governance structure.

City of Olympia v. Drebick(Wash. 2006):  Obtained reversal of court of appeals decision invalidating transportation development impact fee imposed by City.

In re PolyMedica Corp. Securities Litigation (1st Cir. 2005):  Obtained decision overturning class certification in the first appeal in this circuit to address the standard for determining whether a market was “efficient” when applying the fraud-on-the-market presumption of investor reliance, as well as the level of inquiry that a federal district court may pursue at the class certification stage when making such determination.

Chosun International, Inc. v. Chrisha Creations, Ltd.,(2d Cir. 2005):  Obtained decision overturning lower court’s refusal to grant copyright protection to designer and manufacturer of Halloween costumes.

Cingular Wireless LLC v. Thurston County (9th Cir. 2005):  Obtained a reversal of a district court order dismissing and staying federal Telecommunications Act claims.

GK Ltd. Travel v. City of Lake Oswego(9th Cir. 2005):  Achieved an important victory for local governments in this case involving the constitutionality of a city’s sign code.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the city, ruling upon a great number of First Amendment claims by the plaintiffs.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Boutris (9th Cir. 2005):  Represented an amicus curiae with regard to whether the National Bank Act prempts the exercise of investigative and licensing authority by the California Commissioner of Corporations  over “operating subsidiaries” of national banks and whether the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act preempts California’s per diem loan interest statute.

PPL Energy Plus LLC v. FERC(D.C. Cir. 2005):  Obtained a reversal of FERC orders rejecting an energy agreement.

Phillips v. AWH Corp.(Fed. Cir. 2005):  Represented amicus curiae in support of patent owners in the wireless industry regarding the misappropriation of trade secrets. 

In re The Vaccine Cases (Cal. App. 2005):  Defense against allegations that manufacturers of vaccines violated the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act by failing to provide “clear and reasonable warnings” about potential dangers.  Successfully argued that the warnings and disclosures were sufficient under the law.

Hoffman v. Stamper (Md. 2005):  Represented prevailing party in case of first impression, where the Maryland Court of Appeals held that the “physical injury” rule applies to intentional torts and that, because the plaintiffs had not complied with the rule, their recovery for non-economic damages could not be sustained.

Springfield Utility Bd. v. Emerald People's Utility District (Or. 2005):  Prevailed in a dispute over whether a city had authority to exclude a People’s Utility District (PUD) from the area allocated to it by the Public Utility Commission (PUC).

PAGE v. Commonwealth(Pa. 2005):  Prevailed against constitutional attack on legislation authorizing slot-machine gambling at racetracks and “racinos.”  Issues included challenges to legislative procedure under constitutional provisions that are found in many state constitutions, such as the rules on “original purpose,” “single subject,” “clear title” and “germaneness.”

Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealth(Pa. 2005):  Obtained ruling that party challenging the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act did not have standing to sue.

Perzel v. Cortes (Pa. 2005):  Obtained writ of mandamus against the Secretary of the Commonwealth to compel him to put a special election on the ballot.

Delaware Valley Concrete Company v. Schneiderwind (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005):  Obtained reversal of administrative hearing board order that mandated action by state environmental agency against permittee.  Appeals court held, inter alia, that the order "offends basic principles of equity and due process."

Delaware Riverkeeper v. Department of Envtl. Protection(Pa. Cmwlth. 2005):  Intervened to successfully defend the issuance of NPDES permit and the approval of a municipality’s Sewage Facilities Plan.

HCA, Inc. v. American Protection Insurance Co.(Tenn. App. 2005):  Represented the policyholder in a case where the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of an insurer in an insurance coverage case that focused on the inventory exclusion in an “all risk” property policy.  In its opinion, the court referred to the parties’ briefs as having been “in the highest tradition of superlative appellate practice.” 

Texas Mutual Ins. Co. v. Eckerd Corp. (Tex. App. 2005):  Obtained a ruling in favor of a retail pharmacy operator in a dispute with an insurance carrier over charges for prescription drugs.  The court held that the insurance carrier failed to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing the lawsuit.

