Who’s the Boss?
A Quebec dad, unhappy with the amount of time his daughter was spending surfing the Internet, chatting on Web sites and posting “inappropriate pictures” of herself online, grounded his daughter from attending a school trip that his ex-wife had already approved.
Not taking “no” for an answer, the daughter sued – and won. The father, who had custody of the child, appealed the lower court’s decision, and lost again.
His lawyer, Kim Beaudoin, told news reporters that the father is “flabbergasted” by the appellate court’s ruling to uphold the lower court’s decision on grounds that the punishment was too severe for the wrongs he said his daughter committed.
"Either way, he doesn't have authority over this child anymore. She sued him because she doesn't respect his rules," Beaudoin said. "It's very hard to raise a child who is the boss." The daughter has moved in with her mother.
In its recent ruling, the appeals court warned the case should not be seen as an open invitation for children to take legal action every time they're grounded.
—Source: cbcnews.ca
Cap’n Crunch Sails Through Lawsuit
A California judge recently dismissed a lawsuit against the makers of Cap’n Crunch with Crunchberries cereal after finding that the product box clearly depicts the round, crunchy berries as cereal balls and not real fruit as the plaintiff assumed.
According to a class action complaint filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of California, plaintiff Janine Sugawara sued Pepsico, Inc, the maker of the cereal, alleging that the marketing and advertising for the cereal was misleading and deceptive as the product contains no actual berries. In addition to seeking restitution for out-of-pocket expenses and economic harm, actual and punitive damages and attorney’s fees, plaintiff contended that the phrase “Strawberry artificially flavored cereal” should be added to the label.
U.S. District Judge Morrison England, Jr. dismissed the case, finding that a reasonable consumer would not have been decieved by the packaging.
News reports indicate that plaintiff’s attorneys, the Hewell Law Firm in San Diego, lost a similar case against the maker of Froot Loops cereal.
—Source: Nevadacounty.com and Complaint, Sugawara v. PepsiCo., Inc.
To Mother with Love: A Lawsuit
A civil jury in New Jersey awarded a man nearly $100,000 in a lawsuit he filed against his mother.
John Garrity was installing hardwood floors in his mother’s home when she tapped him on the shoulder to tell him that lunch was ready. Garrity, who was using a miter saw at the time, quickly turned around, causing his hand to slip into the saw’s path and severing his pinky finger.
Garrity filed the lawsuit against his mother, Nancy Garrity, seeking nearly $200,000 in damages in addition to nearly $40,000 in medical bills. Court records show that the mother admitted she was at fault. “It was very noisy from the machine which he was operating, so I tapped him on the shoulder,” read one court document. “He appeared to be startled and then held up his hand, which had blood on it.”
The jury in the State Superior Court found each party to be 50 percent at fault for the accident and thus awarded Garrity 50 percent of his claim.
—Source: NorthJersey.com, (CFIF thanks Liberty Update subscriber Jack G. for alerting us to this week’s “Jester’s Courtroom” lawsuit.)
Frivolous Lawsuit Costs the Government
It’s tough for an employer to win an employee discrimination claim once the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) gets involved. It’s even more difficult to win and get paid attorneys’ fees.
Score one for employer Agro Distribution when a court recently ordered the EEOC to pay the company’s legal fees after it concluded that the agency grossly mishandled an employee’s frivolous lawsuit.
According to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the EEOC must pay nearly $225,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs to defendant Agro after affirming a lower court’s decision that the employee is not disabled under the definition in the Americans with Disabilities Act and that “the suit lacked foundation.”
Employee Henry Velez allegedly suffered from a medical condition that included the absence of sweat glands. Accordingly, his employer made special accommodation by allowing him to take regular breaks in order to cool down. After the employer assigned a new duty to all employees in his position, Velez complained that his condition prevented him from helping. The manager countered that the new duty – the unpleasant task of unloading dirty feed buckets, was similar work to the original position.
Velez filed a complaint with the EEOC. Following an on-site investigation, Agro’s attorney wrote a letter to the EEOC, reporting that the investigator “made insulting remarks during interviews; indicated disgust for the statements of management witnesses; raised her voice; rephrased witnesses’ statements to favor the charge; and selectively recorded portions of the statements.” Attempts at settlement broke down, the EEOC refused to return calls, and then sued Agro.
Nearly nine years since the alleged violation, the appeals court concluded that “The EEOC must vigorously enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act and ensure its protections to affected workers, but in doing so, the EEOC owes duties to employers as well: a duty reasonably to investigate charges, a duty to conciliate in good faith, and a duty to cease enforcement attempts after learning that an action lacks merit. In this case, the EEOC abandoned its duties and pursued a groundless action with exorbitant demands. Then every employee in Velez’s position was assigned a new duty — the unpleasant task of unloading dirty, empty barrels that had been used to feed cattle. Velez told his boss his condition prevented him from helping.”
—Source: www.hrblunders.com and EEOC v. Agro Distribution LLC.
A Reverse Good Samaritan Lawsuit
A Tennessee woman is suing a restaurant, nearby liquor store and her alleged attacker following a good deed that turned bad.
