Descendants have no standing to halt name change, Hastings’ lawyer says

Attorney Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. slammed a challenge to the new name of California’s oldest law school as a political stunt.

“Plaintiffs’ complaint is a political document masquerading as a legal complaint,” said the partner with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP in an email to the Daily Journal on Monday. “Plaintiffs want to make this a case about so-called ‘cancel culture’ but this case is anything but that: the college is engaging with everyone and no one is being canceled.”

Gibson Dunn represents UC Hastings College of the Law Dean David Faigman, board of directors Chair Simona Agnolucci “and others against this baseless lawsuit,” Boutrous said. The firm is not representing the State of California, the lead defendant in the case, according to partner Matthew S. Kahn. As of Monday afternoon, the San Francisco Superior Court website did not list any defense counsel. Hastings College Conservation Committee v. California, CGC22602149 (S.F. Super. Ct., filed Oct. 4, 2022).

The “canceled” comment is a response to language attorney Harmeet K. Dhillon used in her complaint last week. Representing several descendants of school founder Serranus C. Hastings, she wrote the decision to change the name came after “modern-day cancel-culturalists set their sights on the college’s name.”

Dhillon also argued there was scant evidence Hastings intentionally funded massacres of Native Americans in Northern California, as proponents of the name change have argued. Citing alleged contract violations, she asked the court to block the name change and potentially to return Hastings’ original $100,000 donation from 1878 with interest, an amount that could now reach hundreds of millions of dollars.

Dhillon is the founder of Dhillon Law Group Inc. in San Francisco. Gregory R. Michael and Dorothy C. Yamamoto with Michael Yamamoto LLP in Berkeley also represent the plaintiffs.

“Defendants’ attempt to rewrite history has no place in a court of law,” Michael said by email. ”The California Supreme Court already concluded that the 1878 legislation constitutes a binding contract between the State of California and Serranus Hastings, in Foltz v. Hoge, (1879) 54 Cal. 28. It is beyond farcical to claim that Hastings’ living descendants — contemplated expressly by that contract — do not have an interest in preserving their family legacy.”

On Jan. 1, the school’s name will change to University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, according to a bill Gov. Gavin Newsom signed last month. Despite opposition from older alumni, AB 1936 passed without a single no vote.

In his statement, Boutrous said the Legislature “acted well within its authority” and argued the plaintiffs lack standing.

“Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim is baseless because there is no contract at issue here, and even if there were, none of the plaintiffs is a party to the alleged contract or has rights under it,” he said. “We’ve never seen a case decided by a court that distant relatives can enforce an alleged contract 150 years after it was formed.”

“The college’s decision to change its name was the result of a five-year deliberate and transparent process that included extensive research, public hearings and input from a wide range of community stakeholders and experts,” he added.

Gibson Dunn shared a June report from UC Hastings board of directors members Chip Robertson and Albert Zecher. They reviewed a 2021 white paper on Hastings’ alleged role in massacres in the 1850s that the school commissioned from California State University, Sacramento professor Brendan Lindsay.

Opponents of the name change have criticized the report. Robertson and Zecher concluded Lindsay found “no incontrovertible proof that Judge Hastings knew more than he acknowledged” about massacres of Indians. But they said also Lindsay showed that “even when Judge Hastings is given the benefit of the doubt … he played a significant role in the grievous wrongs perpetrated against the Yuki Indians.”