Bill has received acclaim for his representation of property owners, business owners and public agencies in matters involving eminent domain, permitting, zoning, compliance with environmental regulations, and a wide array of construction, leasing and business issues. Although he has extensive trial experience in both state and federal courts, Bill prides himself on finding creative solutions to his clients’ problems.
HONORS AND ASSOCIATIONS
The publishers of Law & Politics and San Francisco Magazine list Bill among Northern California’s "Superlawyers,” and his business litigation achievements have won him national recognition in Corporate Counsel magazine. Bill has also been selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America in the categories of "Bet the Company" litigation, Commercial litigation, and Real Estate. He was named one of the “Top Lawyers” in the San Francisco area by the San Francisco Chronicle in November 2010. He has received an AV Preeminent rating by Martindale-Hubbell, the highest rating possible.
Bill is active in community affairs. He is currently a member of the Board of Directors of Bay Area Legal Aid, and the Board of Directors of the Kennedy-King Memorial Scholarship Fund. He also serves as the Chair of the Firm's Diversity Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE MATTERS
EMINENT DOMAIN AND INVERSE CONDEMNATION
San Mateo County Transit District v. Tanforan Park Shopping Center
Bill was lead trial counsel for Target Corporation in this eminent domain action regarding land for the San Bruno BART station. After six-weeks of in limine proceedings and bifurcated court trials, followed by a nine-week jury trial, Target and its co-defendants obtained an award of $33 million, more than double the condemning agency's final offer.
Tracy JointUnified School Districtv. Pombo
Bill was lead trial counsel for the property owners in this eminent domain action to acquire 60 acres for a new high school in Tracy. After a two-week jury trial in June 2008, the owners received an award of $7,985,500. Before trial, the owners had offered to settle for $7,995,000 and the District had offered to pay $3,180,500. Despite the jury’s favorable verdict, the trial court denied the owners’ motion for recovery of litigation expenses, and the owners appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed, and ordered the trial court to award our clients their full attorney fees and litigation expenses. See Tracy Joint Unified School Dist. V. Pombo (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 889.
California Dept. of Transportation v. San Antonio Lakes Partners
Bill was lead trial counsel for defendants in this eminent domain action to acquire land to extend Interstate 210 east of Los Angeles. After two weeks of in limine proceedings and a bifurcated court trial, the case was settled for $18 million. Before trial, CalTrans offered to pay $5 million.
California Dept. of Transportation v. Sierra Pacific Properties, and related cases
Cal Trans is in the process of acquiring land to widen State Route 4 through eastern Contra Costa County. Bill represented the owners of several commercial properties adjacent to the freeway. The smaller matters were promptly settled. The final two matters were resolved as part of a complex settlement among several parties to reconfigure an existing shopping center and relocate a pylon sign identifying the center and its tenants.
Napa County Flood Control District Matters
For almost ten years, Bill has been supervising a team of eminent domain attorneys assisting the Napa County Flood Control District in property acquisitions for the Napa River Flood Control Project. Most acquisitions do not require litigation, but the firm has handled over 40 litigation matters in addition to the general advice provided to the District regarding the condemnation process. Because this is a linear project along the Napa River, most property acquisitions are of only a part of the owner’s property, raising issues of severance damage and, in commercial areas, loss of business goodwill.
San Bernardino County Flood Control District Litigation
Acting on behalf of property owner and developer, Bill settled a long, complex, and contentious litigation against the County of San Bernardino and its Flood Control District. The County built a storm drain that discharged water onto the client's property, requiring it to reserve 67 acres as a flood control basin. The District agreed to pay over $100 million and complete construction of the flood control facilities to settle pending inverse condemnation and quiet title actions. The District sought to issue bonds in 2007 to finance the settlement, and the issuance was challenged in court by community activists. The challenge was dismissed by the Superior Court, and affirmed by the District Court of Appeal.
CONSTRUCTION
Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Seecon Financial and Construction Co.
Billwas lead counsel for defendant and cross-complainant Seecon Financial, owner and developer of a ten-story complex in Concord, California. The claims and cross claims of the owner and general contractor for negligence and breach of contract ultimately involved over 20 parties and numerous consolidated actions in the Contra Costa County Superior Court. The matter was favorably settled after extensive mediation.
Chabot-Las Positas Community College District v. Sierra Bay Contractors
We represent general contractor Sierra Bay Contractors in a series of disputes arising out of the construction of two buildings on a community college campus. The matter includes litigation and arbitration concerning contract claims, alleged construction defects, and insurance coverage.
LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
Solano Properties LLC v City of Rio Vista
Bill represented Solano Properties LLC in this Petition of Writ of Mandate to compel the City of Rio Vista to complete and certify an Environmental Impact Report regarding our client's housing development, and issue water availability certifications required by law. After briefing and a contested hearing in November 2006, the court issued a writ of mandate and judgment in favor of our client.
West Coast Home Builders v. City of Pittsburg
Our client, West Coast Home Builders, challenged a regional traffic mitigation fee sought to be imposed by the city. Bill was lead counsel in the matter. After briefing and a contested hearing, the court issued a writ of mandate and judgment setting aside the fee.
Emeryville Redevelopment Agency v. Chevron and related actions
We represented the owner of industrial property in the City of Emeryville. The Redevelopment Agency brought Polanco Act claims against our client and others, for the cost to clean up substantial contamination on several adjacent properties. We obtained summary judgment in favor of our individual clients based on a failure to receive statutory notice, after which the case was settled. Bill was lead counsel on the case.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Sundby Computer Services v. Metrix Computer Support Systems
Bill was lead trial counsel for plaintiff in this business dispute over licensing rights to a computer software program. Plaintiff received a jury verdict of over $1.2 million, plus attorney’s fees, after a two-week trial in United State District Court for the Northern District of California.
