By Gwyneth K. Shaw
As industry defendants increasingly push California judges to adopt stricter standing limits modeled on federal standards, Berkeley Law’s Center for Consumer Law & Economic Justice is helping residents keep their access to the state’s courts.
The center has led a coalition of nonprofit advocates in filing amicus curiae briefs in several cases over the past two years — and it’s having an influence through what’s become the Open Door Project. In four recent cases decided by the California Courts of Appeal, judges referenced arguments from the center’s briefs and overturned trial court decisions.
These cases were spurred by a 2022 decision by the Fifth District Court of Appeal, Limón v. Circle K Stores Inc., which held that plaintiffs in California courts must prove they were actually injured by a defendant’s action to have standing to sue. Traditionally, state courts and lawmakers had taken a more expansive approach, with the violation of a law considered to be injury enough to open the door to litigation.
Defendants have consistently tried to lock plaintiffs out of the courthouse by pushing the federal standard in state tribunals. In their briefs, the center and its partners argue that Limón was wrongly decided and that California courts should remain open to all litigants.
Most recently, in Parsonage v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. and Yeh v. Barrington Pacific, LLC, the Fourth and Second District Courts of Appeal ruled that in California, statutory violations — even without proof of actual damages — confer standing on plaintiffs to sue.
“These decisions are a major victory in the fight for economic justice, keeping California courthouse doors open to all who seek vindication of their rights,” Center Executive Director Ted Mermin ’96 says. “So many key state and federal statutes rely on private enforcement. But if judges require plaintiffs to prove more than those statutes require, a lot of illegal activity is going to go unpunished.”
Protecting access
Parsonage was a lawsuit against an employer, while Yeh involved a landlord. Both plaintiffs asserted the defendants violated California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA). Even though the defendants failed to comply with ICRAA’s requirements, the trial courts concluded that since plaintiffs had not experienced concrete harm — Parsonage got the job and Yeh got the apartment — they couldn’t access the protections provided by the statute.
Both appeals courts, however, determined that the California Legislature may authorize suits by consumers whose rights have been violated, even absent the concrete harm required in federal court by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. In the case of ICRAA, the courts ruled, lawmakers could have limited standing to particular injured plaintiffs but didn’t, which means that the statute should be interpreted to be inclusive rather than restrictive.
Parsonage and Yeh join cases in three other districts, Chai v. Velocity Investments, LLC, Kashanian v. National Enterprise Systems, Inc., and Guracar v. Student Loan Solutions, LLC, that declined to impose the heightened standing rules of Limón. The center submitted amicus briefs in Chai and Kashanian.
“Since Limón was issued, corporations have been raising standing challenges in state court, here in California and elsewhere, to block litigants from pursuing valid claims,” Mermin says. “Together, Chai, Guracar, Kashanian, and now Parsonage and Yeh provide trial courts throughout California with clear appellate authority to reject these unfounded challenges.
“The bottom line is simple: Where a statute has defined a right and a remedy, plaintiffs should be able to access justice.”
An unparalleled opportunity
The Open Door Project has also been an incredible research and legal writing opportunity for 3L Léo Mandani, a student fellow at the center. Mandani got interested in the center after attending the Consumer Law and Economic Justice Orientation during the first week of their 1L year, and joined the student-led Consumer Protection Public Policy Order (C-3PO), one of the school’s Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects, where they worked on an amicus brief supporting financially vulnerable plaintiffs targeted by predatory debt collectors.
Mandani’s commitment deepened as a student in Mermin’s Consumer Law and Economic Justice Workshop. At the end of their 2L year, Mandani approached the center’s then-Legal Director David Nahmias ’18, looking for ways to stay involved. Since Mandani had already worked on standing issues, Nahmias enlisted them to cite-check one of the center’s briefs.
“What started as a summer cite-checking assignment, under Ted and David’s supervision, evolved into something much bigger — the Open Door Project,” Mandani says. “With the center preparing to file its fifth amicus brief on this issue, Ted and David gave me the opportunity to draft our most recent brief, and it’s been a full-circle moment for me.”
It’s been quite an education, too: Mandani has mastered not just standing doctrine but statutory disclosure regimes under both federal law and California state law and strengthened their research skills. But what’s meant the most is the collegial approach to litigation Mermin and Nahmias instilled.
“Despite their vast expertise, in every strategy conference and moot court, I was given the opportunity to offer my perspective. They fostered an environment where my ideas — however nascent — were treated as valuable and worthy of consideration,” Mandani says. “This ethos of collaborative advocacy is something I will carry with me as I join and expand the coalition of economic justice advocates, and, when my time comes, pay forward the mentorship I received.”
The student experience is a key focus of the center, which founded and hosts regular statewide and national gatherings of consumer law experts, advocates, and students, including the Consumer Law Scholars Conference, the Economic Justice Policy Advocates Conference, and the Law School Consumer Clinics Conference. The center also co-founded the Consumer Law Advocates, Students, and Scholars (CLASS) Network, which now has chapters at more than 30 law schools nationwide.
Berkeley Law also offers more than 20 related courses — believed to be the most at any law school — and the center advises or works with three additional student-led organizations: the Antitrust Law and Economics Association of Berkeley, the Consumer Advocacy and Protection Society, and C-3PO.
The center has become a hub for faculty whose research spans the range of consumer law and economic justice issues, including Professors and center Co-Faculty Directors Jonathan Glater and Abbye Atkinson, and Professors Prasad Krishnamurthy, Abhay Aneja, Colleen V. Chien ’02, Chris Jay Hoofnagle, and Manisha Padi, all center faculty advisors.
For Mandani, who came to law school committed to anti-poverty and economic justice work, the chance to directly engage in it as a student is thrilling. And it’s personally meaningful that the people the center is helping are consumers, tenants, and workers who are systematically shut out of the legal system.
“My journey to becoming a lawyer began after my family and I faced obstacles in navigating the legal system as recent immigrants, failing to vindicate rights afforded to us by law but rendered meaningless by a lack of access to justice,” Mandani says. “To do this work now is to do what I couldn’t for my family years ago. Access to justice remains one of the most pressing issues facing marginalized communities, and being part of the effort to dismantle those barriers is what I find most satisfying.”