Lisa Ells

Lisa Ells is a partner at Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP. She assists clients in difficult and complex matters involving actual or potential litigation. Ms. Ells maintains a diverse practice, successfully representing clients in a variety of First Amendment, commercial, constitutional law, disability access compliance, land use, attorneys’ fees, legal malpractice, civil rights, and intellectual property disputes.

Ms. Ells is particularly experienced in appellate law, and currently serves as a Ninth Circuit Appellate Lawyer Representative. She has briefed numerous appeals, writs, and dispositive motions in the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal. She has argued multiple times before the Ninth Circuit and the California Courts of Appeal. Ms. Ells’s appellate matters have addressed constitutional law, commercial real estate and land use disputes, disability access compliance, attorneys’ fees entitlements, and complex statute of limitations and procedural issues.

Ms. Ells has played a key role in some of the most significant civil rights class action cases on behalf of prisoners and parolees in California. She was a member of the legal team that successfully proved after a contested trial that California’s extreme prison overcrowding violates prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights to adequate medical and mental health care, and that required California to take steps to reduce the level of crowding. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling in 2011 in Brown v. Plata. Ms. Ells was also instrumental in securing a Ninth Circuit ruling in 2014 requiring California to take steps to ensure the federal rights of prisoners and parolees with disabilities are accommodated when the state chooses to house them in third-party county jail facilities.

Ms. Ells is a graduate of Columbia Law School, where she was an Editor of the Columbia Law Review and a James B. Kent and Harlan Fiske Stone scholar, and of Duke University. Prior to joining RBGG, she served as a law clerk to the Honorable James R. Browning of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and to the Honorable David O. Carter of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Ms. Ells received California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) awards for 2018 and 2020, and was selected by the Daily Journal for its Top Women Lawyers list for 2021-2024.  Ms. Ells was named to the Northern California Super Lawyers list for 2018-2024, and as a Rising Star from 2012-2016.  She serves on the Board of Directors of the Berkeley Law Foundation.

Prior to establishing her legal practice, Ms. Ells worked for a number of years as a business consultant and as a product manager at a technology start-up company.

