Experience

Thakur v. Trump Litigation: Legal Challenge to Termination of Federal Grants to UC System

This class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in San Francisco in June 2025 on behalf of University of California researchers whose grants were abruptly terminated without any individualized consideration or process, pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Orders.  The lawsuit asserts that the government’s grant terminations violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the class members’ constitutional rights, including their First Amendment right to free speech and Fifth Amendment right to due process.

On June 23, U.S. District Court (Northern District of California) Judge Rita F. Lin issued a class-wide preliminary injunction, ordering the government to cease grant terminations under President Trump’s and the agencies’ unlawful directives, and to reinstate previously-terminated research grants from the EPA, NSF, and NEH across the UC system.

On August 21, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the federal government’s motion to stay Judge Lin’s preliminary injunction order. By its ruling, the appellate panel kept in force the district court’s preliminary injunction, ensuring that grant funding will continue to flow while the government’s appeal of the injunction continues. 

On September 22, the District Court issued a second injunction, ordering the government to cease grant terminations by DOD, DOT, and NIH, and to reinstate grants previously terminated by those agencies.  

On November 24,  plaintiffs filed (1) motion for leave to file third amended complaint, adding class plaintiffs with affected DOE grants, and (2) motion for preliminary injunction seeking reinstatement of these grants, similar to the prior injunctions granted against EPA, NSF, NEH, DOD, DOT, and NIH.

On December 23, the Ninth Circuit issued an Amended Order, reversing a limited part of what it decided in August 2025 in upholding the District Court’s determination that the Trump administration violated the law in terminating grants to UC researchers. The Ninth Circuit again found that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment in cutting off grants based on the perceived viewpoints of the research. The District Court’s order reinstating these grants to members of the Equity Termination Class remains in effect.

The Ninth Circuit, however, determined that another set of claims under the federal Administrative Procedure Act likely must go to the Court of Federal Claims rather than the federal district court. The Ninth Circuit thus stayed the District Court’s order reinstating grants to the Form Termination Class. At this point, this applies only to grants from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Endowment of the Humanities that are not also covered by the Equity Termination Class.

On December 29, plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the Ninth Circuit panel’s conclusion that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims under the Administrative Procedure Act.

On January 30, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint and denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification as to the Department of Energy. For Plaintiff’s Preliminary Injunction Motion, the District Court stated that there is not enough information in the record to support a finding that the terminations likely violated the Equal Protection Clause. The District Court concurrently issued an order setting a case schedule to proceed directly to cross-motions for summary judgment on the equal production claim after production of the administrative record and discovery.

On February 3, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint.

On February 23, the Ninth Circuit denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration or reconsideration en banc.

Copies of the complaint, key court orders, and legal briefs in the litigation may be accessed here.

Defense Victory for Winery in Asset Purchase Dispute

Defended a prominent wine and beverage company in a high-stakes arbitration and secured a complete victory. Following the week-long merits hearing, the arbitrator ruled in the client’s favor on all claims and issues. The dispute arose out of a $28 million asset purchase agreement in which the client acquired several key brands from another winery.

Amicus Briefs in Support of Anthropic

Farella Braun + Martel and Yale Law School’s Peter Gruber Rule of Law Clinic filed two amicus briefs on behalf of a group of former senior U.S. national security officials in support of artificial intelligence company Anthropic’s challenges to its designation as a supply chain risk by the U.S. Department of War. Learn more here.  

Trial Victory for Smart Meter Technology Company

Defended a smart meter technology company in a federal bankruptcy court bench trial against billion-dollar damage claims asserted by a technology licensor. Following the two-week trial, the court found for our client on all counts, not only rejecting the licensor’s damage claims but fully vindicating our client's rights under the license agreement.

Defense of Business Tort and Real Estate Claims

Tony led a team that defended the owner of a large commercial facility against business tort and real estate claims brought by a cannabis start-up that sought $15 million in damages. The Farella team’s vigorous defense completely turned the tables on the plaintiffs, resulting in the court not only granting summary judgment against nearly all of the plaintiffs’ claims but affirmatively awarding Farella’s client more than $1 million in damages based on the plaintiffs’ contractual breaches.

Representation of High Rise Owner In Cutting Edge Real Estate Dispute

Tony led a team in its representation of the owner of a high-rise office building in downtown San Francisco in California state court litigation and parallel arbitration proceedings against a technology company that willfully defaulted on its commercial lease at the start of the pandemic. This case was among the first to address the viability of COVID-related contractual defenses. Tony’s tenacious representation resulted in the court awarding numerous writs of attachment to his client against the technology company, ultimately leading to a highly advantageous settlement less than 24 hours before the start of the final arbitration hearing.

Defense of Nevada Links

Tony led a team that defended Farella’s client against a $100 million lawsuit brought by the United States alleging that a land lease between Nevada Links and Clark County violated the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act administered by the Bureau of Land Management. After more than three years of litigation, including summary judgment and an appeal, they negotiated a superb settlement for the client.

Atmel Corporation v. Ericsson Victory

Tony was part of a team that represented Atmel, a leading semiconductor manufacturer, in a multi-week arbitration through which the Farella team obtained an award of over $43 million in damages on behalf of Atmel arising from the misappropriation of its microcontroller technology by its licensee.