Business Litigation

Steven Mayer is a partner in the firm's business litigation practice group, focusing his practice on appellate litigation and representing public entities. He is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law certified by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization.

Mr. Mayer has lectured to the Bar Association of San Francisco on new developments in appellate practice and is a past Chairman of the BASF Appellate Practice Section. He is currently a Vice-President of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers and is a member of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. He is a member of the mediation panel of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District.

In 1974, he served as Staff Attorney at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In 1975, he became the Assistant Supervising Staff Attorney, which he held until he joined Howard Rice in November, 1975.

Mr. Mayer is currently listed in The Best Lawyers in America in the field of Appellate Law. He has been recognized as a Northern California Super Lawyer from 2004 through 2012.

Business Litigation Representative Matters

• Advertise.com, Inc. v. AOL Advertising, Inc., 616 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2010) (reversed preliminary injunction enjoining use of trademark on ground that mark was generic and therefore unprotected)
• City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern, 581 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2009) (in-state plaintiffs had no prudential standing to challenge county ordinance under Commerce Clause)
• Berry v. County of Sonoma, 30 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 1994) (County did not violate FLSA in refusing to pay overtime to on-call employees)
• Hernandez v. City of Hanford, 41 Cal. 4th 279 (2007) (successful defense of municipal zoning ordinance against Equal Protection challenge)
• County of Riverside v. Superior Court, 30 Cal. 4th 278 (2003) (successfully challenged binding arbitration statute in California Supreme Court)
• Hill v. NCAA, 7 Cal. 4th 1 (1994) (challenged drug testing program on behalf of Stanford University in California Supreme Court)
• Hansen v. City of San Buenaventura, 42 Cal. 3d 1172 (1986) (successfully defended a municipality's right to profit from utility sales to non-residents)
• ITT World Communications v. City and County of San Francisco, 37 Cal. 3d 859 (1985) (successfully contended that Proposition 13 does not apply to public utility property)
• Totten v. Board of Supervisors, 139 Cal. App. 4th 826 (2006) (successfully contended that initiative setting county budgetary priorities was unconstitutional)
• Maples v. Kern County Assessment Appeals Board, 103 Cal. App. 4th 172 (2002) (successfully challenged multimillion dollar reduction in value of oil field)
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association v. City of Riverside, 73 Cal. App. 4th 679 (1999) (successfully defeated challenge under Proposition 218 to municipal street light assessment)
• Schabarum v. California Legislature, 60 Cal. App. 4th 1205 (1998) (successfully represented Legislative Counsel in litigation challenging legality of its appropriations)
• Kern County Farm Bureau v. County of Kern, 19 Cal. App. 4th 1416 (1993) (successfully defended assessment against challenge based on Proposition 13)
• City of Westminster v. County of Orange, 204 Cal. App. 3d 623 (1988) (successfully challenged initiative provision requiring referenda on tax increases)
• Rhee v. El Camino Hospital District, 201 Cal. App. 3d 477 (1988) (successfully defended hospital in challenge to denial of surgical privileges)
• Kahn v. Superior Court, 188 Cal. App. 3d 752 (1987) (established privilege for confidential academic peer review communications)
• San Bernardino Community Hospital v. Meeks, 185 Cal. App. 3d 457 (1986) (successfully defended client and attorney against motion for $4 million in sanctions)

• Advertise.com, Inc. v. AOL Advertising, Inc., 616 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2010) (reversed preliminary injunction enjoining use of trademark on ground that mark was generic and therefore unprotected)
• City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern, 581 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2009) (in-state plaintiffs had no prudential standing to challenge county ordinance under Commerce Clause)
• Berry v. County of Sonoma, 30 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 1994) (County did not violate FLSA in refusing to pay overtime to on-call employees)
• Hernandez v. City of Hanford, 41 Cal. 4th 279 (2007) (successful defense of municipal zoning ordinance against Equal Protection challenge)
• County of Riverside v. Superior Court, 30 Cal. 4th 278 (2003) (successfully challenged binding arbitration statute in California Supreme Court)
• Hill v. NCAA, 7 Cal. 4th 1 (1994) (challenged drug testing program on behalf of Stanford University in California Supreme Court)
• Hansen v. City of San Buenaventura, 42 Cal. 3d 1172 (1986) (successfully defended a municipality's right to profit from utility sales to non-residents)
• ITT World Communications v. City and County of San Francisco, 37 Cal. 3d 859 (1985) (successfully contended that Proposition 13 does not apply to public utility property)
• Totten v. Board of Supervisors, 139 Cal. App. 4th 826 (2006) (successfully contended that initiative setting county budgetary priorities was unconstitutional)
• Maples v. Kern County Assessment Appeals Board, 103 Cal. App. 4th 172 (2002) (successfully challenged multimillion dollar reduction in value of oil field)
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association v. City of Riverside, 73 Cal. App. 4th 679 (1999) (successfully defeated challenge under Proposition 218 to municipal street light assessment)
• Schabarum v. California Legislature, 60 Cal. App. 4th 1205 (1998) (successfully represented Legislative Counsel in litigation challenging legality of its appropriations)
• Kern County Farm Bureau v. County of Kern, 19 Cal. App. 4th 1416 (1993) (successfully defended assessment against challenge based on Proposition 13)
• City of Westminster v. County of Orange, 204 Cal. App. 3d 623 (1988) (successfully challenged initiative provision requiring referenda on tax increases)
• Rhee v. El Camino Hospital District, 201 Cal. App. 3d 477 (1988) (successfully defended hospital in challenge to denial of surgical privileges)
• Kahn v. Superior Court, 188 Cal. App. 3d 752 (1987) (established privilege for confidential academic peer review communications)
• San Bernardino Community Hospital v. Meeks, 185 Cal. App. 3d 457 (1986) (successfully defended client and attorney against motion for $4 million in sanctions)

Best Lawyers 2013 for Appellate

Northern California Super Lawyers 2004-2012

Daily Journal "Top 25 Municipal Lawyers" in California for 2011

The Recorder 2012 as a member of one of the Top Appellate Practices in California