According to news reports, Fran MacLaren gave a cheeseburger to a homeless man, David Craig, outside of a local McDonald’s. After shouting that he didn’t want the cheeseburger, but rather just money, Craig threw the burger at MacLaren. She responded by calling him an “ungrateful bastard.” Craig then went after MacLaren, striking her repeatedly, breaking her nose, fracturing her wrist and cheekbone, and cracking her rib.
Last month MacLaren filed a lawsuit in Davidson County Circuit Court seeking $2 million in damages and alleging that the McDonald's and the nearby liquor store "knew, or should have known, that their mode of operating their particular stores attracted persons prone to criminal acts and provided an environment to crime."
The suit further states that both stores failed to provide a reasonably safe place for their customers.
—Source: The Tennessean
New Orleans Police Department Can’t Skirt Lawsuit
A man sued the New Orleans Police Department, claiming he was harassed by an officer because he was wearing a black pinstriped skirt, instead of pants, to Municipal Court.
Jeremy Don Kerr filed the lawsuit last month which seeks a declaratory judgment saying that NOPD violated his rights and owes him $1 in damages and court fees. Kerr also wants the court to bar the NOPD from prohibiting anyone in the city “unfettered access to public facilities because of sex discrimination that is based on gender stereotyping.”
In a civil-rights lawsuit filed last month, Kerr describes himself in the lawsuit as "a heterosexual male of Scottish ancestry" who was made a victim of discrimination by his choice of attire and claims to be more comfortable in skirts rather than pants.
According to news reports, Kerr wore a skirt to the New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival. "The comments are overwhelmingly positive," he said. "Women love it, people of all ages and all races love it across the board."
The NOPD hasn’t been served with the lawsuit and hasn’t answered the claim.
—Source: The Times-Picayune (New Orleans)
Golfers Not Liable for Failing to Yell “Fore!”
Yelling “Fore!” is etiquette on the golf course following a golfer’s errant shot, but the legal system doesn’t require it.
In 2002, golfer Anoop Kapoor launched an errant shot out of the rough which ended up hitting his friend, Azad Anand, in the eye, causing Anand to lose sight in that eye. Anand sued, claiming that Kapoor was liable for failure to yell “fore” before his ball struck his friend.
Although the court expressed its sympathy to Anand, it recently ruled 3-1 in favor of Kapoor, saying Ananad is not entitled to damages and that being hit by an errant ball is an "inherent risk of the game of golf." The court based its decision, in part, on the fact that Anand’s shot was so far off course that a warning would not have been anticipated.
"While we are sympathetic to the fact that plaintiff was seriously injured as a result of this accident," the panel observed, "to conclude that the defendant can be held 'liable' in tort for a poorly-executed golf shot because he may have negligently failed to shout 'fore' is inimical to the rationale underlying the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, and at odds with the public policy goal for its adoption -- to encourage ‘free and vigorous participation’ in sports and recreational activities."
—Sources: New York Law Journal and The Wall Street Journal
That’s the Way the Ball Bounces
After nearly two years of legal wrangling, former NBA player Roy Tarpley (44) settled a federal lawsuit against the NBA and the Dallas Mavericks in which he claimed the league and the team violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to reinstate him after a ban for drug use. Tarpley said the lawsuit was not about trying to play again but about clearing his name.
After failing drug test after drug test, being banned from the NBA and then returning, and failing another mandatory drug test which resulted in a permanent ban from the NBA, Tarpley filed a lawsuit in September 2007 arguing that the league and team discriminated against him on the basis of his disability as a recovering drug and alcohol abuser.
According to the lawsuit, "Tarpley is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA, in that he has a disability in the form of past drug and alcohol abuse, which substantially limits at least one of his major life activities.”
The lawsuit was settled by the league as a “nuisance” suit, with Tarpley collecting roughly $50,000 of the sought-after $6.5 million.
—Source: Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Texas)
Taking a Bite Out of Frivolous Lawsuits
A Michigan woman who sued a police dog over an alleged bite has been fined for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Inez Starks (55) sued the city of Warren, several police officers and a police dog named Liberty, claiming she suffered nerve damage after the German Shepherd bit her on the buttocks during a truancy complaint confrontation. “The K9 went out of control and viciously and brutally bit Inez Stark's [sic] right buttocks cheek, as well as biting Warren Police Officer [Scott] Taylor's leg,” the complaint said.
After evidence failed to reveal that Starks was bitten, Warren District Judge David Viviano fined Starks $500 for frivolously naming the dog in the lawsuit.
—Source: Onpointnews.com
Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, What’s the Most Frivolous Lawsuit of All?
A California restaurant has been sued because one of its bathroom mirrors was two inches too high.
After the original mirror was vandalized, restaurant owner Ron Piazza replaced it with a new mirror that was set two inches higher than the old one, allegedly in non-compliance with California’s disabilities laws. Before Piazza became aware of and corrected the mistake, three plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit claim to have visited the restaurant a total of 27 times over a three-month period and allege that they suffered damages on each visit.
