Van Swearingen

Van Swearingen is a partner at Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, where he maintains a diverse practice in the areas of complex civil litigation, employment law, internal investigations, First Amendment issues, and civil rights.  Mr. Swearingen is an aggressive advocate who helps plaintiffs and defendants navigate their most complex issues and obtain favorable outcomes.  He has extensive experience handling business disputes, including matters concerning misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, unfair business practices, fraud, and internal investigations. Mr. Swearingen received a California Lawyer of the Year (CLAY) award in 2016 and 2022, and was named a Northern California Super Lawyer in 2021.

Mr. Swearingen previously worked as a litigation associate at Sidley Austin LLP, where his practice focused on complex civil litigation, internal investigations, securities matters, and antitrust issues. He was also active in the firm’s pro bono efforts, including its representation of death row prisoners.

Prior to entering legal practice, Mr. Swearingen conducted statistical and public policy analysis for the Public Policy Institute of California, the Congressional Budget Office, and the University of California, Berkeley.

Mr. Swearingen serves on the Board of Directors of the Bay Area Lawyer Chapter of the American Constitution Society, and is Co-Chair of its annual gala.  From 2000 to 2002, he served on the Freedom of Information Committee of the Northern California Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists.

REPRESENTATIVE CASES

• U.S. WeChat Users Alliance v. Trump:  RBGG 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.
• Sierra Club v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission:  After President Donald Trump took office, the SEC increasingly allowed companies to exclude shareholder proposals aimed at curbing global warming and adopting environmental standards.  On behalf of the Sierra Club, RBGG filed a FOIA lawsuit against the SEC to obtain previously-withheld communications between the agency and external parties related to climate-focused shareholder proposals as well as records related to the SEC’s processes for rejecting or approving a company’s decision to exclude shareholder proposals related to climate change.  Through litigation, Sierra Club obtained responsive documents that the SEC had initially refused to produce.
• Sierra Club v. United States Department of the Interior et al.:  RBGG sued the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement to obtain records related to the protection of threatened and endangered species at risk of harm by coal mining operations.  Prior to litigation, the federal agencies ignored their FOIA obligations and failed to identify or produce responsive records to Sierra Club.  After filing the lawsuit, the federal agencies promptly produced responsive records.   
• Leaseholder v. Guarantor:  RBGG secured a favorable settlement of a San Francisco Superior Court lawsuit filed against a local restauranteur, who along with other investors, jointly and severally executed a personal guaranty of a restaurant lease that was subsequently breached.
• CEO v. Board Member:  We obtained a complete dismissal of a San Francisco Superior Court case as to all causes of action on behalf of a corporate board member who was sued by a former CEO seeking reimbursement for unpaid corporate liabilities.
• Tech. Entrepreneur v. Corporation:  RBGG successfully resolved a breach of contract dispute on behalf of an entrepreneur who entered an agreement to sell his technology company to a large corporation, and was promised employment and stock incentives as part of the deal.  After the deal was executed, the corporation failed to provide the entrepreneur with meaningful work or stock vesting opportunities while nevertheless reaping profits from the acquired technology.  We obtained a quick and favorable settlement on behalf of the entrepreneur.
• Executive v. Technology Company:  We obtained a substantial confidential settlement for a female Chief Financial Officer who had claims against her former employer, a Bay Area technology startup, for whistleblower retaliation, unequal pay, discrimination, and harassment. 
• Internal Investigation:  RBGG conducted a confidential investigation on behalf of a local labor union into the allegations of a complainant to advise the union of any potential liability arising under contract, tort, employment, and/or labor law.  As part of our investigation, we reviewed pertinent documents, interviewed percipient witnesses, and provided findings and recommendations.
• Berman v. Brown:  RBGG brought two Equal Protection Clause challenges to California’s Alternative Custody Program (ACP), a voluntary program that allows certain female low-level prisoners to serve up to the last 24 months of their sentences in the community in lieu of confinement in state prison.  RBGG demonstrated that allowing qualified male inmates to also participate in the ACP is not only required by the Fourteenth Amendment, but will also benefit children and families, reduce recidivism, and save the State money.  In 2014, the court found it likely that California illegally discriminates on the basis of gender by excluding males from the ACP.  See 73 F.Supp.3d 1241 (E.D. Cal. 2014).  In ruling for RBGG’s client on cross-motions for summary judgment, the court in 2015 permanently enjoined the State from enforcing the female-only provisions of California Penal Code § 1170.05(a) and ordered Defendants to immediately accept male applicants if they are otherwise eligible.  RBGG’s client and a number of other male former prisoners are now free and participating in the ACP.  See 99 F. Supp. 3d 1223 (E.D. Cal. 2015). 
• Public Records Act Client v. County Government: RBGG obtained a favorable settlement for a client who was entitled to attorneys’ fees arising out of its successful California Public Records Act litigation against a county government.
• 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.
• 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.
• Ramirez v. Ghilotti Bros.: In this complex class action on behalf of laborers alleging wage and hour violations against a major construction company, we obtained final approval of a $950,000 settlement with injunctive relief for the class. We also defeated company supervisors’ claims that they should share in the settlement, even though they had perpetrated the alleged wage and hour violations against class members. Before the settlement was reached, we obtained a conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards Act claims and a published decision striking all of the defendant’s affirmative defenses. See Ramirez v. Ghilotti Bros., Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2013).