 REPRESENTATIVE CASES

• Jay Brome v. California Highway Patrol:  RBGG secured a unanimous reversal in the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeals of a summary judgment order dismissing on statute of limitations grounds retired CHP Officer Jay Brome’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) claims, which arose out of the severe and pervasive discrimination and harassment he faced during his nearly twenty-year career because he is gay.  The opinion affirms the importance of applying equitable doctrines— equitable tolling, the continuing violation doctrine, and constructive discharge—to allow employment discrimination and harassment claims to be heard on the merits by a jury.  See Brome v. California Highway Patrol, 44 Cal.App.5th 786 (2020).
• California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge:  RBGG represents the California Housing Defense Fund, a non-profit housing organization, in one of the first cases seeking to enforce the “builder’s remedy” provisions in California’s Housing Element Law and Housing Accountability Act.  The builder’s remedy effectively suspends a municipal government’s authority to enforce its zoning rules against qualifying affordable housing projects if the municipality has not reformed those rules to accommodate its fair share of new housing development.  In this case, the City of La Cañada Flintridge—a city whose median household income is nearly three times that of Los Angeles County as a whole—disapproved a qualifying affordable housing project despite the fact that state housing officials found its plans to be grossly inadequate multiple times, including because they unlawfully discriminated against prospective residents on the basis of both race and income. 
• Prison Legal News v. Ryan, 39 F.4th 1121 (9th Cir. 2022):  RBGG, as lead counsel for publisher Prison Legal News (PLN), secured a partial affirmance of a district court order finding the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) violated PLN’s First Amendment rights by censoring its eponymous news publication Prison Legal News.  The Ninth Circuit held that ADC’s policy banning sexually suggestive materials was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to Prison Legal News, and awarded PLN over $200,000 in fees.  RBGG also won a ruling from the district court on summary judgment that ADC violated PLN’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, entitling PLN to damages, which ADC did not appeal. 
• California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund, et al. v. City of Huntington Beach: In May 2022, RBGG’s client, California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund (CaRLA), a non-profit housing organization, achieved a landmark settlement with the City of Huntington Beach to resolve violations of California’s Housing Accountability Act (Gov’t Code § 65589.5, formerly known as the “Anti-NIMBY Law”).  The controversy arose when the city council disapproved a proposed 48-unit mixed-income apartment building that complied with all applicable planning and zoning regulations, based on pretextual concerns about “health and safety” that the city council manufactured after the fact in response to the threat of litigation.  RBGG was retained to represent CaRLA on three consolidated appeals in the California Court of Appeal arising from key trial court rulings in the matter.  RBGG’s team promptly defeated Huntington Beach’s supersedeas petition and request for immediate stay of the trial court’s orders in favor of CaRLA.  RBGG then briefed a motion to dismiss the consolidated appeals for lack of jurisdiction, which was pending when the parties reached the settlement. 
• California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund (CaRLA), et al. v. County of Santa Clara, et al.: RBGG represents CaRLA and Stanford political scientist Kenneth Shotts in a suit alleging that Santa Clara County violated the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 when it downzoned an affluent residential area near Stanford University.  The Housing Crisis Act preempts new municipal zoning regulations that are more restrictive than the regulations in effect on January 1, 2018. 
• Chavez v. County of Los Angeles:  RBGG obtained a favorable settlement of a federal court lawsuit filed on behalf of a woman who is deaf and communicates primarily through sign language.  Ms. Chavez was denied sign language interpreter services during a three-day hospitalization at a Los Angeles public hospital.   Despite her repeated requests, she was never provided an interpreter at any point during her hospitalization, which culminated in the surgical removal of her gallbladder, and she was discharged from the hospital without understanding instructions for post-surgical follow-up care.  Ms. Chavez returned to the hospital twice more thereafter and was again denied interpreter services.  RBGG secured $250,000 in damages on behalf of Ms. Chavez, as well as extensive training of hospital staff and changes to policy to ensure future deaf patients receive interpreting services.
• California Council of the Blind v. County of San Mateo:  The firm represents an association of blind and low-vision persons and two blind individuals in an action challenging the State and San Mateo County’s failure to provide voters with vision impairments the opportunity to equally participate in the County’s absentee voting program, which relies on inaccessible paper ballots.  Plaintiffs seek to vote using software allowing them to read and mark their absentee ballots privately and independently using screen access software on their personal computers.  In September 2016, the parties stipulated to and the Court ordered a framework for certifying and implementing an accessible absentee voting system in San Mateo County.  In October 2017, plaintiffs secured for the first time the opportunity to vote using an accessible absentee voting system in the November 2017 election.
• Coleman v. Newsom: Ms. Ells is a key member of 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.
• Cole v. County of Santa Clara, N.D. Cal. No. 3:16-cv-06594: RBGG represents five current and former prisoners in a class action on behalf of all prisoners with mobility disabilities to remedy long-standing inaccessibility issues throughout the Santa Clara County Jail system.  The Court certified the class in February 2018, and RBGG and co-counsel Disability Rights Advocates negotiated an extensive and far-reaching consent decree that was approved by U. S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh on March 21, 2019.  The County has agreed to extensive construction efforts to remedy physical barriers within the Jails and to make changes to policies and procedures to ensure prisoners with mobility disabilities have access to programs, assistive devices, and accessible housing, bathing, and dining facilities.
• Sharkey v. O’Neal: Ms. Ells briefed and argued this appeal, which secured a unanimous total reversal of a district court order dismissing our client’s ADA damages claims against parole officers who forced him to move to housing that could not accommodate his wheelchair, causing him to repeatedly injure himself. Ms. Ells also established for the first time that the proper statute of limitations for Title II ADA claims in California is three years, rather than the previously assumed two years. See Sharkey v. O’Neal, 778 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2015).
• Landmark Screens v. Morgan Lewis & Bockius: Ms. Ells briefed this appeal, which secured a unanimous reversal in the Federal Circuit of two district court orders dismissing our client’s fraud claim, which arose out of its former lawyers’ failure to timely file a patent application and attempts to cover up the mistake, and capping the potential damages for that claim. See Landmark Screens LLC v. Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 676 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
• National Federation of the Blind v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.:  RBGG represented the National Federation of the Blind and blind individuals in a class action in the Northern District of California challenging Greyhound Lines’ failure to ensure that its website and mobile software applications are accessible to blind individuals who use screen-access technology to access content on websites and mobile applications.  RBGG and co-counsel TRE Legal Practice successfully negotiated a settlement of this action wherein Greyhound committed to improve accessibility to blind persons of its website and mobile app
• Start Up v. Law Firm: RBGG secured a confidential settlement for its client, a start-up company, for claims that its patent counsel had failed to protect its intellectual property rights by missing a major filing deadline.
• Castro v. Calicraft Distributors, LLC: We represent the defendants, a craft beer distribution company and its owners, in an action involving copyright and trademark infringement claims, as well as a related unfair competition claim.
• Lawyer v. Lawyer: RBGG secured a dismissal of a defamation lawsuit against our lawyer client on an anti-SLAPP motion, successfully arguing our client’s speech was protected by the First Amendment. The trial court awarded RBGG and its cocounsel almost $100,000 in fees, which the California Court of Appeal affirmed in full.
• Pruitt v. County of Sacramento: RBGG represented two men who were the victims of wide-ranging police and prosecutorial misconduct that included their wrongful arrests and detentions. After defeating the County’s motion to dismiss, RBGG secured a settlement of $400,000 for our clients.
• Knowles v. City of Benicia: We represented a young man who was arrested by Benecia police without probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. After the court granted our motion for summary adjudication, RBGG secured a settlement of over $600,000 for our client. See Knowles v. City of Benicia, 785 F. Supp. 2d 936 (2011).
• Sterling Park v. City of Palo Alto: Following RBGG’s successful representation of our land developer client in the California Supreme Court, see Sterling Park, L.P v. City of Palo Alto, 57 Cal. 4th 1193 (2013), Ms. Ells briefed a writ petition to the Court of Appeal arising out of the trial court’s subsequent denial of summary judgment on a statute of limitations issue. The case then settled for a significant sum.
• Coleman v. Brown/Plata v. Brown: Ms. Ells was part of the team that litigated this matter through trial and on appeal, which resulted in a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding 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).
• 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 are in use at all six prisons; security cameras will be in place by the end of the year.  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).  We are in ongoing negotiations with CDCR administrators regarding system-wide reforms to the staff investigation and discipline system. Relatedly, on July 30, 2020, the Court entered a preliminary injunction to protect two people with disabilities from retaliation by prison guards.  Officers attacked and threatened both people because they had previously reported to RBGG lawyers that officers had abused other incarcerated people incarcerated people with disabilities.  The Court ordered that CDCR transfer these two witnesses from the prison where they had faced assault, threats and other retaliation .  Armstrong v. Newsom, 475 F. Supp. 3d 1038 (N.D. Cal. 2020). 
• American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers:  RBGG has represented ASCAP, the nation’s largest music licensing association, in multiple copyright infringement matters.