“It would have been very easy for them to let us know that the mirror was a couple of inches too high, and we could have taken care of that right away,” Piazza said. “Had I not lowered the mirror, they probably would have continued to come and log more visits … It’s very clear to me that they were instructed by someone who really knew the law on how many times to visit, what to look for.”
Thanks to a new national campaign sponsored by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform called “Faces of Lawsuit Abuse,” Piazza’s story is being told to highlight abusive lawsuits and the impact on small businesses, many of which are family -- or locally --owned.
“Abuse lawsuits are not victimless,” said ILR President Lisa Rickard. “Many people think big-dollar lawsuits are only filed against ‘deep pocket’ corporations. Yet, in this current economic climate, many locally-owned businesses like Ron Piazza’s are just one lawsuit away from closing their doors.”
To learn more about Faces of Lawsuit Abuse and to view a short video of Piazza’s story, visit http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org.
—Source: www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org
Ready, Aim ... Get Sued
A purse thief is suing his victim. New York City resident Margaret Johnson, 59, was sitting in her motorized wheelchair outside her Lenox Terrace apartment when Deron Johnson, 48, allegedly tried to snatch her purse and gold chain. Margaret Johnson pulled out her licensed .357 Magnum and fired a shot at Mr. Johnson, hitting him in the elbow. Police arrived shortly thereafter and arrested him.
Mr. Johnson, who has nine previous arrests, claimed that Margaret Johnson shot him after he kicked her dog that tried to bite him. He denied being a mugger and was acquitted on the charges.
Now Deron Johnson is suing Margaret Johnson and her landlord for $5 million. “What’s grandma doing walking the streets with a loaded gun?” Craig Davidowitz, Deron Johnson’s attorney said, claiming that Lenox Terrace failed to protect his client. “They should have known they had a tenant walking around with a loaded weapon.”
Margaret Johnson, whose grandfather Ellsworth “Bumpy” Johnson once ruled Harlem’s underworld and was a famous inmate at Alcatraz, was shocked by the lawsuit. “I didn’t think you had to pay to get mugged in New York City,” she said.
—Source: New York Post
Good News Follows Bad News for Good Samaritan
Bus driver Jim Moffett was helping two of his elderly customers cross a busy Denver street in the middle of a snow storm when he was struck by a pickup truck after pushing the others out of its path. Moffett’s reward for his heroic act: a trip to the hospital and a jaywalking ticket.
Moffett suffered bleeding in the brain, broken bones, a dislocated shoulder and a possible ruptured spleen. According to a statement issued by the Colorado State Patrol, “despite Moffett's intentions, jaywalking contributed to the accident.”
After examining the circumstances and discussing the case with prosecutors, the patrol has reversed its decision to issue the jaywalking ticket to this Good Samaritan.
A citation against the pickup driver for careless driving resulting in injury still stands.
—Source: The Sunday Oregonian (Portland, Oregon)
“Drinking and Driving” Leads to Child Endangerment Charge
An Ohio woman has been charged with endangering her child following a drinking and driving incident. Genine Compton, a 39-year-old mother, was driving; her child was drinking.
More specifically, another motorist reported that Compton was both breast-feeding the youngster and talking on the phone while driving.
Local police used the license plate number to track down the driver. When confronted, Compton defended her action by saying she wouldn’t let her child go hungry.
"Our issue is not the fact that this woman was breastfeeding in public," Kettering (Ohio) police officer Michael Burke said. "Our issue is that she created the condition that placed her child's health and safety at risk."
At a recent court hearing, Compton entered a plea of not guilty. Compton faces up to 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine if convicted of the misdemeanor.
—Source: Dayton Daily News (Ohio)
Embarrassing Announcement Leads to Lawsuit
A New York man has filed a notice of claim against the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) alleging that the conductor drew unwelcome attention to his disability. Anthony Faggiani has cerebral palsy and is confined to a wheelchair. According to court documents, the LIRR conductor failed to quickly help Mr. Faggiani off the train and then repeatedly announced over the public address system that the train was delayed because of a “wheelchair patient.”
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for “serious psychological injuries and distress.”
“He just kept emphasizing ‘wheelchair,’ ‘wheelchair,’ ‘wheelchair,’” said Mr. Faggiani. “You could just imagine all those eyes staring at me.”
LIRR spokesman Joe Calderone said train crews “would never seek to embarrass any passenger needing assistance, including those with disabilities. At the same time, we do have an obligation to communicate with all customers about the reason for a train delay.”
Since the filing of the lawsuit, the Long Island Rail Road announced a new directive that employees no longer refer to the disability of a customer as the reason for delay, but, rather, that “a customer needs assistance.”
—Source: Newsday (New York)
Lawsuit Not Slashed
Former Guns N’ Roses guitarist Slash and his wife got the go-ahead from a Los Angeles judge to proceed with a lawsuit against the brokers who sold them what they thought was a party-worthy Hollywood Hills home.
The lawsuit, which seeks more than $1 million and punitive damages, alleges that real estate agent Gregory Holcomb and Sotheby’s International Realty misrepresented the house, saying it was a good location to hold big bashes. Slash claims the home is smaller than advertised and is located on a public street with parking restrictions.
