Sanford Jay Rosen

Sanford Jay Rosen is a founding partner of Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, where he concentrates his practice on constitutional and civil rights law, employment law, consumer law, complex commercial litigation, and litigation and negotiation of management employee contracts, and of matters involving attorneys, including malpractice, law firm formation and withdrawal issues, and claims for attorneys’ fees.  He is an experienced trial and appellate lawyer, arbitrator, mediator, and ADR panelist.   He is a testifying expert on attorneys’ fees and related matters.

Mr. Rosen’s trial and appellate experience includes a wide variety of civil work for both plaintiffs and defendants, including class actions, and appellate criminal defense work.  He has secured and sustained on appeal numerous multiple million dollar judgments and settlements.

He has presented oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court in five cases, in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for ten of the Circuits on more than 30 occasions (more than half of which have been in the Ninth Circuit), and before the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal of California and appellate courts in other states at least 15 times.

He has briefed literally scores of other matters in the U.S. Supreme Court and other appellate courts, including amicus curiae in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court of California.

Mr. Rosen has tried numerous cases to bench and jury in federal district courts in California, Colorado, New York, Ohio and Virginia; in California and Maryland state courts; as well as to arbitrators and special masters in California, Hawaii and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Mr. Rosen has published numerous articles in law journals, CLE materials, and in the Huffington Post.  He is co-author of the California Education of the Bar (CEB) practice guide “Employment Damages and Remedies” Chapter 8 “Attorney Fees and Costs” and its annual or bi-annual revisions.

He has been selected to the Northern California Super Lawyers list each year since the list first appeared in 2004.   He has been named to the Best Lawyers list for Appellate Practice annually since 2013 and since 2018 annually to Lawdragon’s list of 500 Leading Plaintiff Employment Lawyers.   In 2018, Mr. Rosen received the EDGE Founders Award  from the Council on Legal Education Opportunity (CLEO) after previously receiving the Diversity Pioneer Award for his contribution to CLEO’s mission of increasing minority representation in legal education and the profession.  He has received comparable recognition from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (MALDEF), the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., The Prisoners Union, and the City and County of San Francisco.

Mr. Rosen was law clerk to then Chief Judge Simon Sobeloff, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit in 1962-1963, after receiving his LL.B. from Yale Law School in 1962 and his A.B. from Cornell University in 1959.  Mr. Rosen, who has published extensively, previously worked as Legal Director of MALDEF, Assistant Legal Director of the national ACLU, the Associate Director of CLEO and as a tenured law professor.

Representative Appellate Matters

U.S. Supreme Court

• Collins v. City of Harker Heights: In this case involving the death of a municipal employee while on the job, the Court significantly clarified the elements and liability standards for many 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims and for municipal liability in § 1983 actions. See Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992).
• Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb: The Court unanimously declared for the first time that government-mandated loyalty oath statutes contravene the First and Fourteenth Amendments, reversing the lower court ruling and ensuring Mr. Rosen’s client’s right to participate in elector politics. See Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974).
• Socialist Labor Party v. Gilligan: The Court declined to decide the merits of Mr. Rosen’s client’s constitutional challenge to Ohio’s loyalty oath statute on ripeness grounds. See Socialist Labor Party v. Gilligan, 406 U.S. 583 (1972).
• Connell v. Higginbotham: The Court recognized the due process rights of non-tenured public employees, reversing a lower court ruling against Mr. Rosen’s client. See Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971) (per curiam).
• Whitehill v. Elkins: In ruling for Mr. Rosen’s client, a professor, the Court declared most of Maryland’s loyal-security statute unconstitutional, overruling a previous Supreme Court decision upholding that law. See Whitehill v. Elkins, 389 U.S. 54 (1967).

Mr. Rosen has prepared petitions, briefs and motions in numerous other Supreme Court cases.

