ELC Takes On Oil and Plastic Production In Court: Student Attorneys Shine in Three Oral Arguments – Mills Legal Clinic of Stanford Law School

January was chock full of court appearances here in ELC, where five students prepared for and presented oral arguments in three different hearings in California courts.

On January 13, Marit Vike (‘25) argued before the Los Angeles Superior Court in the case Center for Biological Diversity v. City of Long Beach, a challenge to the most recent “five-year program plan” prepared by the City of Long Beach and the State Lands Commission. Though the Plan – which governs oil extraction activities in Long Beach – prescribed significant additional oil extraction, none of the agencies involved had conducted environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Policy Act (CEQA). Alongside co-counsel and clients Center for Biological Diversity, Marit argued that the Plan is a project that is covered by CEQA, and its environmental impacts must be fully analyzed.

Shortly thereafter, ELC took the fight for robust environmental analysis of oil production to Alameda County Superior Court. On January 23, ELC students Kevin Wang (‘25) and Mohammed Memfis (‘26) argued on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity that the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) violated CEQA by approving new oil wells in San Luis Obispo and Long Beach without conducting environmental review.

“I’m really grateful I had the opportunity to do this oral argument,” Kevin said about the experience.  “I loved having to think quickly on my feet while arguing back and forth with opposing counsel, all the while representing a client and cause that I believe in.”

Finally, ELC students presented arguments in a case targeting deceptive marketing in plastics production. On January 27, Parker Grove (‘26) and Katherine Chen (‘26) appeared in San Mateo Superior court on behalf of the Earth Island Institute, where they opposed a motion to dismiss by arguing that the Institute had presented compelling claims against several major plastics producers under California’s Unfair Competition Law. Katherine and Parker’s arguments highlighted the Institute’s allegations that the defendants had untruthfully marketed their plastic products as recyclable, misleading the public.

Ultimately, Parker said, the case aims to ensure corporate accountability. “Our client is taking an important step to ensure a public interest organization can bring claims to hold some of America’s largest companies responsible for their role in California’s plastic pollution crisis.”