Our People

David Urban

Of Counsel, Los Angeles

310.981.2000
durban@lcwlegal.com
Bio
Experience Representative Matters Affiliations Awards Publications Presentations

David Urban represents organizations in all aspects of labor and employment law, and has over fifteen years of litigation experience. He has successfully defended employers in state and federal court, and in administrative proceedings. He has represented employers in matters involving the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), wage and hour law, alleged discrimination and retaliation, disability and medical leave, discharge and discipline, and privacy.

David has provided extensive advice on FLSA and wage and hour compliance, including comprehensive FLSA audits. He contributed to the American Bar Association Treatise The Fair Labor Standards Act. He also has extensive experience in providing advice on collective bargaining issues and advising on employment law issues in the context of police, fire, and education.

David has developed substantial expertise in free speech law. He has advised clients on employment, educational, and other policies potentially affecting speech, including personnel rules, policies involving social media, and electronic communications policies. He has advised educators on the implementation of campus time, place, and manner regulations, and has successfully represented educators in published freedom of speech cases, including Crosby v. South Orange County Community College District, 172 Cal.App.4th 433 (2009), and Lopez v. Candaele, 622 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2010). He also has had experience and success in vindicating client's free speech rights through dispositive motions under California Civil Procedure Code section 425.16 (California's "Anti-SLAPP" statute).

While at Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, David has represented firm clients in amicus curiae briefing in landmark cases in the California Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court. These include Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines, 42 Cal.4th 1158 (2008) (ruling that the Fair Employment and Housing Act provides no individual supervisor liability for retaliation), Engquist v. Oregon, 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (holding that no cause of action exists in the employment context under a 'class of one' theory of equal protection), and San Leandro Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Board of San Leandro Unified School Dist., 46 Cal.4th 822 (2009) (holding that free speech principles did not grant unions a right of access to teacher mailboxes for certain political advocacy).

Prior to joining the firm, David practiced litigation at a large Los Angeles firm where he concentrated in business litigation, labor and employment, government contracts, whistleblower, False Claims Act, and professional liability matters.

David clerked after law school for the Honorable Pamela Ann Rymer on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He graduated Order of the Coif from the UCLA School of Law, where he served as Chief Managing Editor of the UCLA Law Review.

Representative Matters

Amicus Briefs

  • San Leandro Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Bd. of San Leandro Unified School Dist. (2009) - Prepared two amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators and the School Employers Association of California and another on behalf of the California School Boards Association in the California Supreme Court case of San Leandro Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Bd. of San Leandro Unified School Dist. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 822. In that case, the Court held that teacher mailboxes at the district's schools constituted "equipment" under California Education Code section 7054, which prohibits use of school district funds, services, supplies or equipment to support or oppose political candidates or ballot measures. The Court held that the school district could properly prohibit teacher unions from distributing political materials in the teacher mailboxes. The Court rejected arguments by the appellant teacher unions based on federal and state constitutional free speech principles, statutory construction of section 7054, and unions' limited statutory right of access to the school premises.
  • Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) - Prepared an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the League of California Cities in the landmark California Supreme Court case Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158. In that case, the Court held that under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, individual supervisors cannot be personally liable for harassment. Melanie Poturica co-presented oral argument before the Supreme Court on December 4, 2007, at the invitation of Respondents' counsel.
  • Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture (2008) - Prepared an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties for the United States Supreme Court case Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture (2008) 553 U.S. 591, 128 S. Ct. 2146. There, the Court held that public employees cannot challenge employment actions as violating the Equal Protection clause under a "class of one" theory. Under such a theory, public employees could have argued that the United States Constitution's Equal Protection clause required virtually all employment actions to have a "rational basis." The Supreme Court's holding foreclosed what could have been a far-reaching theory of liability for the plaintiffs' bar.

Appellate

Litigation

  • Successfully Defeated A Lawsuit Against A City In An Anti-SLAPP Case (2011) - LCW attorneys successfully defeated a lawsuit against the City and won an appeal in an Anti-SLAPP case.  On April 13, 2011, in an unpublished decision, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order granting the Anti-SLAPP motion in favor of the City defendants.  The Court also determined that the trial court did not provide a sufficient explanation for awarding less than the full amount of attorney's fees, and remanded the case back to the trial court to reconsider the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded to the City defendants.
  • Lopez v. Candaele (2010) - Handled an appeal by trustees and officials of the Los Angeles Community College District of a preliminary injunction order issued by the Trial Court.  The Trial Court had precluded the District, on First Amendment grounds, from enforcing a sexual harassment policy which the Plaintiff, a student at the District, claimed chilled his expression of religious views on campus.  LCW was hired after issuance of the injunction.  The Ninth Circuit issued a published decision in the District's favor, ruling that the preliminary injunction was improper because the Plaintiff lacked standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to challenge to the policy.
  • Batts et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (2010) - LCW successfully defended the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Police Department, Chief William Bratton, and other high-level Police Department command staff in a retaliation action brought by nine police department sergeants who alleged they had suffered adverse emplyoment actions because of their participation in a wage and hour litigation against the City.  The alleged adverse actions included disciplinary investigations, relief from duty, suspension, transfer, and denial of promotion.  Plaintiffs attempted to bring the matter as a class action, but the Court dismissed the class allegations. Following depositions of each Plaintiff, of Chief Bratton, and some individual defendants, LCW brought nine summary judgment motions, one for each Plaintiff.  The Court granted all the motions, resulting in a defense victory on all claims.
  • City of Palmdale, et al. v. Antelope Valley Community College District (2009) - Successfully represented the District in an action instituted by the City of Palmdale and a local resident seeking to invalidate the District Board's action to approve a substantial development project. The action sought invalidation based on Ralph M. Brown Act violations. LCW substantially reduced the scope of the lawsuit through motion practice, and persuaded the Court that an agency's rule under the Brown Act that speakers must fill out speaker cards in order to speak is permissible. The firm then negotiated a settlement that was very favorable for the District.

Awards

Selected for inclusion in Southern California Super Lawyers 2004

Publications

Education

  • JD, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law
  • BS, Duke University
To Contact Liebert Cassidy Whitmore:
Los Angeles 310.981.2000 | Fresno 559.256.7800 | San Francisco 415.512.3000 | info@lcwlegal.com
© 2012 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore