Michael W. Bien

Michael W. Bien is co-founding partner of Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP where he concentrates his litigation practice on complex commercial litigation, class actions, constitutional and civil rights law, antitrust, intellectual property, disability rights, and attorneys’ fees disputes. Mr. Bien served as Managing Partner of the firm for its first 27 years. 

The Daily Journal recognized Mr. Bien in 2021 as one of California’s Top Lawyers of the Decade.  He was named a California Lawyer Attorney of the Year for 2010 by both California Lawyer magazine and The Recorder and has been recognized by the Daily Journal as one of the Top 100 lawyers in California 12 times – 2010, 2013, and 2015-2024. He has also been recognized by Best Lawyers in America for Commercial Litigation since 2013.

Mr. Bien is a student and teacher of the art and science of trial practice. He has successfully tried to judgment several complex, multi-party class actions in federal court. He has frequently been called upon to teach trial practice and litigation techniques to other lawyers through the National Institute of Trial Advocacy as well as other professional organizations.

Mr. Bien has also frequently represented clients in the state and federal appellate courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States.

His commercial litigation clients have included national and international companies such as Pfizer Corporation, Estee Lauder, Credo Mobile, Unocal, American Stores, Fluor Daniel, Roadway Express, Equity Property & Development Company, and Trans Union, as well as numerous small businesses and individuals. He has represented these and other companies in complex litigation matters in state and federal court on a wide range of issues, including antitrust, trade secrets, banking and financial regulation, employment, unfair competition, class actions and intellectual property matters.

Mr. Bien has also successfully litigated a series of major civil rights class actions against state and federal correction agencies and other public and private entities. These cases have resulted in significant prospective relief regarding unconstitutional conditions of confinement, denial of mental health care, unlawful discrimination against persons with physical and mental disabilities, protection of prisoners from sexual assault, and parole revocation reform.

He is co-lead counsel in a successful three-judge court trial that imposed a population cap on the California prison system in August 2009, which was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in its historic prison overcrowding decision, Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910 (2011). In late 2013, the Supreme Court declined the State’s effort to re-open the overcrowding case, handing Bien and his team another historic victory.  

Mr. Bien was lead counsel in three federal court class action trials in 2013 exposing cruel and unusual mistreatment of persons with mental illness in three critical areas – denial of psychiatric hospital services, use-of-force, including pepper spray, and overuse of solitary confinement. The trials brought into public view abuses that have gone on for years in California prisons. RBGG’s clients prevailed in all three trials, and major reforms are now underway.

Mr. Bien has special expertise in class action and other complex litigation in federal and state courts. He brings to his work the unique experience and insight derived from having represented both plaintiffs and defendants in numerous such cases. Mr. Bien has extensive experience with various procedures for coordinating, prosecuting and defending complex, multi-party proceedings such as Multi District Litigation (MDL) in the federal courts, and has represented clients facing simultaneous civil, criminal and administrative proceedings. Mr. Bien has also successfully defended corporate and individual clients in class actions and other complex litigation brought under state and federal law. He has extensive experience in antitrust, unfair competition, securities, RICO, intellectual property and trade regulation litigation under federal law. He has also frequently represented clients in antitrust (Cartwright Act), indirect purchaser, trade secret, unfair competition and unfair trade practices (Business and Professions Code 17200) in California courts.

Mr. Bien has also been an officer, member, or board member for a number of community organizations, including Mission YMCA, Metropolitan YMCA, New Israel Fund, Camp Tawonga, Brandeis Hillel Day School, Jewish Community Federation, Religious Witness with Homeless People, and Jewish Vocational Service. He served as Chair of the Judiciary Committee of the Bar Association of San Francisco, and has been a member of the State Bar of California’s Commission on Corrections. He serves on the First District Appellate Project’s Board of Directors.

He previously was a partner in the San Francisco office of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, where he worked from 1980 through 1990. He received his J.D., cum laude, from Northwestern University in 1980 and his B.A., magna cum laude, from Brandeis University in 1977.