The judge refused to dismiss the couple's claims, but will allow Sotheby's to dispute the punitive damages.
—Source: The Associated Press
Love Relationship with 50 Cent Not Worth $50 Million
Rapper 50 Cent ended up on the right side of the decimal point in a $50 million lawsuit filed by his ex-girlfriend. Manhattan State Supreme Court Justice Carol Edmead dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that ex-girlfriend Shaniqua Tompkins' claim that 50 Cent orally agreed to take care of her for life was unenforceable and unlikely.
"It is incredible that two then-unemployed, penniless, 21-year-olds would make such an oral contract," Judge Edmead said. She further ruled that the breach of contract claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations.
According to news reports, the rapper (real name: Curtis Jackson) denied promising to support Tomkins forever if he "made it big." Judge Edmead said 50 Cent stated that if that was what he intended, he would have married the mother of his son.
This was "an unfortunate tale of a love relationship gone sour," Judge Edmead added.
—Source: The Associated Press
An Immigration Lawsuit of a Different Kind
A Colorado woman has sued the City of Denver claiming that the city shares the blame for her injuries resulting from an automobile accident caused by an illegal immigrant.
Margaret Rains was inside a Baskin-Robbins ice cream shop when Francis Hernandez lost control of his SUV while driving nearly 80 mph and crashed into the shop, injuring Ms. Rains and killing three others. According to news reports, Rains wants the city to share the blame because she claims Denver police had arrested Hernandez several times before the accident but failed to enforce immigration laws. Rains is seeking $1.9 million in damages.
Hernandez reportedly entered the United States illegally in 1991 at age 5 but was never deported. In the five years before the accident, Hernandez had been arrested nearly 20 times by several law enforcement agencies, including Denver police.
—Source: Crime and Federalism
Teeing One Up for a Lawsuit
Some believe that a golfer cannot be held personally liable if his or her ball strikes another golfer so long as “FORE” is yelled. But what happens if the golfer and the individual struck by the ball are one in the same?
New Hampshire resident Paul Sanchez, 67, sued Candia Woods Golf Links after he was left blind in one eye by an errant golf ball. It just so happens that it was Sanchez’s own errant ball that struck him in the eye.
According to his attorney, Barry M. Scotch, Sanchez was golfing with some friends when a ball he hit bounced off a yardage-marker and “whacked him” in the right eye.
Sanchez is seeking unspecified damages in the lawsuit, claiming that the golf course owners failed to warn him about the markers, which he further claims were improperly placed in the middle of the fairway and were made of material too rigid to be safe for the course. The suit contends the course didn't warn Sanchez about the risk in the pro shop, on the scorecard or on any tee boxes.
"Before he could even -- pardon the expression -- blink, he was hit," Scotch said. "It just ricocheted right back at him."
Mary Ellen Sanchez, his wife, is also a party to the suit, claiming emotional damage.
The popular 18-hole course bills itself as the "Friendliest Course in New Hampshire."
—Source: The Union Leader (Manchester, NH)
What It Takes To Be a Hooters Girl
Some are wondering whether a name change will be in order for the Hooters restaurant chain should a man be successful in his lawsuit against the company.
A Texas man filed a lawsuit last month alleging sex discrimination in hiring practices after his application to be a server at Hooters in Corpus Christi was rejected because he’s a man. The lawsuit filed on behalf of 22-year-old Nikolai Grushevski seeks unspecified damages in recompense for a claim that “Hooters tries to circumvent the law by referring to its waiters as ‘Hooters Girls.’”
"He doesn't want to be a Hooters Girl. He just wants to be a waiter," said Grushevski’s attorney Martin Shellist, referring to the women in orange shorts and tight shirts who serve food and drinks to customers.
There was a similar lawsuit filed against Hooters over a decade ago in which the company settled and deemed the positions for kitchen and bartender were “gender neutral.”
"The good news is that when this happened the last time, Hooters benefitted from an avalanche of positive publicity and public support for keeping Hooters Girls, well, girls. If we lose this go around, you can next expect hairy-legged guys in the Rockettes to line up and male models in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. You wonder why people just can't leave good things alone,” Mike McNeil, vice president of marketing for Hooters of America, opined in a written statement.
"This move, of course, begs the question, ‘Why would a man want to be a Hooters Girl?'" McNeil added. "In our opinion, he doesn't, and he is simply looking for an opportunity to be the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit so he can try and make some money without working for it."
—Source: The Houston Chronicle
Why Coke Is Not Smiling
Coca-Cola, maker of Vitaminwater, has been sued by the Center for Science in Public Interest (“CSPI”) over what is called “deceptive and unsubstantiated health claims” on the products’ labels.
The Washington-based self-proclaimed nutrition advocacy group claims the labels deceive customers into believing that Vitaminwater offers health benefits. The Vitaminwater flavor names include “defense,” “rescue,” and “energy.” CSPI said the drink was basically sugar water.
