Practice Focus

Laurence Hutt is a member of the firm's litigation and financial institutions practice groups. He represents federally-chartered financial institutions, including banks and thrifts, as well as financial industry trade associations, in cases in federal and state trial and appellate courts challenging the constitutionality of state and local regulatory enactments on grounds of federal preemption, and infringement of exclusive federal visitorial powers. He also defends financial institutions in numerous consumer class action and "private attorney general" cases asserting unfair competition law and similar deceptive trade practice claims.

Among the questions on which he litigates and advises banking clients are the enforceability of state credit card and access check disclosure requirements and state escheat laws; the propriety of state restrictions on interest rates and charges, interchange fees, transaction posting order, promotional and default pricing, predatory lending, overdraft and non-interest fees, and account setoffs; and the validity of state regulation of national bank operating subsidiaries and marketing partners.

Mr. Hutt has also represented lenders and developers in court proceedings and arbitrations involving banking, secured creditor, and real estate disputes. The matters he handles in this area include enforcement of real and personal property security instruments; lender's liability claims; foreclosure, antideficiency, land use, easement, and entitlement problems; disputes concerning validity, priority, and enforcement of liens; matters involving receiverships and provisional remedies; and pursuit of diverted and concealed funds.

In addition to representing clients in banking and general business litigation matters, he has represented a professional sports team in numerous cases in federal and state court concerning contractual and common law duties among a sports league, league officers, and member clubs; application of the federal antitrust laws to the league; league structure and operations; commercial, contract, tort, and insurance claims; and team and player disputes. He has also handled numerous appeals for party-litigants and amici dealing with issues including professional responsibility, punitive damages, land use and easements, mechanic's liens, federal preemption, and civil procedure.

Published Decisions

Ford Motor Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 116 Cal. App. 3d 374 (1981); Pacifica Homeowners Ass'n v. Wesley Palms Retirement Community, 178 Cal. App. 3d 1147 (1986); Bolkiah v. Superior Court, 74 Cal. App. 4th 984 (1999); Am. Bankers Ass'n v. Lockyer, 239 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (E.D. Cal. 2002); Bank One Delaware, N.A. v. Wilens, 2003 WL 21703627 (C.D. Cal. 2003) and 2003 WL 21703629 (C.D. Cal. 2003); Bank of America v. City of Daly City, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (amicus), subsequently vacated by stipulation; Am. Fin. Services Ass'n v. City of Oakland, 34 Cal. 4th 1239 (2005) (amicus); Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass' n. L.L.C., 129 S.Ct. 2710 (2009) (amicus), aff'g in part, 510 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007) (amicus ), aff'g in part, 394 F. Supp. 2d 620 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (amicus); Rose v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 513 F. 3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2008), aff'g 396 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2005); Bank of America, N.A. v. McCann, 444 F.Supp. 2d 1227 (N.D. Fla. 2006); Miller v. Bank of America, NA & SA, 46 Cal. 4th 630 (2009) (amicus), aff'g, 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 223 (2006) (amicus); Coalition for ICANN Transparency v. VeriSign, Inc., 452 F. Supp. 2d 924 & 464 F. Supp. 2d 948 (N.D. Cal. 2006); Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 127 S. Ct. 1559 (2007) (amicus); Oakland Raiders v. National Football League, 41 Cal. 4th 624 (2007); Augustine v. FIA Card Services, N.A., 485 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (appeal pending); Montgomery v. Bank of America Corp., 515 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (C.D. Cal. 2007); Pacific Capital Bank, N.A. v. Connecticut, 542 F.3d 341 (2d Cir. 2008) (amicus); Miller v. Bank of America, N.A. (U.S.A.), 170 Cal. App. 4th 980 (2009).

Representative Matters

• Am. Bankers Ass'n v. Lockyer, 239 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (E.D. Cal. 2002) (obtained summary judgment and a permanent injunction).
• Miller v. Bank of America, N.A. (U.S.A.), 170 Cal. App. 4th 980 (2009) (affirming of order sustaining demurrer without leave to amend on ground that "holiday" statue is preempted as applied to national bank).
• Rose v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 513 F. 3d 1032 (9 th Cir. 2008), aff'g 396 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (affirming of judgment on the pleadings, declaring state disclosure statute preempted and establishing the evidentiary showing of burden is not necessary to a finding of preemption).
• Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 127 S. Ct. 1559 (2007) (participated in preparation of industry amicus brief supporting federal preemption for national bank operating subsidiaries).