REPRESENTATIVE CASES

• U.S. WeChat Users Alliance v. Trump:  Mr. Bien led RBGG team that represented a non-profit organization and several individuals and businesses in the first successful challenge to President Trump’s Executive Order 13,943 (August 6, 2020) and its implementing regulations, which would have effectively banned the WeChat social media application and cut off at least 19 million daily users in the United States from their personal, professional, and religious communities.  RBGG (with co-counsel) filed the Complaint on August 21, 2020, just over two weeks after Executive Order 13,943 was issued, alleging that the intended ban unlawfully regulated constitutionally protected speech, expression, and association, and that such a ban would have particularly dire effects on millions of Chinese-speaking American users who depend on WeChat to communicate with their contacts both at home and in China.  One week later, RBGG filed a motion for preliminary injunction that served as a model for subsequent challenges to both the WeChat ban and a similar ban on the TikTok social media app.  The motion raised pathbreaking legal theories under the First Amendment and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), offered expert testimony that the WeChat ban would do little to advance the government’s asserted national security interests, and included extensive evidence of WeChat’s critical role in connecting Chinese-speaking communities at home and abroad.  On September 19, 2020—the day before the WeChat ban was scheduled to take effect and one day after the Secretary of Commerce publicly vowed to shut down WeChat in the United States—the court granted our motion on First Amendment grounds, thereby ensuring the uninterrupted functioning of WeChat in the United States.  See U.S. WeChat Users Alliance v. Trump, 488 F. Supp. 3d 912 (N.D. Cal. 2020).  RBGG then marshalled additional testimony from experts in cyber-security and internet communications technology to fight off the government’s multiple attempts to obtain an emergency stay of the preliminary injunction in both the district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  President Biden rescinded EO 13,943 shortly after taking office, putting an end to the Trump Administration’s attempt to shut down entirely a public forum used by millions of Americans.
• Coleman v. Brown/Plata v. Brown: In a landmark decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that overcrowding in California’s prisons resulted in cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court affirmed a January 2010 order issued by a three-judge federal court after an extensive trial directing California officials to reduce the State’s severe prison overcrowding down to 137.5% of design capacity. The order was issued after the judges found that overcrowding is the primary cause of ongoing unconstitutional conditions in California’s prisons, such as the system’s inability to provide minimally adequate medical and mental health care for prisoners.  See Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910 (2011).
• Coleman v. Newsom: Mr. Bien leads the RBGG team that represents a class of the more than 38,000 men and women in California’s prison system with serious mental illness. After a contested trial, the district court held that the prison mental health delivery system violates the Eighth Amendment and ordered systemwide injunctive relief. See Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1995).  The court determined that the constitutional violations remain ongoing in 2013 after the State attempted to terminate the injunction. See Coleman v. Brown, 938 F. Supp. 2d 955 (E.D. Cal. 2013). Through hard-fought litigation over the last two decades, RBGG has secured a number of significant systemic changes on behalf of the class, including reforms to policies and practices regarding the use of force against prisoners with mental illness, as well as the overuse and misuse of solitary confinement. See Coleman v. Brown, 28 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (E.D. Cal. 2014). On November 28, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued two unanimous rulings affirming lower court decisions on behalf of the class.  The Court dismissed the State’s appeal of an April 2017 order because the district court had not granted or modified an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) in requiring the State to comply with prior orders to transfer class members to inpatient care in a timely fashion, nor had it issued a final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because contempt proceedings remained ongoing.  See Coleman v. Brown, 743 Fed. Appx. 875 (9th Cir. 2018).  The Court separately upheld a  October 2017 order on the merits, ruling that district court complied with the Constitution and the Prison Litigation Reform Act in holding the State to its twenty-four hour timeframe to transfer patients in mental health crisis to licensed hospital settings, as longer waits “create ‘a substantial risk of serious harm’” in violation of the Eighth Amendment.  Coleman v. Brown, 756 Fed. Appx. 677 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994)).  These appellate victories ensure timely access to critically needed psychiatric inpatient hospitalization for the members of the Coleman class, and the State’s compliance with the inpatient transfer timelines has dramatically improved in the wake of the rulings.  For more information see Coleman v. Brown: Court Orders, Reports, Photos, Expert Declarations and Media Coverage.
• Lyft, Inc.:  RBGG represents the National Federation of the Blind and blind individuals in structured negotiations with Lyft, Inc. concerning access to Lyft transportation services for riders with service animals, which resulted in a comprehensive nationwide agreement in January 2017 subject to RBGG and co-counsel’s ongoing compliance monitoring.
• National Federation of the Blind of California v. Uber Technologies, Inc.: RBGG represents the National Federation of the Blind and its California affiliate as well as several individuals in an action challenging denials of service and other discrimination that blind and low-vision riders with guide dogs face when attempting to use transportation arranged through the popular Uber mobile app.  On December 6, 2016, the Court granted final approval to a comprehensive nationwide class settlement, which is subject to RBGG and co-counsel’s ongoing compliance monitoring.
• Sabata v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services:  RBGG and our co-counsel the ACLU of Nebraska, the ACLU National Prison Project, Nebraska Appleseed, the National Association of the Deaf, and DLA Piper filed a class action lawsuit on August 15, 2017 against the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services and Nebraska Board of Parole, challenging the conditions of confinement in Nebraska’s severely overcrowded and understaffed prison system, including constitutionally inadequate medical, dental and mental health care, the overuse of isolation, and the failure to provide reasonable accommodations to prisoners with disabilities.  Nebraska’s prison system is one of the most overcrowded in the US, operating at about 160% of its design capacity, with many prisons at even more dangerously high levels of overcrowding (with nearly twice as many people as they were designed to house). In June 2020 the Court denied class certification and the parties agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice in November 2020.  The voluntary dismissal came after NDCS made progress addressing some of the lawsuit’s concerns including by closing its solitary confinement unit at the Nebraska State Penitentiary, which expert testimony described as among the worst in the nation.  NDCS also significantly reduced the number of people in solitary confinement overall, made significant changes to policies to improve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, improved access to American Sign Language interpreters, adopted new policies related to mental health levels of care, and made significant improvements to its dental care policies. (U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Case No. 4:17-cv-03107-RFR-MDN.)
• Azizian v. Federated Department Stores:  Mr. Bien was co-counsel for the lead defendant, the cosmetics company Estee Lauder, in a state court antitrust action, which was settled as a nationwide federal class action. He represented Estee Lauder both at trial and on the successful appeal. See Azizian v. Federated Dept. Stores, 499 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2007). 
• Genencor, Inc. and Genentech, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc. and Sonoma Foods, Inc.:  The firm was co-counsel in the successful defense of Pfizer in this federal biotech patent action involving Kosher cheese.
• IDG v. Diversified Data Corp.:  The firm was lead counsel in this successful representation of a software company in trade secrets and right-to-compete litigation.
• NextCard Inc.: Mr. Bien served as lead counsel in representation of this internet bank in various state and federal court litigation matters, including securities, antitrust, intellectual property, breach of contract, and employment disputes.
• Systron Donner v. Aerosafe International:  Mr. Bien was co-lead counsel in the successful representation of former employees and their new company in this state court intellectual property action alleging theft of trade secrets where inventions were patented, including appellate proceedings.
• Hernandez v. County of Monterey: We sued the County of Monterey and its private medical provider, California Forensic Medical Group, challenging dangerous and unconstitutional conditions in the County’s Jail, a system plagued by severe overcrowding, outdated facilities, and chronic understaffing.  In 2014, we defeated the defendants’ motions to dismiss and obtained a unique ruling holding that our clients could assert ADA Title III claims against the Jail’s private medical provider.  See Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 70 F.Supp.3d 963 (N.D. Cal. 2014).  The federal court subsequently certified a class of the approximately 950 prisoners in the Jail, along with a sub-class of prisoners with disabilities.  See Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 305 F.R.D. 132 (N.D. Cal. 2015).  On April 14, 2015, the court granted a sweeping preliminary injunction on behalf of the class and sub-class, finding rampant violations of the Constitution and federal law.  See Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 110 F. Supp. 3d 929 (N.D. Cal. 2015).  The court approved the parties’ settlement on August 18, 2015, which requires defendants to comply with the requirements of the preliminary injunction and to develop and implement a comprehensive set of plans to enhance services at the Jail.  In November 2015, the Court approved a $4.8 million dollar award of fees and costs to counsel for the plaintiff class.
• Hedrick, et al. v. Grant, et. al:  RBGG and the UC Davis Civil Rights Clinic represent a class of pre-trial detainees, convicted prisoners, and immigration detainees challenging conditions of confinement at California’s Yuba County Jail. In 2013, the federal district court denied Yuba’s attempt to terminate a long-standing consent decree requiring the County to maintain certain minimum standards for those incarcerated at the Jail, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision in 2016. In the fall of 2016, RBGG filed an enforcement motion, seeking to require the County to improve its policies regarding safety cells, suicide screening, out of cell time, intake, and other critical issues, as well as a motion to add claims under the ADA.  After extensive court-supervised settlement negotiations, the parties signed an amended Consent Decree in August 2018. The court approved the Amended Consent Decree and awarded attorneys’ fees to class counsel in early 2019. Since then, RBGG has been closely monitoring the County’s compliance with the Amended Consent Decree. 
• Armstrong v. Newsom: RBGG proved in federal court that California’s prison and parole systems violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by discriminating against prisoners and parolees with mobility, sight, hearing, learning, mental and kidney disabilities. We secured systemwide injunctive relief to end the discrimination, which was upheld on appeal.  See Armstrong v. Wilson, 942 F. Supp. 1252 (N.D. Cal. 1996), aff’d 124 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 1997). We also established that the State is responsible for taking steps to ensure the rights of prisoners and parolees with disabilities are accommodated when it chooses to house them in third-party county jail facilities. See Armstrong v. Brown, 857 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. Cal. 2012), aff’d 732 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2013), cert denied, 134 S. Ct. 2725 (2014); and 622 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010).   The Armstrong litigation has resulted in a series of ground-breaking precedents, including rulings that the ADA does not permit state government agencies to avoid compliance by delegating responsibilities to local governments, and that prisoners cannot be held in solitary confinement solely on account of disability. We are currently working to stop staff misconduct targeting people with disabilities at CDCR.  On September 8, 2020 and March 11, 2021 respectively, Judge Claudia Wilken granted in part our February 2020 and June 2020 motions to stop staff misconduct at six prisons in CDCR.  The Court found that the systemic abuses against incarcerated people with disabilities at—R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (San Diego, CA)), CSP – Los Angeles County (Lancaster, CA), CSP -Corcoran (Corcoran, CA), Kern Valley State Prison (Delano, CA), Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (Corcoran, CA), and California Institution for Women (Corona, CA) —violate the ADA and prior court orders.  As a remedy, the Court required Defendants to develop plans to install security cameras and use body worn-cameras (BWCs) throughout the six prisons, reform the staff investigation and disciplinary process, and increase supervisory staffing on all yards at the six prisons.  Currently, BWCs and fixed security cameras are in use at all six prisons.  The Court also appointed an expert to oversee implementation of the mandated reforms.  Armstrong v. Newsom, 484 F.Supp.3d 808 (N.D. Cal. 2020); Armstrong v. Newsom, 2021 WL 933106 (N.D. Cal. 2021).  On February 2, 2023, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the September 8, 2020 RJD Order in full and the majority of the March 11, 2021 Five Prisons Order (except provisions regarding increased supervisory staffing and pepper-spray policies, which were vacated.)  Armstrong v. Newsom, 58 F.4th 1283 (9th Cir. 2023).  Relatedly, on July 30, 2020, the Court ordered that CDCR transfer  two witnesses from the prison where they had faced assault, threats and other retaliation for their participation in the litigation.  Armstrong v. Newsom, 475 F. Supp. 3d 1038 (N.D. Cal. 2020). 
• In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust: Mr. Bien was one of the key attorneys in the successful representation of defendant Union Oil Corporation of California in multiyear antitrust proceedings concerning oil and gas production, pricing, and sales.
• Berkeley Center for Independent Living v. Oakland Coliseum.  Mr. Bien served as co-lead counsel representing the plaintiff class in a successful federal court ADA action for damages and injunctive relief against the Coliseum, its public entity owners, and all sports teams and entertainment companies operating there.
• Armstrong v. Davis: After a contested trial, RBGG secured a federal court order requiring the Board of Prison Terms to remedy its shocking failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act during parole hearings. The court issued the order after RBGG presented testimony from, among others, a prisoner who required the use of a wheelchair was forced to crawl upstairs to attend his hearing, a deaf prisoner who could not communicate with his sign language interpreter during his hearing because he was forced to remain shackled, and a blind inmate who was offered no help with understanding complicated written materials regarding his rights. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction. See Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001).
