T. Peter Pierce

Recent Appellate Victories

• Old East Davis Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Davis (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 895. Court of Appeal reversed judgment and upheld City approval of mixed-use development project in downtown Davis

• Folsom Police Dept. v. M.C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 1052. Court of Appeal reversed order with directions to trial court to hold evidentiary hearing on City of Folsom Police Department’s petition to dispose of firearms

• San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission v. City of Pismo Beach (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 595. Court of Appeal affirmed judgment in favor of City invalidating indemnity agreement required by LAFCO to process annexation application

• City of Redondo Beach v. Padilla (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 902. Court of Appeal held California Voter Participation Rights Act does not require charter cities to consolidate local elections with statewide elections

 Published Decisions (partial list)

• County of Ventura v. City of Moorpark (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 377. Court of Appeal upheld key terms in settlement agreement between City and geologic hazard abatement district

• Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment v. Abercrombie (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 300. Water agency’s decision to acquire water company not invalid because water company general manager previously served on water agency’s board; acquisition impliedly exempted from Political Reform Act
• Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine v. Applebee’s International, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 166. Notices and certificates of merit did not comply with Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act in absence of knowledge of posted warning signs
• Conejo Wellness Center, Inc. v. City of Agoura Hills (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1534. First published appellate decision in California squarely holding that cities may ban medical marijuana establishments.  Holding later vindicated by California Supreme Court in separate case
• Nordyke v. King (9th Cir 2012) 681 F.3d 1041 (en banc). County of Alameda law prohibiting firearms on County-owned property did not violate Second Amendment
• Nordyke v. King (9th Cir. 2011) 644 F.3d 776. County of Alameda law prohibiting firearms on County-owned property did not violate First Amendment as applied to gun show promoters
• Joffe v. City of Huntington Park (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 492. Court of Appeal upheld dismissal of inverse condemnation action that was premised on theory of unreasonable pre-condemnation conduct.
• Kay v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (9th Cir. 2007). Damages not available under federal Telecommunications Act regarding provision of mobile services; municipal employees immune from liability in damages
• City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams (2005) 544 U.S. 113. U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that zoning provisions of Telecommunications Act may not be enforced through action for damages and attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988
• City of West Hollywood v. 1112 Investment Co. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1134. Vested right to convert residential buildings to condominiums expired, and owners of units required to comply with City’s rent control law
• Nordyke v. King (2002) 27 Cal.4th 875. California Supreme Court held local law prohibiting firearms on local government property not preempted by California firearms regulations
• Echevarrieta v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 472. City’s view preservation ordinance a legitimate exercise of police power, did not work an unconstitutional taking of private property, was not unconstitutionally vague, and did not deprive property owner of due process
• California Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. City of West Hollywood (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1302. Local ordinance banning sales of Saturday Night Special handguns not preempted by California law
• Private Industry Council v. State of California (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1290. Court of Appeal invalidated State Employment Development Department directive requiring non-profit job training agency to disgorge state funds if not spent within certain time frame
• Friedman v. City of Beverly Hills (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 436. Court of Appeal interpreted word “and” in state statute to mean “or” such that city could create preferential parking districts for residents only

 Amicus Briefs authored (partial)

• Teixeira v. County of Alameda (9th Cir. 2017) 873 F.3d 670. On behalf of League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties
• Peruta v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. 2016) 824 F.3d 919. On behalf of League of California Cities
• People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258. On behalf of League of California Cities
• Cemex v. County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2006). On behalf of League of California Cities
• Boelts v. City of Lake Forest (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 116. On behalf of League of California Cities and several public agencies
• San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill (9th Cir. 2004) 360 F.3d 1024. On behalf of 62 California cities and towns
• Rubin v. City of Burbank (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1194. On behalf of 34 California cities
• Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 511. On behalf of 30 California cities and redevelopment agencies
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of San Diego (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 230. On behalf of 85 California cities and towns