Education

  • J.D., Stanford Law School, 2011.  Senior Editor, Stanford Law and Policy Review
  • B.A., Stanford University, Economics, 2006

Admissions

  • California, 2011
vCard icon

Download vCard
T: 415-433-6830
F: 415-433-7104
E: mnunez@rbgg.com

Michael Nunez is an associate at Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, LLP. He works on complex litigation and prelitigation matters, including class actions, with a particular focus on ensuring that people with disabilities obtain equal access to government services, technology, transportation, and public accommodations.  Mr. Nunez also has experience representing clients in employment discrimination and white collar criminal defense matters.

Mr. Nunez is a graduate of Stanford Law School and earned his B.A. at Stanford University. Prior to joining RBGG, he was a Staff Attorney at Disability Rights Advocates, a national non-profit impact litigation center. Full bio »

vCard icon

Download vCard
T: 415-433-6830
F: 415-433-7104
E: mnunez@rbgg.com

Michael Nunez is an associate at Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, LLP. He works on complex litigation and prelitigation matters, including class actions, with a particular focus on ensuring that people with disabilities obtain equal access to government services, technology, transportation, and public accommodations.  Mr. Nunez also has experience representing clients in employment discrimination and white collar criminal defense matters.

Mr. Nunez is a graduate of Stanford Law School and earned his B.A. at Stanford University. Prior to joining RBGG, he was a Staff Attorney at Disability Rights Advocates, a national non-profit impact litigation center.

During law school, Mr. Nunez was a Senior Editor for the Stanford Law and Policy Review, and he participated in the Environmental Law Clinic, where he contributed to several cases, including making significant contributions to a brief filed in the California Supreme Court. Mr. Nunez also served on the Executive Board of the National Association of Law Students with Disabilities, where he organized the group’s 2009 national conference and spearheaded fund raising efforts for its 2011 national conference.

REPRESENTATIVE CASES
  • 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.
  • 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, which is already in place in a number of other states.
  • Blanks v. AMC Entertainment, Inc.:  RBGG represents the Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired, the California Council of the Blind, and five blind individuals in a class action challenging AMC’s failure to provide reliable and effective access to audio description services at its theaters nationwide.  Audio description is a verbal description of key visual aspects of a film during pauses in dialogue provided through an audio track synchronized with playback of the movie.  The parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement in April 2017.
  • Coleman v. Brown: RBGG represents a class of the more than 30,000 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, most recently, 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). RBGG also recently secured an order requiring the State to provide emergency access to inpatient psychiatric hospitalization, which was affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit in an unpublished decision.  For more information see Coleman v. Brown: Court Orders, Reports, Photos, Expert Declarations and Media Coverage.

Honors & Awards

  • Northern California Super Lawyers, 2016 and 2017 Rising Star

Admissions

  • California, 2011

Professional Experience

  • Staff Attorney, Disability Rights Advocates, 2013-2015
  • Wolinsky Fellowship Attorney, Disability Rights Advocates, 2011-2013

Community Service

  • National Association of Law Students with Disabilities, CFO, 2009-2010, Conference Director. 2009

Michael Nunez is an associate at Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, LLP. He works on complex litigation and prelitigation matters, including class actions, with a particular focus on ensuring that people with disabilities obtain equal access to government services, technology, transportation, and public accommodations.  Mr. Nunez also has experience representing clients in employment discrimination and white collar criminal defense matters.

Mr. Nunez is a graduate of Stanford Law School and earned his B.A. at Stanford University. Prior to joining RBGG, he was a Staff Attorney at Disability Rights Advocates, a national non-profit impact litigation center.

During law school, Mr. Nunez was a Senior Editor for the Stanford Law and Policy Review, and he participated in the Environmental Law Clinic, where he contributed to several cases, including making significant contributions to a brief filed in the California Supreme Court. Mr. Nunez also served on the Executive Board of the National Association of Law Students with Disabilities, where he organized the group’s 2009 national conference and spearheaded fund raising efforts for its 2011 national conference.

REPRESENTATIVE CASES
  • 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.
  • 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, which is already in place in a number of other states.
  • Blanks v. AMC Entertainment, Inc.:  RBGG represents the Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired, the California Council of the Blind, and five blind individuals in a class action challenging AMC’s failure to provide reliable and effective access to audio description services at its theaters nationwide.  Audio description is a verbal description of key visual aspects of a film during pauses in dialogue provided through an audio track synchronized with playback of the movie.  The parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement in April 2017.
  • Coleman v. Brown: RBGG represents a class of the more than 30,000 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, most recently, 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). RBGG also recently secured an order requiring the State to provide emergency access to inpatient psychiatric hospitalization, which was affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit in an unpublished decision.  For more information see Coleman v. Brown: Court Orders, Reports, Photos, Expert Declarations and Media Coverage.

Education

  • J.D., Stanford Law School, 2011.  Senior Editor, Stanford Law and Policy Review
  • B.A., Stanford University, Economics, 2006

Honors & Awards

  • Northern California Super Lawyers, 2016 and 2017 Rising Star