United States v. Hoffman (Wash. 2005):  Represented the Tri-City Industrial Development Council (TRIDEC) in proceedings before the Washington Supreme Court on certification from the U.S. District Court on questions relating to the interpretation of the Cleanup Priority Act.  The Supreme Court generally rejected narrow interpretations of the initiative proposed by the State of Washington and generally adopted interpretations of the initiative proposed by TRIDEC.  The Supreme Court’s interpretations of state law will now be used in ongoing federal proceedings regarding the constitutionality of the initiative under the Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause and Contract Clause.

Washington State Grange v. Locke (Wash. 2005):  Filed amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Washington State Democratic Party regarding election legislation.

Washington State Farm Bureau Federation v. Reed (Wash. 2005):  Represented amici curiae the League of Education Voters and Washington Association of School Administrators to uphold the Secretary of State’s rejection of a referendum petition on legislation to “suspend” the requirement that any action to raise state revenue be passed by a two-thirds vote of each house.  The Supreme Court upheld the rejection of the referendum, holding that the legislation at issue was exempt from the referendum power under article II, section 1(b) of the Washington State Constitution, due to a valid legislative invocation of an emergency clause.

Sheehan v. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Auth. (Wash. 2005):  Prevailed in Washington Supreme Court in a challenge to the constitutionality of certain taxes imposed by Sound Transit and the Seattle Monorail Authority.

Vieth v. Jubelirer (US 2004):  Represented prevailing parties in a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld an alleged extreme partisan gerrymander, because we persuaded a majority of the Court that there are no “judicially discoverable and manageable standards.”

United States v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. (3d Cir. 2004):  Defended manufacturer in action for civil penalties under the Clean Water Act.  Obtained defense jury verdict on most alleged violations, then appealed District Court assessment of penalties on the remainder.  The Third Circuit vacated the penalties, becoming the first U.S. circuit to acknowledge a “laboratory-error” defense, and to reject EPA’s “monthly multiplier” in calculating civil penalties.  The Third Circuit also rejected the District Court’s “economic benefit” analysis as an “abuse of discretion.”

NBT Bank v. First National Community Bank(3d Cir. 2004):  Successfully defended against claim of loss due to check-kiting, where claimant alleged processing errors by client bank.  The Court held that a bank could not hold another bank liable under U.C.C. Section 4-302 when it incorrectly encoded the magnetic strip on a check. 

Calvert Social Investment Fund v. NCM Capital Management Group, Inc. (4th Cir. 2004):  Successfully defended an award of damages for breach of contract.

Haikl v. Phillips Semiconductor of America (5th Cir. 2004):  Obtained affirmance of judgment in favor of employer in alleged discrimination.

Assicurazioni Generali S.P.A. v. Black & Veatch Corp. (8th Cir. 2004):  Obtained ruling in favor of client’s entitlement to insurance coverage for consequential losses when crucial components for an electric generating facility were damaged in shipment.

World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane(9th Cir. 2004):  Obtained decision upholding city’s adult business zoning ordinance against challenges on multiple grounds, including the location of retail-only businesses, the adequacy of sites and the city’s amortization provision.

WHX Corp. v. SEC (D.C. Cir. 2004):  Persuaded the court of appeals to take the unusual step of vacating a federal agency's choice of sanction for a perceived violation.  The SEC found that the client violated a rarely-cited provision of federal law -- the SEC's All Holders Rule -- by making a tender offer subject to a certain condition.  On appeal, we demonstrated that, even under the "weak rationality" standard for review for an agency's choice of sanction, the SEC had failed to justify the sanction.

Estate of Skvorak v. Security Union Title Ins. Co.(Idaho 2004):  Successfully represented third-party mortgagee in dispute over priority of purchase money mortgage.

Header v. Schuylkill Cty. Zoning Hearing Bd. (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004):  Obtained a reversal of a trial court’s decision with regard to the denial of a permit to extract, process, and bottle spring water.