Other Appellate Matters

• Landmark Screens v. Morgan Lewis & Bockius: We secured a 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). After the victory, Mr. Rosen represented Landmark Screens and secured a settlement of its claims in a mediation. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger: RBGG successfully defended on appeal a district court order authorizing ongoing work to ensure a publisher’s First Amendment right to send books and magazines into state institutions, and awarding attorneys’ fees for the same work. See Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 2010).
• Gober v. Ralphs Grocery Company: RBGG secured a unanimous affirmance of our clients’ entitlement to a substantial award for workplace harassment, including a punitive damages award. See Gober v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 137 Cal. App. 4th 204 (2006).
• Mayfield v. Woodford, 270 F.3^rd 915 (9^th Cir. 2001) (en banc).  Mr. Rosen has been representing Demetrie Mayfield for more than 30 years.  Starting in the mid-1980’s, he was appointed to represent Mr. Mayfield in his appeal to the California Supreme Court and in his state habeas corpus evidentiary hearing.  Mr. Rosen and his RBGG colleagues were unsuccessful in the California Supreme Court, and other attorneys were appointed to represent Mr. Mayfield in the federal courts.  We submitted a brief amicus curiae in the Ninth Circuit supporting reversal of Demetrie Mayfield’s conviction and death sentence and developed most of the record on basis of  which the Ninth Circuit then vacated his death sentence and sent the case back to the California state courts for retrial as to penalty.  Subsequently Mr. Mayfield was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.  In 2018 Mr. Rosen submitted a clemency application for Mr. Mayfield to California Governor Jerry Brown.  The governor granted that application on December 24, 2018, making Mr. Mayfield eligible for possible parole.  Mr. Rosen then successfully represented Mr. Mayfield at his first parole hearing. On June 25, 2020, Mr. Mayfield was released on parole after 37 years in custody, nearly 20 of which were on San Quentin’s Death Row.
• Davis v. California Department of Corrections: We successfully defended a multimillion-dollar fee award, including a 1.25 multiplier, under the Unruh Act.
• Holland v. Roeser: We established the principle that holding that Rule 68 offers of judgment do not cut off fees for making a subsequent fee application unless the offer is unambiguous on the issue. See Holland v. Roeser, 37 F.3d 501 (9th Cir. 1994). Mr. Rosen prepared the successful Petition for Rehearing/Rehearing En Banc that caused the panel to reverse itself.
• Gates v. Deukmejian: In a series of four appeals (one unreported) 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, we successfully defended the scope of the remedy, our entitlement to fees for litigation and monitoring, and an enforcement order prohibiting the use of certain riot-control guns on mentally ill prisoners confined to their cells. See Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1993), Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d 1439 (9th Cir. 1994), and Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525 (9th Cir. 1995).
• Rebney v. Wells Fargo Bank: We successfully represented classes of banking customers in two appeals, the first of which found objectors to two settlements concerning bank checking account fees lacked standing to appeal and, largely in dicta, found no fault with the settlement, and the second of which upheld the award of attorneys’ fees after the settlement. See Rebney v. Wells Fargo Bank, 200 Cal. App. 3d 1117 (1990), and 232 Cal. App. 3d 1344 (1991).
• Lucas Valley Home Owners Association v. County of Marin: We succeeding in securing a reversal under constitutional and zoning law of an order invalidating a conditional use permit issued to our synagogue client, the real-party-in-interest Chabad of Marin. See Lucas Valley Home Owners Ass’n v. County of Marin, 233 Cal. App. 3d 130 (1991).
• Toussaint v. Gomez: In eight appeals (five unreported) over the thirty-year course of this case concerning the class of prisoners confined to segregation units in four California prisons, we defended multiple aspects of the preliminary and permanent injunctions, as well as the fee awards for fees arising from the monitoring process. See Toussaint v. McCarthy, 926 F.2d 800 (9th Cir. 1990), 826 F.2d 901 (9th Cir. 1987), and 801 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1986).
• EEOC v. Pan American World Airways, Inc: In two related appeals arising out of a federal age discrimination in employment case, the court first determined it had no jurisdiction to review an order rejecting on grounds of inadequacy a settlement sponsored by the EEOC that our clients opposed. The court later affirmed adoption of the nearly $20 million settlement that we crafted after a two-month jury trial, which was the largest ADEA settlement to date. See EEOC v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 796 F.2d 314 (9th Cir. 1986), and 897 F.2d 1499 (9th Cir. 1990).
• People v. Mroczko: Mr. Rosen secured a unanimous reversal of his client’s capital conviction for murder in a decision establishing the rule in California that each indigent criminal defendant presumptively must be represented by his own appointed attorney. See People v. Mroczko, 335 Cal. 3d 86 (1984).
• The Kent State Cases: We represented the plaintiffs in appeals of several cases arising out of the May 4, 1970 shooting of students at Kent State University, including the civil rights-wrongful death and bodily injury cases that we successfully appealed, retried, and settled. See Krause v. Rhodes, 570 F.2d 563 (6th Cir. 1977), and 671 F.2d 212 (6th Cir. 1982).
• Familias Unidas v. Briscoe: We succeeded in convincing the court to overturn on First Amendment grounds discovery sanctions against our client, a civil rights organization, that refused to disclose its membership list in contravention of a Texas statute requiring it to do so. See Familias Unidas v. Briscoe, 544 F.2d 182 (5th Cir. 1976).
• Marin City Council v. Marin County Redevelopment Agency: We successfully defended in the Ninth Circuit an order rejecting a claim that HUD and our client, a developer, had provided insufficient federally assisted low-cost housing in a Marin County housing development. 
• Evergreen v. Foundation Films, Inc. v. Davis:  We succeeded on an expedited appeal in the Ninth Circuit involving the motion picture rights to Dee Brown’s Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.
• Vinyl Products Inc. v. Armstrong Asphalt: We convinced the California Court of Appeal to reverse a JNOV against our client in a negligence and breach of warranty case.
• United States v. Hawthorne: In reviewing our client’s revised sentence after a previous remand order, the court narrowed the scope of the 1961 Federal Criminal Travel Act on constitutional grounds. See United States v. Hawthorne, 370 F.2d 330 (4th Cir. 1966) (per curiam).

