Wiley R. Driskill

Partner | Fresno

wdriskill@lozanosmith.com
Tel: 559.431.5600
Fax: 559.261.9366
Vcard Bio

Overview

Wiley R. Driskill is a Partner in Lozano Smith's Fresno Office, with a focus on the Labor & Employment and Litigation aspects of public agency law. He was selected as a Northern California "Rising Star" by Super Lawyers magazine from 2012-2017.

Experience

Mr. Driskill has more than a decade of litigation experience focused in the areas of civil litigation, business litigation, public agency and entity law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, defending public entities, and defending employment discrimination and FEHA claims. In addition to numerous administrative hearings and arbitrations, Mr. Driskill has successfully tried court and jury trials to decision and verdict in state and federal court. He also has extensive experience drafting and arguing complex legal briefs and motions, and has successfully argued appeals before the state district courts of appeal and the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Education

Mr. Driskill earned his J.D. degree from Santa Clara University School of Law. He graduated in the top 15% of his class, and was a recipient of the Witkin and CALI Awards. He received an M.A. in History from San Francisco State University and a B.A. in History from Santa Clara University.

No Vested Right to Retiree Benefits Where Plan Included Anti-Vesting Language

By: Wiley DriskillJanae Castellani-

December 2021Number 44On October 28, 2021, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Harris v. County of Orange (9th Cir. October 28, 2021, No. 19-56387) __ F.3d __, reiterating the standard enunciated by the California Supreme Court in Retired Employees Association of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (REAOC III), creating a high burden on plaintiffs to be able establish an implied vested right to certain benefits. This standard ensures neither the public entity nor ...

In a Case Involving Tragic Facts, Appellate Court Upholds School District and Employees' Immunity from Liability for Student Off-Campus, Unsupervised Injuries

By: Wiley DriskillAndrea Ortega-

December 2021Number 43A California Court of Appeal has held that a school district and its employees are not responsible for the safety of a student when the student is not on school property, unless the student is involved in activities undertaken or supervised by the school district. (LeRoy v. Yarboi (Oct. 27, 2021, E072951) __Cal.App.5th __ [2021 WL 5323329].) In reaching its decision, the court interpreted Education Code section 44808 to limit a school district’s liability for after...

Litigation Experience

  • Recovered 95% of an approximate $1.1 million claim on behalf of an unsecured creditor against a failed firm and its senior secured creditor after obtaining judgment against the debtor in federal court.
  • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a defendant land developer which removed 90% of the plaintiff’s claims and reduced the plaintiff’s potential recovery from $1.1 million to approximately $100,000. Successfully defended the summary judgment ruling on appeal. Plaintiff dismiss its action.
  • Fidelity Nat. Title Co. v. Schroeder (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 834 – Prevailed on appeal for judgment creditor on legal theory that the fraudulent transferor of real property retained an equitable interest in the property.
  • Flam v. Flam (9th Cir. 2015) 788 F.3d 1043 – Prevailed in defeating plaintiff’s remand motion. Established for the first time in the Ninth Circuit that magistrate judges lack authority to remand cases from federal court to state courts.