Judd v. AT&T (Wash. 2004):  Represented a telecommunications provider in challenge to Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission rules and regulations.

Sane Transit v. Sound Transit (Wash. 2004):  Represented client in challenge to transit authority’s discretion regarding the scope and timeline of its light rail project.

State ex rel. Citizens Against Tolls v. Murphy (Wash. 2004):  Represented the designer and developer of a bridge project regarding challenges to the constitutionality of the project and its financing.

Grant County Fire Protection Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake (Wash. 2004):  Successfully moved for reconsideration of a Washington Supreme Court opinion declaring that the petition method of municipal annexation was in violation of Privileges and Immunities Clause of Washington State Constitution.  The Court then issued a second opinion upholding the City of Yakima’s annexations in all respects.

Xiao v. Continuum Health Partners, Inc. (2d. Cir. 2003):  Successfully defended an employer from claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that a former employee was terminated on the basis of national origin.

Corporate Plaza Associates, LLC v. Interactive Video Technologies, Inc.(2d Cir. 2003):  Successfully defended breach-of-contract claim by showing that a payment made after the lawsuit commenced constituted an accord and satisfaction.

Sportique Motors, Ltd. v. Jaguar Cars, Inc. (2d Cir. 2003):  Successfully defended against claims of deficiencies in warranty reimbursements, arguing that the parties relinquished all outstanding claims when they signed an agreement to terminate their franchise relationship.

Brooks v. American Centennial Ins. Co. (3d Cir. 2003):  Obtained ruling on behalf of injured employee that insurance carrier did not conduct a reasonable review of its records to discover that timely notice had been given.

Badlands Trust Co. v. First Financial Fund, Inc. (4th Cir. 2003):  In equity suit to compel seating of outside directors on corporate board, successfully defended bylaw on voting against contention that it violated Maryland corporation law.

Cogswell v. City of Seattle(9th Cir. 2003):  Represented City of Seattle in defense of constitutionality of voter pamphlet ordinance.

Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit(9th Cir. 2003):  Successfully represented public transit agency in a disparate impact “environmental justice” Section 1983 claim regarding routing and location of light rail system.

Hydropress Envtl. Serv., Inc. v. Township of Upper Mount Bethel (Pa. 2003):  Represented processor of sewage sludge into biosolids in a challenge to a municipal ordinance regulating the land application of sludge-derived products.

Thompson v. Irwin Home Equity Corp. (1st Cir. 2002):  Successfully enforced an arbitration clause in a mortgage loan agreement against contention that the Truth in Lending Act had been violated.

Motorsport Engineering, Inc. v. Maserati SPA, (1st Cir. 2002):  Successfully defended against an automobile dealership’s claims that client was bound by the terms of a dealership agreement to which it was a third-party beneficiary.

Maitland v. Pitney Bowes Copier Systems (2d Cir. 2002):  Obtained ruling that employee alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability lacked sufficient evidence to show an adverse employment action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Klepper v. SLI, Inc. (3d Cir. 2002):  In a dispute over the exercise of stock options, after the district court ordered the parties to conduct discovery on all issues, despite an arbitration clause in the stock option incentive plan, successfully argued on appeal to vacate the discovery order and to compel a review of the arbitration clause.

Suburban Mortgage Associates, Inc. v. Merrill Lynch Mortgage Capital, Inc. (4th Cir. 2002):  Successfully defended against claims for fraud in a conduit agreement, demonstrating that there was no evidence of fraudulent intent or any false statement or misrepresentation of fact. 

Albertson’s Inc. v. NLRB(6th Cir. 2002):  Obtained reversal of NLRB decision that employer violated the National Labor Relations Act in limiting access to stores.

Midwest Automotive III, LLC v. Iowa Dept. of Transp. (Iowa 2002):  Obtained affirmance of state agency ruling allowing termination of a franchise when ownership of the franchise changed hands.

Lawless v. Jubelirer(Pa. 2002):  Obtained decision of first impression under state constitution regarding simultaneous holding of two state offices.

