At the request of the Board, we have taken on a more comprehensive role assisting our clients to fulfill their goals and objectives. This is beneficial to the County in preventing liability and serious impacts to County operations and budget. Some specific accomplishments in the last fiscal year include:

• County v. Atlantic Richfield: In 2000, the County filed a lawsuit against manufacturers of lead-based paint for damages and costs resulting from the major public health problems caused by lead-based paint. The trial court dismissed the case but the court of appeals held that doing so was in error. The County's case against the lead manufacturers may now proceed.
  
  
• Reliant Energy: After the energy crisis in the summer of 2000, a number of plaintiffs, including the County of Santa Clara, filed lawsuits against certain energy suppliers, including a company referred to as “Reliant.” The complaints alleged generally that the electricity suppliers conspired to restrict electricity supplies and, consequently, artificially inflate prices. After extensive negotiations, Reliant has agreed to settle the lawsuits with all plaintiffs. The County of Santa Clara will receive $666,666.67.
  
  
• County v. City of San Jose: The City of San Jose approved a massive development project in the North First Street area but failed to mitigate the significant impacts to several County-maintained expressways. The County sued the City for this failure and won. The City of San Jose is now required to take steps to mitigate the impacts on County-maintained expressways resulting from development on North First Street.
  
  
• City of San Jose v. County: In an effort to stop the County from building a concert hall at the County Fairgrounds, the City of San Jose sued the County. The City argued that the County was required to obtain City approval for the concert hall. The County argued that it was not required to obtain approval from the City in order to build the concert hall on County owned land. It further argued that the City had acted in bad faith by: suing the County to stop the construction of the concert hall; failing to annex the County pockets; and failing to work with the County in seeking changes in redevelopment law. The Court ruled in the County's favor on each of these arguments.
  
  
• Archer v. County: Two inmates filed contempt citations for alleged violation of the Archer order, a consent decree that requires the County to provide certified criminal and civil pro per inmates access to a law library, typewriters, non-monitored telephone calls and other services. The Archer order specifically requires that pro per inmates have access to a law library. The Court held that the County's decision to convert from a system of on-site law libraries to a service whereby trained paralegals respond to inmates' legal research requests did not violate the Archer order. Furthermore, the court found that the County's systems were sufficient to satisfy the County's constitutional obligation to provide inmates with access to the courts under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment.
  
  
• Victory Outreach: The County brought a nuisance action against Victory Outreach Church due to the church's refusal to obtain required permits for a 10,000 square foot tent on its property located in Morgan Hill. The church filed a cross-complaint alleging that the County's land use ordinances violated the church's First Amendment rights. The County prevailed on summary judgment. Victory Outreach appealed and the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court order granting the County summary judgment.