Robert A. Naeve

In two key cases involving California's legal establishment, Naeve successfully defended the state court system's right to run its own operations, including closing down courthouses in Los Angeles, and represented Beth Jay, the former principal counsel to three state Supreme Court chief justices, against contract interference claims by fired State Bar director Joseph L. Dunn.

The courthouse closing matter "was a legal hot potato," Naeve said, that led five federal judges to recuse themselves before Senior U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. of Los Angeles agreed to hear arguments by Neighborhood Legal Services, the Disability Rights Legal Center and other civil rights groups that the courts' plan to shutter 10 courthouses and close another 50 courtrooms violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and other constitutional and statutory provisions.

Naeve said the plaintiffs were apparently unaware that in an earlier case the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had declined to take a supervisory role over state courts. Hatter ruled that he was bound by that decision, and a second jurist, U. S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald, agreed, dismissing the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed, and Naeve defended Hatter and Fitzgerald's rulings before the circuit. In a published decision by Circuit Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen, a circuit panel affirmed dismissal on abstention grounds. Miles v. Wesley, 801 F.3rd 1060 (Sept. 8, 2015)

In the Dunn case, Naeve noted that the issues have been hotly contested and remain partly unresolved by a retired chief magistrate judge now at JAMS, Edward A. Infante. "It's hard to talk about while the litigation remains ongoing," Naeve said, "but the sad part is that my client, after a 30-year career at the state Supreme Court, retires with honors, and her gift upon retirement was to have to respond to these allegations." Dunn v. State Bar of California, JAMS No. 1100083130 (filed Feb. 12, 2015)

Naeve said the cases, while sensitive, were important and involved clear-cut precedent. "We're very careful on intake to understand the legal principles involved," he said. "This was no time to shoot from the hip. I'm not sure the people on the other side [in the courthouse closing case] were thinking about abstention doctrines. We're law geeks, and we knew what we were doing."

Big issues are part of the job, he added. "I've been doing this for 30-plus years, and I still enjoy doing it," he said. "We don't get garden-variety cases."

— John Roemer