Pennsylvania School Boards Ass’n, Inc. v. Commonwealth Ass’n of School Administrators (Pa. 2002):  Successfully defended constitutionality of statute giving school administrators rights of collective bargaining and binding arbitration.

South Camden Citizens in Action v. New Jersey Dept. of Envtl. Protection (3d Cir. 2001):  Obtained decision on the unavailability of Section 1983 to enforce “disparate impact” regulations under Title X of the Civil Rights Act.  This decision, a leading case on “environmental justice,” followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, in which the firm represented amici in arguing against a direct private right of action to enforce the regulations.

Bohler-Uddeholm America, Inc. v. Bohler-Uddelholm Corp.(3d Cir. 2001):  Obtained a reversal of a jury verdict and a new trial for a steel company involved in a complicated dispute arising from a joint venture.

Sensabaugh v. Joy Mining Machinery(4th Cir. 2001):  After obtaining defense verdict on claims of racial discrimination against an employee, successfully defended a contested jury instruction on appeal.

Hopper v. City of Pasco(9th Cir. 2001):  Obtained appellate court holding that an artist’s rights under the First Amendment had been violated by the removal of art from the Pasco City Hall.

Hess v. Gebhard & Co., Inc. (Pa. 2001):  Obtained decision of first impression in favor of client on the non-transferability in an asset purchase of a covenant-not-to-compete.

Bush v. Gore (US 2000): As then-Deputy Attorney General, K&L Gates lawyer Paul Hancock represented Florida in the appeals to the Florida Supreme Court on the re-count of votes in certain counties in the 2000 presidential election.  He argued the first appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

Waldman v. Village of Kiryas Joel (2d Cir. 2000):  Defended the local government of a predominantly Hasidic Jewish community from one resident’s claim of excessive entanglement with religion.

In re R.B.B., Inc. (9th Cir. 2000):  Obtained order vacating approval of the assumption of an automobile dealership franchise by a trustee in bankruptcy and the assignment and sale by the trustee of the franchise to a third party.  Avoided mootness of the appeal by successfully arguing that the third party was not a purchaser in good faith.

USA Cable v. World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. (Del. 2000):  Successfully represented a professional wrestling promoter in a commercial dispute regarding the contractual right to telecast a series of wrestling events.

American Trucking Assn. v. Browner(D.C. Cir. 1999):  Represented the Small Business Survival Committee, the Native American Business Association and Judy’s Bakery in this successful challenge to certain National Ambient Air Quality Standards promulgated under the Federal Clean Air Act regulations.

The Original Honey Baked Ham Co. of Ga., Inc. v. Glickman (D.C. Cir. 1999):  Defended producer of cooked hams and turkeys from burdensome inspection by the federal Agriculture Department.  The court held that the company’s retail stores are not subject to the inspection requirements in the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

Marrero v. Commonwealth(Pa. 1999):  Obtained dismissal, on grounds of non-justiciability, of challenge to legislative enactment for public education.  This is a leading state supreme court case on statewide school funding equity.

Back to top

Constitutional Litigation Experience
The breadth of our constitutional litigation practice is illustrated by the following partial list of recent cases, in addition to the many cases involving constitutional issues that are among those listed above under Appellate Advocacy Experience.

Common Cause v. Commonwealth(M.D. Pa. 2006).  Obtained judgment in favor of state officials in due process/equal protection suit alleging case-fixing scheme between branches of government.

Pierce County v. State (Wash 2006):  Successfully argued that forced redemption of bonds would constitute an unconstitutional impairment of contract.

Washington State Republican Party et al. v. State of Washington (9th Cir. 2006):  Intervened as a plaintiff successfully challenging the constitutionality of state’s “top two” primary election system, which was declared by the district court to violate the First Amendment rights of political parties.  The firm successfully defended the injunction on appeal.

GK Ltd. Travel v. City of Lake Oswego (9th Cir. 2005):  Achieved an important victory for local governments in this case involving the constitutionality of a city’s sign code.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the city, ruling upon a great number of First Amendment claims by the plaintiffs.

