Sep. 12, 2013
Paul L. More
See more on Paul L. MoreDavis Cowell & Bowe LLP | San Francisco | Practice type: Litigation
It was More's first case that he argued before the state Supreme Court. He was urging the court to uphold the constitutionality of two union-friendly state laws, which two courts of appeal had struck down. Adding to the pressure, the argument was held in a very large, packed mock courtroom. Then take the fact that former state Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso was sitting behind More as he argued, vigorously taking notes.
"Seeing so many faces in the background actually got me more excited to do the argument, so I think it was helpful," More said.
The practical issue in the case was whether unions could picket in front of grocery stores. In considering that issue, the state Supreme Court was weighing the constitutionality of two state laws - one prohibiting injunctions on some labor protests and another establishing rules for issuing such injunctions. Lawyers for Ralphs Grocery Co. claimed the statutes unconstitutionally carved out a special speech protection just for labor. More said he always considered that argument "implausible." The state Supreme Court agreed with him. Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 8, 294 P.3d 75.
"The hardest thing about preparing for oral argument was the variety of constitutional issues that had been raised over the course of litigation both by Ralphs and the amici that supported Ralphs," More said. "And our challenge was to keep the justices focused on the simple and clear constitutional issue that was clearly presented."
More commended the union that defended the statutes for sticking with the case, despite the financial burden. "[It] recognized the importance of both the statutes but also the constitutional principles."
- EMILY GREEN
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com