"Coke fears, probably correctly, that they will sell less soda as Americans become increasingly concerned with obesity, diabetes, and other conditions linked to diets too high in sugar. VitaminWater is Coke's attempt to dress up soda in a physician's white coat. Underneath, its still sugar water, albeit sugar water that costs about ten bucks a gallon," CSPI litigation director Steve Gardner said.
Coca-Cola calls the suit “ridiculous,” saying Vitaminwater’s labels are accurate. According to one label, the bottle lists six vitamins plus folic acid at 50 percent of daily values.
"This is a ridiculous and ludicrous lawsuit. Glaceau Vitaminwater is a great tasting, hydrating beverage with essential vitamins and water, with labels showing calorie content," the company stated while reacting to the class action lawsuit filed in US District Court in the Northern District of California.
"Filing a lawsuit is an opportunistic PR stunt. This is not about protecting the public interest. This is about grandstanding at a time when CSPI is receiving very little attention,” a Coca-Cola statement added.
—Sources: Boston Globe and Culinologyonline.com
What a Good Deal (for the Lawyers)
The State of Florida recently settled a lawsuit alleging that the state illegally sold drivers’ personal information to marketing firms over a four-year period in violation of a federal law barring the practice. The settlement results in a $1.00 credit to each driver who renews a license, car registration or state-issued ID between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010.
The four Florida residents who brought the suit will each get $3,000. And what about the five law firms that pursued the case? Well, they’ll divide up $2.85 million in legal fees.
The anticipated $10.4 million payout to settle the lawsuit spells bad news for Florida, which already faces a $3.5 billion deficit. Governor Charlie Crist and the Cabinet approved the agreement last summer; the Legislature now must appropriate the money. The state formally denied any wrongdoing.
According to news reports, Senator Carey Baker (R-Eustis) said it looks to him as though consumers should have gotten more. “The victim really doesn’t benefit very much, and the attorneys make out on attorneys’ fees,” he said.
—Source: St. Petersburg Times
What a Good Deal (for the Lawyers)
The State of Florida recently settled a lawsuit alleging that the state illegally sold drivers’ personal information to marketing firms over a four-year period in violation of a federal law barring the practice. The settlement results in a $1.00 credit to each driver who renews a license, car registration or state-issued ID between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010.
The four Florida residents who brought the suit will each get $3,000. And what about the five law firms that pursued the case? Well, they’ll divide up $2.85 million in legal fees.
The anticipated $10.4 million payout to settle the lawsuit spells bad news for Florida, which already faces a $3.5 billion deficit. Governor Charlie Crist and the Cabinet approved the agreement last summer; the Legislature now must appropriate the money. The state formally denied any wrongdoing.
According to news reports, Senator Carey Baker (R-Eustis) said it looks to him as though consumers should have gotten more. “The victim really doesn’t benefit very much, and the attorneys make out on attorneys’ fees,” he said.
—Source: St. Petersburg Times
An Offensive Arrest
A Florida student has been arrested for “passing gas” in class and turning off his classmates’ computers. The 13-year-old boy was placed under arrest by the school resource officer after he confessed about his behavior.
According to a report released by the Martin County (Florida) Sheriff’s Office, the boy “continually disrupted the classroom environment” by intentionally breaking wind. He then shut off some computers being used by fellow students.
The boy was charged with disruption of school function and released to his mother.
—Source: Pensacola News Journal
Swear It Isn’t So
Hamilton County (Ohio) Judge Robert Ruehlman is fed up with swearing in his courtroom and he is doing something about it.
On consecutive days, Judge Ruehlman sentenced two individuals to six months in jail for swearing in his courtroom. Not the swearing in of a party or witness, but rather cuss words from an individual.
First, it was an accused gang member. Unhappy with having to wait in jail for several more weeks until his trial, accused gang member Jamel Sechrest muttered “That’s (bleeping) bull (bleep).” “You don’t say bull (bleep) in the courtroom,” Ruehlman told Sechrest before citing him for contempt and sentencing him to six months in jail.
The following day, attorney Michael Brautigam was before the court as his own attorney when he called his opposing counsel “a (bleeping) liar.” After admitting to the judge what he said under his breath, Brautigam was cited for contempt and sent to jail for six months. “I had to give him six months because I gave the other guy six months,” Ruehlman said.
“Judge Ruehlman absolutely did the right thing by attempting to maintain order, civility and decorum in his courtroom. Attorney Brautigam has been discourteous and disrespectful to judges, lawyers and litigants in our community on more than one occasion,” said opposing counsel Peter Koenig.
—Source: Cincinnati Enquirer
Criminally Liable for Libel?
If you live in Colorado, you better be careful what you rant and rave about online or in writing. According to a centuries old law that is rarely used, you can be criminally liable for libel.
J.P. Weichel found that out the hard way after posting comments about his former girlfriend (and mother of his daughter) on the “rants and raves” section of the popular website Craigslist.com. The woman claimed the postings were defamatory. Instead of suing in civil court for libel, she called the police and local authorities have taken the unusual step of charging Weichel with a crime.
