Boutrous, Dhillon, and Hastings

Boutrous, Dhillon, and Hastings. No, it's not a law firm. Read on:

Yesterday, we posted about seemingly-endless litigation concerning the Hawaiian telescope.* Today, from Reuters, comes word that the legal battle regarding changing the name of UC-Hastings may go on for awhile:

A lawsuit that aims to block the renaming of the University of California Hastings College of Law violates the San Francisco school’s free speech rights, school officials told the state court judge overseeing the case on Wednesday. Hastings' motion to dismiss the lawsuit is the latest development in a five-year debate over the school’s name, which honors Serranus Hastings, a former California Supreme Court justice. Hastings, who founded the school in 1878, is accused by historians of orchestrating killings of Native Americans in order to remove them from ranch land he purchased in Northern California.

California Governor Gavin Newsom on Sept. 30 signed a bill authorizing the school to be renamed as the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco. The following week, six Hastings descendants and a group of alumni sued, claiming he was not involved in killings and that any name change breaches an agreement California made with Hastings when he gave $100,000 in gold to establish a school named after him.

The law school invoked California’s “anti-SLAPP” law in its filing on Wednesday. “Plaintiffs’ claims against the College Defendants arise from classic protected activity,” it said, asserting that all of the school’s public actions pertaining to the name change and its interactions with state lawmakers are protected under free speech laws.

Harmeet Dhillon, a lawyer with the Dhillon Law Group who is representing the plaintiffs, said Thursday that her clients will oppose the school’s motion in court and that a hearing is expected in December... The law school is represented by a team of lawyers from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, headed by partner Theodore Boutrous...

Full story at https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/californias-hastings-law-school-says-free-speech-bars-lawsuit-over-name-change-2022-11-03/.

Note from yours truly: "A team of lawyers from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, headed by partner Theodore Boutrous" does not come cheaply. UC seems to be expecting a big battle. Here is an excerpt from Boutrous' profile at the Federalist Society:

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., a partner in the Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. offices of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, is Co-Chair of the firm’s Appellate and Constitutional Law Group, its Crisis Management Group, and the Transnational Litigation and Foreign Judgments Group.  He is a member of the firm’s Executive and Management Committees.

Mr. Boutrous has represented clients in the federal and state appellate courts throughout the nation in a wide spectrum of cases, including punitive damages, class action, securities, employment, environmental, insurance, product liability, antitrust, business torts, privacy, arbitration, criminal and constitutional litigation. He is responsible for the nationwide appellate strategy for several major companies, and has successfully persuaded courts to overturn some of the largest jury verdicts and class actions in history...

Full profile at https://fedsoc.org/contributors/theodore-boutrous.

Boutrous, it might be noted, is the lead defense attorney for the City of Santa Monica in a lawsuit regarding an attempt to require the City to have district rather than at-large elections. He is defending the City's at-large system. That case, currently at the California Supreme Court, has involved many millions of dollars in legal fees, although the City will not reveal the costs.

The Federalist Society also provides a profile of Harmeet Dhillon:

Harmeet Dhillon is a nationally recognized lawyer, trusted boardroom advisor, and passionate advocate for individual, corporate and institutional clients across numerous industries and walks of life. Her focus is in commercial litigation, employment law, First Amendmentrights, and election law matters...

Ms. Dhillon has developed a niche practice in representing clients across California in election and campaign law matters, ranging from general compliance and ethics representation for partisan and non-partisan contenders to ballot description contests and intellectual property matters pertaining to campaign communications. She is regularly retained by candidates and campaigns for advice on complex legal issues...

Full profile at https://fedsoc.org/contributors/harmeet-dhillon.

You will see Dhillon's name from time to time in connection with conservative issues including quite recently:

Facing a subpoena from the House Jan. 6 committee, former president Donald Trump has signed a new lawyer to represent him: Harmeet Dhillon, a Republican lawyer whose California-based practice caters to right-wing clients, especially high-profile culture war provocateurs... In his choice of Dhillon, Trump has signed up a lawyer with legal skill, connections to major GOP figures and serious MAGA bona fides. Her firm has experience representing other top Trumpworld figures regarding Jan. 6 committee demands. And Dhillon has lengthy credentials in right-wing activism and name recognition in conservative circles...

Full story at https://www.grid.news/story/politics/2022/10/27/who-is-harmeet-dhillon-donald-trumps-jan-6-lawyer-frequent-fox-news-guest-and-culture-warrior/.

===

*http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2022/11/back-to-court.html.