• Estate of Prasad v. County of Sutter: RBGG represented the mother and children of a young man who developed a life threatening infection over the course of several days at the County’s jail. Custody and medical staff ignored and failed to respond to his worsening condition and pleas for help, leading to his preventable and painful death. After defeating the County’s motion to dismiss, we obtained a $775,000 settlement in the case, the majority of which was set aside to benefit the children. See Estate of Prasad v. County of Sutter, 958 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (2013).
• Estate of Bock v. County of Sutter: RBGG represented the four daughters of a man with serious mental illness who was denied access to clinically necessary and court-ordered psychiatric hospitalization while in the County’s jail. After being placed in solitary confinement and denied treatment at the jail for four weeks, he committed suicide in his cell. We obtained an $800,000 settlement in the case, along with a commitment from the County to consider expert recommendations to improve the treatment of prisoners with serious mental illness and medical conditions at the jail going forward.
• Equity Properties and Development Company:  Mr. Bien was lead counsel in various state court real estate and construction litigation matters, including a trial and successful appeal.
• Computer Education Managers Association: Mr. Bien provided antitrust counselling to CEMA.
• Fluor-Daniel Corporation:  Mr. Bien was lead counsel representing this construction company in various commercial litigation matters in state court.
• Valdivia v. Davis: RBGG secured a permanent injunction against the State based on a federal court’s finding that delays in its parole revocation process violated due process protections. See Valdivia v. Davis, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (2002). We convinced the Ninth Circuit to affirm a subsequent district court order holding that federal due process rights concerning admission of hearsay evidence apply to state administrative procedures. See Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 548 F. Supp. 2d 852 (E.D. Cal. 2008), aff’d 599 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2010), denied, 131 S. Ct. 1626 (2011).
• Hecker v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: RBGG brought this disability discrimination class action on behalf of all California prisoners with serious mental illness.  On March 2, 2015, the court approved a final settlement in the case, which includes several statewide policy changes to end discriminatory practices and gives the federal court the power to enforce implementation of the changes as necessary.
• L.H. v. Schwarzenegger: RBGG secured the rights of all juvenile parolees in California to fair hearings when they are accused of violating the terms of their parole. As a result of our lawsuit, the State agreed to provide attorneys to all juvenile parolees accused of parole violations, as well notice of the charges and evidence against them, the right to confront their accusers in a hearing, assistance for those parolees with disabilities, and the right to be considered for community-based alternative sanctions instead of return to the juvenile prison system. See L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 519 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (2007).
• Valdivia v. Brown and L.H. v. Brown: We secured a consolidated order in these cases finding that a rate increase for work performed by RBGG and its cocounsel on behalf of two plaintiff classes was reasonable under the law.  See Valdivia v. Brown, 848 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (E.D. Cal. 2011).
• Lucas v. White: Mr. Bien was lead counsel in this federal civil rights action for damages and injunctive relief brought on behalf of three female prisoners who were sexually assaulted while incarcerated in federal prison. The federal government agreed to pay $500,000 in damages. It further agreed to system-wide reform of its policies, procedures, and training governing issues of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and the rights of female prisoners and victims of crimes. The court also awarded RBGG and its cocounsel over $500,000 in attorneys’ fees. See Lucas v. White, 63 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 1999).
• Whitaker v. Rushen.  Mr. Bien successfully litigated a challenge to forced medication and involuntary and inappropriate psychiatric care at San Quentin and Vacaville prisons.
• Gates v. Deukmejian: As co-lead counsel, Mr. Bien successfully briefed three and argued two appeals arising out of a consent decree requiring California to improve medical and mental health care, treatment of HIV prisoners, and conditions of confinement for certain California prisoners. In first appeal, Mr. Bien successfully defended core elements of the district court’s ruling on civil rights attorneys’ fees. See Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1992). In the second, Mr. Bien successfully defended almost all portions of the injunctive remedy ordered against the state government agencies. See Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525 (9th Cir. 1995). And in the third, the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling that clarified contempt powers in complex injunction cases. See Gates v. Shinn, 98 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 1996).