Arthur A. Hartinger 

Arthur A. Hartinger is a founding partner of his law firm, which focuses entirely on public law, particularly local government. “We’re all firm believers in that’s where you can make a difference,” he said.

Hartinger primarily represents cities, counties and public agencies in employment-related litigation and some labor matters. His litigation regularly pits a city or county against an entire workforce, and that turns out to mean his cases are more likely to be appealed than settled.

“That’s probably what’s unique in my practice,” he said. “These are largely bet-the-farm cases. There’s no real way to settle them.”

A prime example is the case he took on for Orange County when it effectively cut the subsidies it paid toward retired employees’ medical plans. The retirees sued, claiming their vested rights had been taken away.

Hartinger said the change was necessary because the county had learned the plan was underfunded by $1.4 billion. “So this was not something that you can really settle.”

The retirees initially sued in 2007. The case ended last year when the deadline passed for them to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari. Harris v. County of Orange, 17 F.4th 849 (9th Cir., Oct. 28, 2021).

“It’s finally, finally done,” he said. “I think I served three county counsels in the course of that litigation. … Saving the plan was a gratifying outcome.”

Hartinger is representing Los Angeles in a similar case the Police Protective League filed in 2012 over a program to trim the city’s retiree medical subsidy plan. His team lost the first trial, won a reversal and then won the retrial. The case is now on appeal. Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, B321881 (Cal. App. 2 Dist., filed June 24, 2022).

“That’s a case that I’m particularly proud of,” he said, giving credit to his colleagues Linda Ross and Imran Dar. “We’ve been able to save that program.”

In a very different, high-profile matter, Hartinger has resolved all but one of the lawsuits filed by the families of victims of a mass shooting at a San Jose rail yard in 2021. Lane v. Universal Protection Service LP, 22CV398848 (Sta. Clara Super. Ct., filed May 26, 2022).

“So far, we’ve successfully been able to convince the court that workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy,” he said.

On the labor side of his practice, Hartinger successfully negotiated new collective bargaining agreements last year for San Francisco with the deputy sheriffs’ union and for the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department with the local firefighters’ union. A hard-fought provision in the fire department agreement allows the department for the first time to drug test firefighters.

Hartinger said he is grateful for his firm and his colleagues. “I couldn’t do this without other people,” he said.

—Don DeBenedictis