===

To hear the text above, click on the link below:

https://ia801402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/hastings%20lawsuit%20lawyers.mp3

Speculation? Better to Wait and See

Mercury News sports columnist John Wilner speculates about the upcoming Regents meeting. I have excerpted his article below. However, for reasons explained below the excerpt, I believe he misinterprets what has happened:

UCLA’s life in limbo could soon come to an end. The University of California Board of Regents is expected to decide whether to block the school’s planned move to the Big Ten when it gathers later this month at UC-San Francisco Mission Bay, according to sources with knowledge of the situation. An attempt to prevent UCLA from leaving the Pac-12 in the summer of 2024 is considered unlikely.

However, the sources declined to guess how the regents might rule and cautioned that everything about the process is unpredictable, including the timing. Exactly how an outcome would be reached, and be made public, is also unknown. The next meeting is scheduled for Nov. 15-17, but the agenda hasn’t been posted on the regents’ website. As a result, it’s unclear if the decision would come in an open or closed session and whether the regents plan to vote on the matter.

What we do know is this: The regents have the authority to rescind the decision — and seemingly could do it without a vote or approval of the full board. When UCLA announced the stunning news on June 30, it was believed that chancellor Gene Block had final authority over the school’s conference affiliation. That assumption proved incorrect. During a meeting of the regents in August, general counsel Charlie Robinson indicated the governing board had the right to revoke a chancellor’s authority over conference affiliation.

“For this particular matter, the regents could say ‘We want to act and therefore we do not want the (UC) president or the (campus) chancellors to act in this area,’ and simply assert that,” Robinson said. In a telling exchange, regent John Perez, who attended Cal, posed the following hypothetical to Robinson:

“Without noticing a meeting, without going to a meeting, between meetings, the board chair and the vice chair could act under interim action to retain an authority that had otherwise been delegated?”

“Correct,” Robinson said...

Full article at https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/11/02/clarity-coming-uc-regents-expected-to-rule-soon-on-uclas-planned-move-to-the-big-ten/. 

Here is my take: 1) I don't think the Regents are "expected" to make a decision about the move of UCLA to the Big Ten at their upcoming meetings. They could, of course, do so. But there is a big difference between "could" and "will." And there is a difference between discussion and making a decision.

2) The Regents may well continue their general discussion about delegations of authority to campus chancellors going forward during the upcoming meetings. Whatever they might decide on that issue would not prevent the UCLA deal from taking effect. The deal is in the past. The future lies ahead.

3) Yes, the UC general counsel said the Regents chair could act without a full board meeting. But that was in a hypothetical emergency situation. There is no emergency now. And if any such thing had occurred, it would make big waves in the sports business and already be known. Nothing like that has occurred.

4) Yes, the UC general counsel said in public that the Regents could override the decision of Chancellor Block. He did not say that overriding a decision by the chancellor after the chancellor acted as a legitimately authorized agent of the Regents under existing delegations of authority at the time would not lead to costly litigation against the Regents. There is a difference between "could" and "should." Although there were some issues as to whether the chancellor - as a matter of courtesy - might have given the Regents more advance notice of the deal, no one has said that he did not have the authority to OK the deal. Would the Regents want to exercise their admitted authority to override Chancellor Block and then face costly litigation as a result? It's a bit like Elon Musk trying to void the deal he made to buy Twitter. Yes, he first said he wouldn't go ahead with the deal he had made. But he faced inevitable costly litigation as a result. In the end, buyers' remorse or not, he went ahead with the purchase. Maybe Block made a bad deal acting as an authorized agent of the Regents. But at this point, what would it cost not to go ahead?

5) It's well to keep in mind that the deal became an issue because the governor, as an ex officio Regent, suddenly made a fuss about it. His fuss could well be interpreted as part of not-so-hidden campaigning for president. Perhaps he thought taking a prominent position on college sports would appeal to Joe Six-Pack. Whatever, he seems to have moved on since his initial fuss. So, the political pressure on the Regents to do something has subsided.

In short, let's wait for the Regents' agenda to be published - probably this weekend - and then wait for the actual meetings.

===

To hear the text above, click on the link below:

https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/speculation.mp3

Back to Court

The seemingly endless litigation related to the Hawaiian telescope project in which UC is involved - or at least tangentially related to that project - continues.  

From Yahoo News: A legal challenge to the University of Hawaii's administrative rules governing uses and activities on Mauna Kea took a detour to the Hawaii Supreme Court on Tuesday. The justices heard arguments on the question of whether, in this case, it is the government that must prove its rules are reasonable and do not unduly limit the rights conferred by the state Constitution, or whether the burden is on the challenger to prove the opposite... 