Representative Amicus Matters

• Amici Curiae Brief in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 21-476:  In August 2022, RBGG filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of former U.S. Representative Tony Coelho, a principal author of the ADA, and a coalition of ten disability rights organizations.  The question on which the Court granted review is “Whether applying a public accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.  RBGG’s brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to decide that the Colorado’s Antidiscrimination law does not violate the First Amendment right to free speech of  website designer who refused to design a wedding website because she disapproves of same sex marriages.  RBGG’s brief urges the Court to hold that the website designer and her company are a public accommodation that should be subject to the anti-discrimination constraints of the Colorado law.  We marshalled examples of cases in which discriminators asserted or could assert the same defense to applying the ADA and similar state and local disability rights laws to a range of arguably artistic and other public accommodations.
• Amici Curiae Brief on Behalf of LGBT Bar Associations in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 US _ (2021):  In August 2020, RBGG filed an amicus brief on behalf of eight LGBT bar associations. The case is a challenge by Catholic Social Services (“CSS”) and several foster parents to Philadelphia’s decision to cut off referrals of foster children to CSS for placement and payment of public funds for such services.  The City did this because CSS had refused to comply with its contract with the City—mandated by the City’s general antidiscrimination law—requiring that CSS,  like all other private agencies that contract with the City, to certify or use same-sex couples as foster parents.  
• Amici Curiae Brief on Behalf of LGBT Bar Associations in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 590 U.S. ___(2019),In July 2019, RBGG  filed an amicus brief  on behalf of the National LGBT Bar Association, the National Trans Bar Association, the LGBT Bar Association of New York, Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, and the LGBT Bar Association of Los Angeles, urging the Court to recognize discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status as forms of impermissible sex discrimination.     
• Amici Curiae Brief on Behalf of Advocacy Groups in NIFLA v. Becerra, 585 U.S. ___ (2018):  In February 2018, RBGG filed an amicus brief on behalf of several California and national advocacy organizations in the U.S. Supreme Court in an important reproductive rights and First Amendment case challenging California’s Reproductive FACT Act.  The Act requires “Crisis Pregnancy Centers” (CPCs) to disclose whether they are licensed to provide medical care and to non-intrusively notify women who enter their facilities of comprehensive family planning services available through state-funded clinics. The brief supports California’s law by marshaling abundant facts about the epidemic of deceptive and plainly false information pushed by CPCs. 
• Amici Curiae Brief on Behalf of Former Representative Tony Coelho in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018):  In October 2017, RBGG filed an amicus brief on behalf of former U.S. Representative Tony Coelho, a principal author of the ADA, and a coalition of ten disability rights organizations.  The brief asked the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act is not subject to federal constitutional religious or free speech exceptions which would allow places of public accommodation to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  The brief urged the Court to consider the implications of such exceptions on enforcement of the ADA and similar state and local disability rights laws, marshalling examples of cases in which discriminators asserted these defenses. 
• Amici Curiae Brief on Behalf of NCLR in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (June 26, 2016):  In January 2016 RBGG filed an amicus brief on behalf of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and a coalition of 13 other LGBT, racial justice, and health equity organizations asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down draconian restrictions on abortion providers enacted by the State of Texas in 2013 which, if upheld, would have led to the closing of most abortion clinics in the state. The brief urged the Court to carefully scrutinize the state’s asserted justification for the law, just as the Court has done with other laws that infringe upon fundamental freedoms.  
• Amicus Briefs on Behalf of Survivors of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts: RBGG has submitted multiple friend of court briefs urging the Supreme Court to recognize sexual orientation as a suspect classification under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the recent marriage equality cases. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 125 S.Ct.2071 (2015); Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013), andUnited States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013). We also submitted briefs in support of Maryland, California and New Jersey laws enacted to protect minors from the serious harms caused by “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE), the dangerous “therapies” purportedly designed to “treat” homosexuality. See Pickup v. Brown/Welch v. Brown, 728 F.3d 1042 (2013), King v. New Jersey, 767 F.3d 216 (2014), and Doyle v Hogan, Case# 19-2064, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (2019).
• Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security: RBGG submitted an amicus brief on behalf of a Muslim organization in support of a challenge to aspects of the federal “No-Fly List” under the First and Fifth Amendments. See Ibrahim v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 669 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2012).
• Perdue v. Kenny A.: We submitted a friend of court brief on behalf of a nationwide group of private law firms urging the Court to continue to permit enhancements of fee awards above the “loadstar” amount in appropriate civil rights cases, which it did. See Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (2010).
• County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (Atlantic Richfield): We submitted a brief on behalf of amici law professors specializing in legal ethics in favor of allowing public entities to hire private attorneys on contingent fee bases to bring public nuisance cases. See County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (Atlantic Richfield), 50 Cal. 4th 35 (2010).
• Schindler Elevator Corporation v. City and County of San Francisco: RBGG submitted a brief in the California Court of Appeal on behalf of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, minority contractors, and business associations encouraging the court to uphold an affirmative action provision in the San Francisco Administrative Code seeking to increase participation by minority- and women-owned subcontractors in City contracting.

