Deborah E. Quick

Of Counsel

Deborah E. Quick represents clients in complex civil appeals, and in trial court litigation conducted in anticipation of possible appellate review. She also represents clients seeking land-use entitlements, compliance with environmental statutes like the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, and in defending litigation entitlements that have been granted. Deborah’s appellate experience encompasses analysis and arguments across many different issues for clients on matters involving banking, retail, energy, manufacturing, insurance, patents, and the environment.

selected representations

Bronco Wine Co. v. Jolly, 33 Cal.4th 943 (2004). Representing one of California’s premier wine industry advocacy groups, successfully defended groundbreaking state legislation protecting geographic place names used on wine labels by obtaining California Supreme Court reversal of an appellate court decision. The Supreme Court held the state law’s regulation of wine labels is not pre-empted by federal regulations.
Dell’Oca v. Bank of New York Trust Company, 159 Cal.App.4th 531 (2008). Successfully defended a California trial court order granting the client a new trial unless plaintiffs agreed to a substantial reduction in damages awarded by the jury.
California Healthy Communities Network v. City of Antioch, 2012 WL 5935347 (2012). Allowing the expansion of an existing retail store without further review under the California Environmental Quality Act, obtained a California appellate court reversal of a trial court decision that would have required broad environmental review, including potentially a full economic impacts analysis. Under the court of appeals decision, the client was able to move forward on the basis of previously completed environmental review.
Ingalsbee v. Burbank, 2015 WL 1730692 (2015). In a case presenting multiple, complex issues under the California Environmental Quality Act and municipal law, obtained reversal of a trial court decision that would have required extensive, costly and time consuming review of the client’s proposal to occupy an existing, vacant building. The California court of appeal decision protects valuable rights granted under a development agreement and holds the City, rather than the client, solely responsible for multimillion-dollar off-site traffic improvements.
Lawson v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 791 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2014). Following a jury trial resulting in a multimillion-dollar verdict, obtained a reversal from the Seventh Circuit, which interpreted a sales commission contract to eliminate plaintiff’s claims in their entirety.
Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. F&M Equipment, Ltd., --- F.3d ---, 2015 WL 5973384 (3rd. Cir. 2015). Obtained reversal of summary judgment, with the Third Circuit holding in a precedential opinion that an insurer’s promise to renew 10-year policy covering pollution-related claims must be on the same or substantially similar terms, and that the insurer breached its promise to renew by offering to renew for only one year, with dramatically reduced coverage levels.

Education

University of California, Berkeley, 1999, B.A.
University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), 2002, J.D.

Admissions

California
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Publications

12/22/2014 - CEQ Issues Draft Guidance on Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

March 2010 - SEC Interpretive Guidance Addresses Climate-Change Disclosure Requirements, The Environmental Counselor, Issue 259

Events

4/1/2015 - Real Property 201 Series: Due Diligence — Environmental