The wide-ranging rules—which survived two rounds of public hearings and underwent numerous revisions over a two-year period—prohibit a number of activities including such things as littering, speeding, causing noise disturbances, setting fires, using drugs or alcohol, operating drones, snow play and camping. The rules also regulate commercial activities, tours and motorized traffic, including off-road driving.

The proposal generated much controversy in the Hawaiian community. Three months before [Governor] Ige gave his approval, the UH Board of Regents adopted the rules following a lengthy meeting at the UH Hilo campus featuring the testimony of 99 people, most of whom criticized the proposal for being too restrictive of Native Hawaiians and cultural practitioners. Some even said the effort was aimed at those who were protesting construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope...

Full story at https://news.yahoo.com/hawaiis-high-court-hears-arguments-160500182.html.

===

To hear the text above, click on the link below:

https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/hawaii%20sup%20ct.mp3

Isn't there something about a horse, a gift, and a mouth?

From the Sacramento Bee: Stewart and Lynda Resnick donated $50 million to fund a new center for sustainable agriculture practices at UC Davis, but environmentalists reacted with suspicion to the school’s mid-October announcement of their gift. 

“It’s self-serving,” said Char Miller, a professor who is the director of environmental analysis at Pomona College in Claremont. 

Miller’s comment was related to the fact that $10 million of the Resnicks’ gift is earmarked for research grants that are focused on identifying value-added properties in pistachio, almond and pomegranate byproducts. These crops are all part of the billionaire couple’s portfolio. 

A spokesperson for the Resnicks, who live in Beverly Hills, repeatedly told The Bee the couple was unavailable for an interview. The Wonderful Co. may not be a household name, but the Resnicks’ Los Angeles-based private enterprise is the world’s largest grower of tree nuts, America’s largest citrus grower, and owns well-known brands like Fiji Water, POM Wonderful Pomegranate Juice, Halo Mandarins and TeleFlora — the giant flower delivery service...

Full story at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article267230367.html.

===

To hear the text above, click on the link below:

https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/gift%20horse.mp3

Walton vs. Kelly: Two Conflicting Views on the Big Ten Move

Chancellor Block and Walton (left); Kelly (right) 

Bill Walton, famed UCLA basketball star of the 1970s, had much to say about the move of UCLA to the Big Ten in written comments to sports blogger and podcaster John Canzano, reproduced, punctuation and all, as it appeared:

All progress requires change… not all change is progress,

I’m Bill Walton,

I’m a California native, resident, engaged citizen, voter, and taxpayer,

I’m a product of California’s terrific public school systems,

I’m a proud UCLA alum,

I am not in favor of UCLA’s recent announced decision to leave the Pac-12 Conference of Champions, 

nor their desire to join the Big 10,

I don’t like this attempted move,

I don’t support it,

I hope it does not happen,

UCLA is a public school that is supposed to serve the interests of the State of California,

UCLA is one of the world’s greatest schools, and brands,

UCLA represents the best of what life has been, and can, could and should be,

UCLA has been as great and as important a part of my life as anything, ever,

I don’t believe that joining the Big 10 is in the best interest of UCLA, its students, its athletes, its alumni, its fans, the rest of the UC system, the State of California, or the world at large,

some of the many reasons why I am opposed to UCLA’s attempted move to the Big 10 are, in no particular order,

• the negative impact on the health, both physical and mental, of UCLA’s student-athletes, the exponential increase in travel on UCLA’s student-athletes will hurt them physically, mentally, and in their overall lives,

• the negative impact of the excessive travel will extend to families, friends, fans, alumni and everyone else,

• the increased costs of joining the Big 10 will negate the projected increased revenue assumptions of this proposed move,

• this proposed move to the Big 10 is contrary to UCLA’s and the entire UC System’s stated and professed environmental sustainability goals,

• this proposed move to the Big 10 has serious negative implications and ramifications for the University of California, Berkeley, and flies in the face of the supposed team concept that has always been a part of the California Dream, plan and business model,        

• this proposed move to the Big 10, is all about football, and money,

• what about all the other 24 sports and 600+student-athletes at UCLA, who are responsible for 99+% of UCLA’s National Championships,

• how many of these “others” are represented and willing participants in this proposed deal,

I went to UCLA — gladly, willingly, and proudly,

it was my dream,

that dream never included the Big 10,

I have spoken to no one, other than the highest-level directors of athletics at UCLA, who think that this proposed move to the Big 10 is a good idea,

every argument made by these senior AD’s and why they like it, is about money,

these same proponents of moving to the Big 10, are the first people I have ever encountered in my life,

who have claimed economic hardship and limitations in Los Angeles,

and that the solution lies in the Midwest,

I have made my feelings known, privately, to the powers that be in the State of California, including the UC’s Board of Regents,

my hope and dream is that this proposed move by UCLA, my alma mater, will be rescinded,

Bill Walton,

UCLA 1974

Full post at https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-bill-walton-is-not-happy.

