Mary Kathryn Kelley

Cooley, alongside the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana and New Orleans-based Aaron & Gianna, are representing Nathasia Paul, a Black resident of Metairie, Louisiana, in a civil rights action against multiple law enforcement officers from the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office (JPSO) for their racially motivated violations of Paul’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Lawyers Randall Lee, Amanda Main, Tijana Brien, Benjamin Lin, Hazel Verdin and Sam Blankenship are leading the Cooley team.

Cooley has filed an amicus brief in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, one of the two cases currently before the Supreme Court challenging Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), an unprecedented attempt to nullify the federal constitutional right to receive an abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Lawyers Kathleen Hartnett, Adam Gershenson, Julie Veroff, Patrick Hayden, Kelsey Spector, Marc Suskin, Rachel Thorn and Alessandra Vittoria Rafalson led the Cooley effort.

Cooley obtained a complete victory for client Patheon, a defendant in a three-year $380 million antitrust case brought by Procaps in the United States District Court in Miami.

Patheon is a leading global provider of outsourced pharmaceutical development and manufacturing services. Procaps is a Colombia-based corporation that develops, manufactures and commercializes pharmaceutical products, veterinary, nutritional supplements and cosmetics.

In January 2012, Patheon and Procaps signed a seven-year collaboration agreement to provide softgel development and manufacturing services to customers worldwide. In December 2012, Patheon announced its intention to acquire Banner Pharmacaps, a leading softgel manufacturer. Procaps sued Patheon, seeking to enjoin the acquisition on the grounds that it would convert the collaboration agreement into an illegal market division and was, therefore, a "per se" violation of US antitrust laws.

After Cooley stopped Procaps' effort to block the acquisition, the company proceeded with the litigation, demanding more than $380 million in damages and equitable relief, including divestiture of Banner Pharmacaps and the return of confidential information.

During discovery, Patheon uncovered that Procaps failed to issue a litigation hold and otherwise failed to preserve potentially relevant evidence or satisfy its eDiscovery obligations. Thus, on Patheon's motion, the court ordered a full forensic analysis of Procaps' computer systems. Over the following year and half, Procaps supplemented its original production with 150,000 documents.

In 2014, Cooley won summary judgment on all claims for Patheon, after which the court allowed Procaps to amend its complaint to add a new antitrust claim under the "rule of reason" standard. The case effectively started over.

Following a second round of discovery, Patheon filed a second summary judgment. On October 29, 2015, two weeks before trial was to begin, the court granted Patheon summary judgment in full, dismissing the case.

Under a settlement with Fresno County officials, prisoners in the Fresno County Jail will no longer be denied adequate health care. The agreement settles a class action lawsuit on behalf of all present and future prisoners in the county jail.

"We appreciate the county's willingness to recognize and address the serious life-threatening problems in the jail, and we look forward to working with the sheriff during the compliance period," said Kelly Knapp, staff attorney at the Prison Law Office, which filed the lawsuit with Cooley LLP, an international law firm headquartered in Palo Alto, California and Disability Rights California.

"The settlement provides tangible improvements for individuals who would otherwise suffer from inadequate and, at times, non-existent medical and mental health care. The result is hugely impactful for this vulnerable group of people who have no ability to procure these critical services for themselves," said Maureen Alger, Cooley's pro bono partner.

"This is a tribute to the perseverance of people like plaintiff Quentin Hall, who was denied his prescribed medication when he was held in the jail in 2011," said Melinda Bird, Disability Rights California's Litigation Counsel. "Mr. Hall vowed that he would fight to make sure that no one else had to endure what happened to him. Although he is no longer in the jail, others will benefit from his commitment to justice."

The lawsuit alleged that conditions in the jail constituted cruel and unusual punishment because prisoners were denied adequate medical, dental and mental health care and were vulnerable to attack by other prisoners because of inadequate security. The lawsuit also alleged that prisoners with disabilities were not provided reasonable accommodations in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The settlement includes a 22-page remedial plan that describes the obligations that the Sheriff and Corizon Health, a private contractor, must take to improve conditions in the jail. Among other things, the remedial plan provides that:

• prisoners with chronic illnesses will receive necessary medications;
• pregnant inmates will receive timely and appropriate prenatal care, postpartum care, counseling, and specialized obstetrical services when indicated;
• suicidal prisoners will be given a risk assessment;
• prisoners with serious mental illness in solitary confinement will be taken out of their cells for recreation a minimum of seven hours per week and mental health treatment will be offered three times per week;
• prisoners with disabilities will be housed in the most integrated and appropriate housing possible, based on their disabilities; and
• more than 100 additional correctional officers will be hired to reduce inmate-on-inmate violence.

The Consent Decree provides for a four-year compliance and monitoring period and an informal grievance process for any future disputes.

Cooley, along with the ACLU, Brancart & Brancart and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, has filed a lawsuit against the city of Escondido, California charging that it employed zoning and land use pretexts to discriminate against vulnerable children fleeing violence and persecution in Central America. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of Southwest Key, alleges violations of federal and state fair housing laws and the United States Constitution.

As required by law, the federal government contracts with organizations such as Southwest Key to provide housing for children fleeing violence and persecution. Many of the children ultimately qualify for asylum or legal status, allowing them to remain in the United States.

In February 2014, Southwest Key approached the city of Escondido about potential locations to house unaccompanied children awaiting placement with parents, relatives or other caregivers while their immigration cases are pending. When Southwest Key first approached the city, it sought to convert a motel site located in a commercial zone into housing for the unaccompanied children. However, the city's staff rejected that proposal claiming it was not allowed despite the fact that the municipal code permitted "residential care facilities" in the subject commercial zone. Attempting to work with the city, Southwest Key agreed to suspend an appeal from that decision and to pursue a conditional use permit to convert a former skilled nursing facility located in a residential zone in another part of the city.

In June 2014, before the city's Planning Commission held its hearing on the conditional use permit for the nursing home, Escondido Mayor Sam Abed publicly opposed the project, claiming it was a "federal" issue he did not want in Escondido. The Planning Commission then unanimously rejected the proposal.

The City Council held a hearing on Southwest Key's appeal in October 2014. Opposing the appeal, members of the public stated, "We don't want these people in our neighborhood," and reminded the City Council, "You are sitting up there right now because the majority of the people wanted you there, not the minority. Speak for the majority." The City Council voted 4-1 to deny Southwest Key's appeal.

Joseph Rich, co-director of the Fair Housing and Community Development Project at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said: "Such statements have been found by many courts to be coded language for racial and national origin animus and to support findings of discrimination that violate the Fair Housing Act and other civil rights laws."