United States v. Hoffman (E.D. Wash. 2005). Represented the Tri-City Industrial Development Council (TRIDEC) in certification proceedings before the Washington Supreme Court.  The United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington, certified five questions relating to the interpretation of Washington Initiative 297, the Cleanup Priority Act.  The Supreme Court generally rejected narrowing constructions of the initiative proposed by the State of Washington, and generally adopted interpretations of the initiative proposed by TRIDEC and the United States of America.  The Supreme Court’s interpretations will now be used in ongoing federal proceedings regarding the constitutionality of the initiative under the Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause and Contract Clause.

Robison v. Commonwealth  (Pa. 2004):  Successful voting rights suit, under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act and civil rights laws, to obtain extension of time for soldiers serving overseas to return absentee ballots.

Neel v. Pippy (W.D. Pa. 2003).  Obtained decision upholding right of U.S. Army Reserve Captain to run for state legislature after being called to active duty.

In re Sanders(Wash. 1998).  Successfully represented a sitting Supreme Court justice against a judicial conduct claim on First Amendment grounds.

TCI Cablevision of Washington, Inc. v. Aivaz (W.D. Wash. 1998).  Represented public access television programmer in an action to declare that a cable operator’s suspension of programming privileges violated the First Amendment.

Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of Bellevue (Wash.1997).  Successfully defended city in cases challenging the constitutionality of numerous provisions of the city’s adult cabaret ordinance.

The Deja Vu v. City of Federal Way Trilogy (W.D. Wash. 1996), (Wash. Ct. App. 1999), and (W.D. Wash. 2001).  Successfully defended city in three cases challenging the city’s adult entertainment standards of conduct and zoning regulations, including distance restrictions and licensing requirements.

Soundgarden v. Eikenberry(Wash. 1994).  Obtained judgment declaring the state’s “erotic music” law unconstitutional on First Amendment and due process grounds.

In re Juvenile Dependency Proceedings (Wash., King Co. Superior Court, 1988).  Represented newspapers in an action to gain access to juvenile dependency proceedings.  The trial court granted the relief sought, and the newspaper published a series of articles regarding abuses in the juvenile dependency process by state workers and others.

Rhinehart and Aquarian Foundation v. KIRO (Wash. App. 1986).  Defended a Seattle radio and television station against defamation actions filed by a spiritualist church.  The case involved important defamation issues, such as public figure status, damages, and the ability of parties to gather discovery from religious institutions resisting on free exercise of religion grounds. The radio and television station prevailed on all issues.

Larson, et al. v. Seattle Popular Monorail Auth., (Wash., King Co. Superior Court, 2005). Successfully defended the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority in a challenge to the Monorail Motor Vehicle Excise Tax on multiple constitutional grounds.  Obtained summary judgment dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims.

Public Funds for Public Purposes v. State of Wash. (Wash., Thurston Co. Superior Court, 2004).  Successfully represented Capital Cities and Vancouver Public Facilities District in a challenge to the construction of three multi-million dollar convention and recreation center projects.  Obtained summary judgment dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims.

Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State (Wash. 2000) and City of Burien v. Kiga (Wash. 2001).  Represented the Washington Public Ports Association in successful challenges to the constitutionality of Initiatives 695 and 722.

Khodara Envtl., Inc. v. Beckman(W.D. Pa. 1999).  Overturned, on equal protection grounds, a provision of the Federal Aviation Act that targeted client’s project.  The decision led to a change in the statute that was favorable to the client.

Seattle Baseball Stadium Litigation (Wash. 1996). Successfully defended the Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Public Facilities District in over a dozen lawsuits challenging various aspects of the effort to build a new baseball stadium in Seattle.  The lawsuits involved a range of issues, including constitutional, environmental and condemnation issues.  The cases were filed in four different counties and three of the cases reached the Washington State Supreme Court.  All the litigation was performed on an expedited basis and completed in about a year and a half.