====

On the other hand, blog readers will recall that football coach Chip Kelly originally said he had essentially no opinion to express - at least in public - as the Big Ten move was decided by the chancellor and other higher-ups.* He seems now to have endorsed the party line which is that, yes, it's about money but also it will be good for student athletes who will get more national attention in the Big Ten than in the Pac-12. You can see his remarks at the link below:

or direct to https://ia601506.us.archive.org/29/items/board-9-22-22-first-session/kelly%20on%20move%20to%20big%2010%2010-31-22.mp4.

====

*http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2022/08/that-big-ten-decision.html.

====

To hear the text above, click on the link below: 

https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/walton%20kelly.mp3

Shortening

The giant dorm planned for UC-Santa Barbara has been somewhat decapitated, ostensibly to avoid airplanes. (No, this is not a joke.) From the Chronicle of Higher Education:

A massive, largely windowless dormitory complex, dubbed “Dormzilla” by its critics, won’t loom quite as tall or arise as early as planned over the skyline of the University of California at Santa Barbara. Bowing to pressure from the community and concerns about air traffic from a nearby airport, the university has agreed to cut two floors off the design. Instead of housing just over 4,500 students on 11 stories, Munger Hall will accommodate 3,500 students on nine.

“The decision to move from 11 floors to nine floors allows us to both meet the campus’s housing goal for our current student enrollment and to respond to input from our community about size and density,” a campus spokeswoman, Kiki Reyes, wrote in an email. It will also help avoid “potential issues related to airport traffic” from Santa Barbara Airport.

Because of the remaining approvals the project needs, Munger Hall is unlikely to open before late 2026, instead of 2025, as originally planned.

Charlie Munger, the 98-year-old benefactor who’s largely responsible for the design of Munger Hall, had made it clear, in an interview last year with The Chronicle, that if the university insisted on changes, he would take back the $200 million he’d pledged toward the building. But, interviewed last week, he said that while “of course” the university had consulted with him, he had no objection to removing a couple of floors if it would alleviate flight-safety concerns...

Full story at https://www.chronicle.com/article/dormzilla-gets-a-little-less-monstrous and UCOP Daily News Clips.

===

To hear the text above, click on the link below:

https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/shortening.mp3

More Big-10/Big-12

Yours truly can't evaluate the implications of the deal reported below in the Mercury News, as the Big-Ten becomes the Big-Twelve with the addition of UCLA and USC. But perhaps that's the point. The Regents are not equipped to evaluate the implications either. It's just not the kind of thing they do, or in which they have any expertise. And they likely would not even have involved themselves had it not been for the in-and-out intervention by the governor - who since seems to have moved on to other things.

The news broke Sunday before dawn on the West Coast, straight from the Southern Plains: Moving swiftly and strategically, the Big 12 locked in a media rights contract with ESPN and Fox reportedly worth $2.3 billion over six years. Across the Pac-12 footprint, the development generated interest, not alarm as it ventures down a similar but not identical path. The conference began working toward a new media deal four months ago, after the announced departures of USC and UCLA, and still doesn’t have an agreement. A deal remains weeks, and perhaps months, away. Yet here comes the Big 12, cutting in line to feed at the media rights revenue trough.

Is Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, who offered a stunningly optimistic outlook last week, moving too slowly? Is his confidence misplaced? Has he been outmaneuvered by Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark? It depends where you turn for conjecture...

Full story at https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/10/31/pac-12-survival-the-big-12s-media-deal-adds-element-of-uncertainty-that-should-not-be-ignored/.

The one element of this story that seems not to be subject to "conjecture" is that the parties involved in the deal seem to assume that there is zero chance that the moves by UCLA and USC will somehow be undone. The next Regents meetings are scheduled for November 15-17, and it will be interesting to see if this matter is even on the agenda.

===

To hear the text above, click on the link below:

https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/media%20deal.mp3