Representative Trial Work Matters

Civil rights and employment rights cases in trial courts. 

• Mr. Rosen has prosecuted and settled more than half a dozen police and prison misconduct civil rights damages cases since 2009.  Several were brought against public entities in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. These cases each settled for several hundred thousand dollars. (Pruitt v. County of Sacramento, Knowles v. City of Benicia, Countee v. County of Sacramento)
• In 2014 and 2015, he settled two cases in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii against the Corrections Corporation of America and the State of Hawaii arising out of the killings of two Hawaii inmates in a CCA prison in Arizona. The terms of the settlements are confidential. (Estate of Nunuha v. State of Hawaii and Estate of Medina v. State of Hawaii)
• Yarborough v. PeopleSoft: In 2000, Mr. Rosen represented a woman who was discharged by her employer for discriminatory reasons, securing a judgment of $5.45 million.
• EEOC v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.:       After Mr. Rosen represented a class of Pan Am pilots on age discrimination claims in a two-month jury trial, he secured a $20 million dollar settlement. The settlement, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed, was the largest ADEA settlement to date. See EEOC v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 796 F.2d 314 (9th Cir. 1986), and 897 F.2d 1499 (9th Cir. 1990).
• Gates v. Deukmejian: Mr. Rosen tried and settled the Gates prison conditions case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, requiring California to improve medical and mental health care, treatment of HIV prisoners, and conditions of confinement for certain California prisoners. See Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1993), Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d 1439 (9th Cir. 1994), and Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525 (9th Cir. 1995).
• Sergeants for a Fair Lieutenants’ Exam vs. City and County of San Francisco: Mr. Rosen tried this challenge to the San Francisco Police Department’s promotional exam on behalf of approximately 100 police officers, securing relief for many his our clients as well as attorney’s fees.
• Toussaint v. Gomez: Mr. Rosen tried and secured a permanent injunction ending deplorable prison conditions in California’s prison segregation units in this case before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See Toussaint v. McCarthy, 926 F.2d 800 (9th Cir. 1990), 826 F.2d 901 (9th Cir. 1987), and 801 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1986).
• Stewart v. County of Sonoma: Mr. Rosen represented a female sheriff’s deputy in her successful sexual harassment suit.
• Kent State Civil Damages cases: In 1978 and 1979, Mr. Rosen brought to re-trial and then successfully settled the Kent State damages cases in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Mr. Rosen also tried to judgment several students’ challenge to sweep searches of the Kent State campus following the May 4, 1970 shootings.
• Keyes v. Denver School District No. 1: Mr. Rosen represented the interest of the Mexican-American community in a trial that resulted in remedies of segregation in the Denver, Colorado public schools.
• Williams v. Blount: Mr. Rosen won a dispositive summary judgment motion for plaintiffs before a three-judge district court for the District of Columbia declaring censorship of certain mail unconstitutional on procedural due process grounds. See Williams v. Blount, 315 F. Supp. 1345 (D.D.C. 1970).
• Hiss v. Hampton: Mr. Rosen won a dispositive summary judgment motion before a three-judge court in the District of Columbia declaring the Hiss Act, which denied Alger Hiss and others their United States government annuities, an unconstitutional ex post facto law. See Hiss v. Hampton, 338 F. Supp. 1141 (D.D.C. 1972).

Trial court attorney fee awards. Mr. Rosen has secured numerous attorneys’ fees awards from trial courts, including:

• Andrews v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., Andrews v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., No. 20-CV-00485-SK, 2021 WL 5275822 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2021).
• Human Rights Defense Center v. County of Napa, N.D. Cal. No. 3:20-cv-01296-JCS, 2021 WL 1176640, Mar. 28, 2021.
• L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 848 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (E.D. Cal. 2011).
• Armstrong v. Brown, 805 F. Supp. 2d 918 (N.D. Cal. 2011).
• Rotbart v. Feliciano:  In 1999-2000 Mr. Rosen tried first to a Special Master in Saipan and then to an arbitrator in Hawaii the Rotbart matter arising out of the DHL founder Hillblom’s estate disputes and secured his client’s multi-million-dollar attorney’s fee.