Stish v. Casey (M.D. Pa. 1995).  Successfully asserted first amendment right of political association on behalf of legislator whose election certification was withheld because he switched parties after election.

Cunningham (ACLU) v. Metro (W.D. Wash. 1990). Defended a challenge to the constitution of the Metro Council under one-person, one-vote principles.  K&L Gates lawyers were the lead counsel for Metro, which defended a statutory scheme for selecting council members established by the state legislature.  The case involved important issues regarding whether Metro could continue to function in its current form, or at all.  Plaintiffs obtained a declaratory judgment that the Metro Council was unconstitutional, but were denied injunctive relief.  Eventually the electorate corrected the defect identified by the court.

Back to top

Governmental Litigation Experience
The breadth of our governmental litigation practice is illustrated by the following partial list of recent cases, in addition to the many cases involving governmental issues that are among those listed above under Appellate Advocacy Experience.

Evelyn Coke v. Long Island Care At Home Ltd. (2^nd Cir. 2006): Represented amicus association in matter raising issues of Chevron and Skidmore deference to regulations of U.S. Department of Labor.

Premier Automotive Services v. Maryland Port Administration (D. Md. 2006):  Defended against constitutional and Shipping Act claims against port authority; obtained dismissal at district court

Mann v. Granite Reeder Water & Sewer Dist. (Id. 2006):  Obtained a reversal of a trial court decision invalidating ordinance approving a local improvement district.

Pierce County v. State (Wash. 2006):  Successfully argued that forced redemption of bonds would constitute an unconstitutional impairment of contract.

Larson v. Seattle Popular Monorail Authority (Wash. 2006):  Successfully represented a transportation authority against challenge to its taxing authority and governance structure.

City of Olympia v. Drebick(Wash. 2006):  Obtained reversal of court of appeals decision invalidating transportation development impact fee imposed by City.

Texas Mutual Ins. Co. v. Eckerd Corp. et al(Texas 2006):  Successfully represented pharmacy services client in defense of claims within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Texas Workers Compensation Commission.

Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County v. Oregon Department of Revenue (Oregon Tax Court, 2005):  Represented the Washington Public Utility District on an issue regarding the purported taxability of Electric Capacity Agreement between the District and the Bonneville Power Administration.

City of Cape Coral (FL) v. FWS  (M.D. Fla 2005.): Representation of municipality with respect to rulemaking and permitting decisions under Endangered Species Act ; we successfully resisted an intervention and that party's appeal was dismissed when the case settled

Sheehan v. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Auth. (Wash. 2005):  Prevailed in Washington Supreme Court in a challenge to the constitutionality of certain taxes imposed by public transportation agencies, Sound Transit and the Seattle Monorail Authority.

PPL Wallingford Energy LLP v. FERC (D.C. Cir. 2005):  Obtained Court of Appeals vacatur of agency action.

Southeast Land Development Associates, LP v. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 2005):  Represented client in connection with constitutional and statutory challenges to authority to condemn property.

World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane(9th Cir. 2004):  Obtained decision upholding city’s adult business zoning ordinance against challenges on multiple grounds, including the location of retail-only businesses, the adequacy of sites and the city’s amortization provision.

Bluewater Network v. EPA(D.C. Cir. 2003):  Represented amicus in support of EPA regulations

Florida DEP v. Corps of Engineers (D.D.C. 2003):  Represented client in connection with water rights allocation as well as issues arising under NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, the Water Supply Act and the Flood Control Act.

no Ino, Inc. v. City of Bellevue (Wash.1997).  Successfully defended city in cases challenging the constitutionality of numerous provisions of the city’s adult cabaret ordinance.

The Deja Vu v. City of Federal Way Trilogy (W.D. Wash. 1996), (Wash. Ct. App. 1999), and (W.D. Wash. 2001):  Successfully defended city in three cases challenging the city’s adult entertainment standards of conduct and zoning regulations, including distance restrictions and licensing requirements.

Convention Center Litigation:  Successfully represented public facilities districts organized to design, build and operate convention centers.  Opponents to these projects raised various constitutional and statutory challenges in an attempt to halt their construction.  K&L Gates defended the projects and ensured their timely completion by pursuing litigation on an expedited schedule.

Seattle Baseball Stadium Litigation:  Successfully defended over a dozen lawsuits challenging various aspects of the effort to build a new baseball stadium in Seattle.  These cases raised a host of constitutional, environmental and condemnation issues.  Although three of the cases went to the Washington State Supreme Court, the litigation was done on a expedited basis and completed in only a year and a half.


City of Blaine v. Lummi Tribe: Represented the City of Blaine in defense of a $40 million claim by the Lummi Tribe arising from the accidental unearthing of tribal remains during construction of the city’s wastewater treatment plant expansion. A settlement was reached without litigation.

Skagit County v. Samish Tribe: Represented Skagit County in an appeal of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ decision to take land into trust for the Samish Indian Nation. In light of K&L Gates’ efforts, the Samish Indian Nation abandoned its litigation position.

Skagit County v. Swinomish Tribe: Represented Skagit County in its opposition to the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ decision to take land into trust for the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community for the construction of a multi-million dollar marina and industrial complex.

School Districts’ Alliance for Adequate Funding of Special Education:   Represents an alliance of school districts in a lawsuit against the state for failing to adequately fund special education programs.

Van Dyk v. Snoqualmie Valley School District (2005):  Represented school district in an appeal by a group of district residents who sought to move the school district boundary so their neighborhood would be in another school district. Both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals agreed with our interpretation of the applicable statue, holding that when both school boards agree not to change a school district boundary, no change will occur.

Northwest Pipeline Corporation:Represented Northwest Pipeline Corporation in the siting and construction of natural gas pipelines. In several cases, K&L Gates successfully moved simultaneously for both: i) preliminary injunctions providing the client with possession of the properties by the planned construction date; and ii) preemption enabling the client to forego further state regulatory processes so that it could commence construction.

Sea-Tac Third Runway Project: Represented the Port of Seattle in the acquisition of property for the new third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The firm settled nearly all cases and successfully tried two cases to verdict.

State Highway 99: Represented the City of Federal Way in two large improvement projects along State Route 99 and South 228th Street, involving approximately 55 properties. K&L Gates successfully settled with all but one property owner. In the remaining case, the firm prevailed in both the trial court and before the Court of Appeals on the question of whether the city, not the property owner, owned a disputed right-of-way.

City of Federal Way v. St. Paul Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 2005): Represented the City of Federal Way in insurance coverage proceedings against insurer, challenging insurer’s refusal to defend a putative class action lawsuit. The underlying action sought recovery against the city under the Washington Scenic Vistas Act and the Due Process Clause of the Washington State Constitution.  After the city prevailed at the trial court, all claims were settled while the case was pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Knickerhem (E.D. Ark. 2000): Represented national pharmacy chain in successful challenge to Medicaid pharmacy reimbursement rates adopted by State of Arkansas.

Springfield Utility Board v. Emerald People's Utility District (Or. 2005): Prevailed in a dispute over whether a city had authority to exclude a People’s Utility District (PUD) from the area allocated to it by the Public Utility Commission (PUC).

National Home Equity Mortgage Ass’n v. Office of Thrift Supervision (D.C. Cir. 2003):  Represented NHEMA and related entities in connection with challenge to OTS rule and implementing interpretation;

Altoona  Regional Health System v. Veritus Medicare Servs., (PRRB Case No. 05-1976): Challenge to interpretive rule of the CMS as an invalidly promulgated regulation.  Challenge upheld by Provider Reimbursement Review Board.

Zinc Corporation of Americav. EPA, (D.C. Cir. 1997):  Challenge to regulations implementing Phase II of title IV of the Clean Air Act of 1990 relating to sulfur dioxide emissions from certain industrial sources. Successfully resolved litigation when EPA agreed to withdraw the final rule and re-promulgate regulations, effectively exempting client from program.