Summer Wynn

Cooley successfully secured a dismissal for Mango Technologies, the market leader in the $80 billion market for productivity software, in a trade secret litigation brought by Nifty Technologies.

Cooley, alongside the National Center for Youth Law, the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, and the UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic, achieved a landmark ruling in which a federal judge held that unaccompanied children in federal immigration custody are entitled to greater constitutional protections than they are currently afforded when they are detained in restrictive placements or denied release to family members. Lawyers Summer Wynn, Michael McMahon, Alix Mayhugh and Jamie Robertson led the Cooley effort.

Cooley helped Hillel of San Diego secure a ruling by the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District allowing construction of the Beverly and Joseph Glickman Hillel Center, adjacent to the University of California, San Diego. Lawyers Summer Wynn, Barrett Anderson and Dylan Scott lead the Cooley effort.

Obtained a significant victory for pipeline operator SFPP, which is a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, when the 2nd US District Court of Appeal overturned $100 million in damages awarded to Union Pacific Railroad based on an examination of acts of Congress from more than a century earlier. The court held that Union Pacific may not charge SFPP rent for easements underlying rights-of-way acquired by the Congressional Act and that Union Pacific has the burden to prove sufficient title to charge SFPP rent. The court also reversed the award of $20 million in prejudgment interest. On January 21, 2015, the California Supreme Court refused Union Pacific's petition to rehear the ruling.

On December 2, 2015, the Third District Court of Appeal threw out California's light brown apple moth pesticide program on the grounds it violates state environmental laws.

The lawsuit involved the California Department of Food and Agriculture's (CDFA) statewide pesticide campaign for the light brown apple moth. The controversial program began by aerially spraying untested pesticides over populated areas of Monterey and Santa Cruz counties in 2007, resulting in hundreds of complaints of harm to human health and wildlife. The apple moth program has cost $6 million in federal funds during the past two years and targets an insect that, to date, has not caused documented damage to crops or wild plants in California.

The ruling hinged on the state's last-minute shift in the program's goal, which began as "eradication" and changed to ongoing "control" of the apple moth. CDFA made this major change in plans when approving the program; however, it did so without analyzing the health and environmental impacts of an indefinite control program, and without reconsidering less-toxic control strategies that the agency had dismissed because those strategies would not "eradicate" the moth.

CDFA also failed to study feasible alternatives to its pesticide-based strategy. The court concluded that the state's analysis "was fatally defective in failing to study a range of reasonable alternatives."

"This ruling vindicates our claim that a state agency cannot engage in bait and switch, presenting one program to the public but approving a significantly different program after the public review period ends," said Summer Wynn, litigation attorney at Cooley. "The court's decision affirms the California Environmental Quality Act's fundamental requirements for informing the public and decision makers."

Working with Earthjustice and the office of the San Francisco City Attorney, Wynn and Kathleen Goodhart of Cooley represented the petitioners, including Our Children's Earth Foundation, the cities of Albany, Berkeley and Richmond, Mothers of Marin Against the Spray, Stop the Spray East Bay, Center for Environmental Health, Pesticide Action Network North America, Citizens for East Shore Parks, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Pesticide Watch, and the City and County of San Francisco.