“This is what the Legislature of the state of Colorado has determined is criminal,” Larimer County District Attorney Larry Abrahamson said. “We’re obligated to enforce the laws in the state of Colorado.”
Police and court records indicate that Weichel’s postings were purely personal.
Many lawyers find the state’s action a troubling infringement of free speech. Criminal libel prosecutions are “a sledgehammer when a scalpel would do the same trick,” said Georgia State University Communications Professor Gregory Lisby.
“Being a jerk isn’t necessarily grounds for felony prosecution,” said Mark Silverstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado.
“It’s shocking the statute exists,” First Amendment lawyer David Lane said, “and that someone’s even using it is even more shocking.”
The postings alleged that the girlfriend abused the child, that she committed welfare fraud and included crude comments about her sex life. According to an affidavit for an arrest warrant, “Weichel stated he was ‘just venting.’”
The law carries a maximum sentence of 18 months in jail.
—Source: Los Angeles Times
Lawsuit Brings New Meaning to Bathroom Break
A New Jersey woman is suing a local sports bar and toilet seat manufacturer after her trip to the rest room was extended beyond her control. Kathleen Hewko claims she got stuck inside a toilet bowl for 20 minutes when the handicap toilet seat she was sitting on cracked and dumped her in the bowl.
Hewko, who had hip surgery several years ago, alleges that she reinjured her hip when the seat broke. Hewko’s attorney claims the incident is not her fault as the 130-140 pound woman is not obese.
Defendants Starters Sports Bar and Kohler Co. declined to comment.
—Source: The Morning Call (Allentown, PA)
(Special thanks to CFIF Reader Steve who sent us the story)
Do you want fries with that lawsuit?
McDonald’s Corporation is back in court. No, not for hot coffee, but rather online nude photos.
Philip Sherman of Arkansas is suing McDonald’s Corporation, a franchise owner and the store manager after nude photos of Sherman’s wife, which were saved on a cell phone that Sherman left at the McDonald’s, ended up on the Internet. According to the lawsuit, Sherman was assured by employees that his misplaced phone would be secure until he could return to pick it up. Apparently it wasn’t.
Now Sherman and his wife are seeking a jury trial and $3 million in damages for suffering, embarrassment and the cost of having to move to a new home. McDonald’s has declined comment.
—Source: Pensacola News Journal
Not a Hero’s Sandwich
A Ft. Pierce, Florida, man faces domestic battery charges after allegedly hitting his girlfriend with a sandwich.
According to police and news reports, Emmanuelle Rodriguez, 19, was a passenger in his girlfriend’s car when he grew angry with her, threw his sandwich at her face, knocked off her glasses and caused her to nearly lose control of the car. Rodriguez then ripped off the rear-view mirror and used it to shatter the windshield.
Rodriguez is free on bond. Police haven’t reported what caused the altercation or what type of sandwich was involved.
—Source: Pensacola News Journal
Sad Times for Finders of Depression-Era Money
An Ohio homeowner and her handyman couldn’t agree on how to split $182,000 of depression-era money found in the walls of the home during a remodeling project. As a result, they’ve lost even more of their findings. After a local newspaper reported the story, including the on-going dispute over how to split the money, the former owner’s family got involved, suing for the right to the money.
As he was tearing down the bathroom walls at Amanda Reece’s home, contractor Bob Kitts found the stash of money in two green metal lockboxes suspended inside the wall below the medicine chest. After counting the cash and posing for photographs, grinning like lottery winners, Reece offered Kitts 10 percent of the money. Kitts wanted 40 percent. With the money and battle making headlines, the 21 descendants of Patrick Dunne, the wealthy businessman who hid the Depression-era currency, sued for a share.
In depositions, Reece testified that she spent $14,000 on a trip to Hawaii, sold some of the rare bills, and had $60,000 stolen from a shoe box in her closet. Earlier this month, she filed bankruptcy.
Kitts received about $25,000, which he was ordered to share with the descendants. When asked why he didn’t keep his mouth shut and pocket the money, Kitts responded that “he wasn't raised that way.”
No public explanation has been offered for what happened to the rest of the cash.
—Source: USA Today
A Nice Santa Sues, Claiming Mall is Naughty
With the holidays just around the corner, it’s time to dust off those Santa suits. Not, however, if you are 18-year veteran elf Michael Graham.
According to news reports, Mr. Graham is suing Tysons Corner Mall in Virginia for terminating his $175 an hour Santa job. Apparently Tysons Corner has a new contract with World Wide Photography to provide the Santa this year and the company felt his asking price was too high.
“I have nothing but positive things to say about him,” said Steve Hardin, senior partner with World Wide Photography. “He’s a wonderful person and a wonderful Santa, but $175 an hour to play Santa?”
Mr. Graham said he is losing more than the money. “After 18 years of visiting with them, people start to know who you are,” said Mr. Graham. “You feel like a part of their family. People come as far away as California so the pictures look the same and there is consistency to show the children growing up.”
Mr. Graham is represented by Pamela Deese of Arent Fox in Washington, D.C. and a public relations firm, Brotman Winter Fried Communications of Falls Church.
The publicity is working, with other elves supporting Graham. “It’s not very nice, naughty actually, that photo companies are basically forcing people out and just saying goodbye,” said Nicholas Trolli, president of the Amalgamated Order of Real Bearded Santas. “There may be families who will be very disappointed, who bring children back year after year and now find a different person playing that role.”
—Source: The Washington Times
No “Costumes” in the Courtroom
In separate instances, in different courtrooms, individuals recently have been chastised for their attire. First, Delbert Barnard, an intellectual property attorney, was criticized by Judge Randall Rader of the Washington D.C. Federal Circuit for dressing for court as if he were about to play a round of tennis. “Next time wear a tie. This is a Federal Circuit,” Judge Rader told Barnard.
In his own defense, Barnard explained that the one dress shirt he had brought did not survive the trip very well. “I had popped a collar button on my one and only dress shirt. I put it on, and put the tie on to see if it could lay flat … and it wouldn’t. I thought to myself, out here on the West Coast a lot of people will wear a suit with a turtleneck. I had a dark polo shirt. So I wore that,” Barnard said.
Fortunately for his client, his lack of fashion didn’t cost him the case – the court found in favor of his client.
A Kentucky woman who lacked fashion sense for a courtroom visit was not as lucky. Kirstie Arnold, 28, was ordered to serve three days in jail after ignoring two warnings and a fine regarding her court attire.
After Arnold showed up in hot pants to court, District Judge Janet Booth reportedly lost her patience. “Why shouldn’t I put you in jail for contempt today? … You apparently don’t care about the court’s orders,” Judge Booth said.
Arnold’s response, “I forgot,” didn’t sit well with the judge. “How could you forget?” Judge Booth exclaimed. “No, seriously, how could you forget? It’s a complete disregard of court order. Complete. You should go to jail today, and you’re going.”
Before sentencing Arnold to serve three days of temporary detention “for disregard and disrespect of court proceedings,” Judge Booth suggested that next time Arnold won’t forget to dress appropriately.
—Source: Lawyers Weekly
First Client, Then Legal Opponent
How do you turn a client into a legal opponent? Have an affair with his wife.
According to news reports, Mississippi lawyer Ronald Pierce had represented Ernest Cook and his wife Kathleen in a medical malpractice case. That case was cut short when Cook learned that his lawyer was having an affair with his wife.
Cook sued his lawyer under an antiquated tort law that still exists in Mississippi, called “alienation of affection.” During depositions, Pierce took the “fifth” when asked about the affair, but his silence didn’t matter much as the wife then admitted to it in her deposition. Pierce argued he did not have a fair trial because he wasn’t allowed to cross-examine Cook about the failed marriage.
Recently the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cook, upholding a $1.5 million verdict against Pierce for alienation of affection, intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract (between client and attorney).
“I knew I was going to get screwed,” Pierce reportedly said.
—Source: loweringthebar.net and Lawyers Weekly (Australia)
Heed Mother’s Advice about Sharp Objects Near Eyes
More bad news on Wall Street for one securities trader. Stephen Chang is suing a members-only gentlemen’s club after he allegedly was poked in the eye by the heel of a dancer’s shoe.
According to the complaint filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Mr. Chang “paid for and was receiving a lap dance” when, “during the course of said lap dance, the employee suddenly swung around, striking the plaintiff in the eye with the heel of her shoe.”
Chang claims he “sustained serious personal injuries” but the manager of the defendant Hot Lap Dance Club said he never heard of the incident. "We didn't have any reported accidents," said the manager, who identified himself as Lou. "We have a first-aid kit, and we would have treated the guy or called an ambulance."
—Source: Daily News (New York)
A Toast to Ladies’ Night
The lights have gone out on a lawsuit alleging that ladies’ night at nightclubs discriminates against men. Federal court Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum tossed the lawsuit out of court, ruling that nightclubs can price their products as they wish because they’re not representatives of the state.
The lawsuit was brought by attorney Roy Den Hollander, who alleged that ladies’ nights at Manhattan nightclubs discriminate against men by offering women free or discounted admission or drinks. He tried to link the state to the discounts because the state issues the liquor licenses.
Nightclub attorneys said men are not discriminated against by ladies’ night, just as 20-somethings don’t suffer because some restaurants let children eat for free or offer early-bird senior citizen discounts.
Hollander called the judge a feminist.
—Sources: The New York Post and Lewiston Morning Tribune (Idaho)
Hit and Run and Sue
A New York businessman has filed a lawsuit against New York City, the NYPD and the Brooklyn district attorney’s office, charging that his Bentley automobile was poorly cared for at the city impound lot.
Harry Shasho is seeking $190,000, alleging the NYPD failed to safeguard his black 2005 Bentley GT luxury coupe. New York officials respond that the only damage done to the car was from when Shasho fatally struck a pedestrian in a hit-and-run accident. Shasho pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of the accident and was sentenced to five years’ probation and community service.
The car was impounded as evidence in the fatal collision and the police report describes the car as crumpled and the windshield “depressed and fractured.” Shasho claims the Bentley was in “excellent condition … with no noticeable defects or damage” when he turned the car in.
The victim’s loved ones are outraged by Shasho’s current lawsuit. “He’s not a human being, he’s an animal with no conscience,” fumed Linda Ruberto, the longtime girlfriend of the victim. “Suing the city when you’ve killed somebody is disgusting. It’s immoral.”
—Source: Daily News (New York)
Umbrella Lawsuit Gets Soaked
A Manhattan restaurateur who lost his umbrella has now lost a related lawsuit.
Nello Balan, owner of the swanky Upper East Side restaurant bearing his name, sued supermodel Le Call claiming she intentionally damaged his designer umbrella. According to news reports, Balan lent the $5,000 Jean-Paul Gaultier designer umbrella to Call who belatedly returned it to him in two pieces.
Balan sought $1 million in the lawsuit and claimed emotional distress. New York State Supreme Court Justice Joan A. Madden threw out the lawsuit and fined Balan’s attorney $500 for filing a frivolous claim that she said was a “waste of judicial resources.”
—Source: Mobile Register (Alabama)
Appeals Court to Iron Out Pants Case
An appeal is set for October 22 before the D.C. Court of Appeals in the $54 million dollar missing pants case.
Roy Pearson, Jr., former administrative law judge, sued a dry cleaner in Washington, D.C. after he claimed it lost his pants. Earlier this year, Superior Court Judge Judith Barnoff ruled that Soo and Jin Chung, owners of Custom Cleaners, did not violate the consumer protection law by failing to live up to the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign displayed in the store. Pearson filed an immediate appeal in that case.
Christopher Manning, attorney for the Chungs, criticized Pearson’s “unrelenting” approach. “We absolutely expected this. Immediately after the verdict, my clients withdrew their motion to have their legal fees repaid by Pearson as an olive branch to him and so they could move on with their lives. He filed the appeal anyway,” Manning says.
Manning says he will represent the Chungs pro bono during the appeal.
Pearson has a separate case pending against the District government for its decision, in the wake of the worldwide media hysteria over the pants lawsuit, to deny him another term on the bench. In that case, Pearson alleges a violation of the D.C. Whistleblower Act.
—Source: The Washington Post
Candid Camera Finds Fake
A plaintiff’s claim for medical malpractice has been dismissed and the plaintiff has been ordered to pay $287,000 to the physician and hospital defendants after plaintiff, who claimed to be partially paralyzed, was videotaped doing normal daily activities.
According to news reports, the plaintiff sued the hospital and physician following a surgical implant procedure that plaintiff claims left her lower extremities paralyzed. Plaintiff said in sworn testimony that she could walk only by “using [her] hip flexors and forearm crutches to swing and drag [her] legs” and that she “has no ability to raise her legs or even wiggle a toe.”
Defendant Berkshire Medical Center in Massachusetts hired a private investigator after being made aware of discrepancies in plaintiff’s claimed injuries by other medical care providers throughout the Northeast. According to court documents, the numerous videotaped images of the plaintiff, taken over an extended period of time, showed the plaintiff “engaged in such activities as bending, lifting, kneeling on the seat of a car, and entering a car without assistance.” The tape also showed the plaintiff “walking as normally as most people.”
The court ruled that the plaintiff had “engaged in a willful and egregious pattern of concerted and consistent deception” by asserting claims that were “wholly insubstantial, frivolous and not advanced in good faith.”
Upon receipt of videotape evidence, counsel for plaintiff, a major Boston personal injury firm, sought to withdraw from the case.
—Source: Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly
Landing the Big Fish: A Lawsuit
The winners of a bass fishing tournament got more than they thought they would for a first place finish. In addition to receiving the tournament’s grand prize of a new 2006 Chevy pickup truck and a $40,000 bass boat, they have been served with a lawsuit.
First-place team members Jeff Burkett and John Federnok, along with tournament director, Mickey Thomas, are named in the lawsuit filed by second-place finishers, Tom Yost and Luke Foli. According to court documents, Burkett and Federnok should have been disqualified for violating tournament rules by failing to wear life jackets when they hooked the fish.
Burkett, who called the lawsuit “ridiculous” and referred to the plaintiffs as “crybabies,” recalled that he and his fishing partner were wearing the life jackets over their knees and elbows, albeit in an unconventional manner, when they snagged the fish.
“The rules just say you have to be wearing the life jacket; they don’t say you have to be wearing it conventionally. It was on our body but it was not wrapped around our shoulders,” Burkett said.
Tournament official Clark, surprised by the lawsuit, added, “I think it’s extremely bad. Everybody is going to get a negative attitude about fishing tournaments because of this. It’s pretty competitive. Usually most guys are just out to have a good time, but this one had a big payout at the end.”
The case is pending in St. Joseph Circuit Court in Indiana.
—Source: South Bend Tribune (Indiana)
Unhappy Meal Lawsuit Dismissed
An Albuquerque, New Mexico, jury spent a week hearing testimony and arguments in a lawsuit against fast-food giant McDonald’s, but then spent little time deliberating before dismissing the case.
According to court documents and news reports, plaintiff Steven Pohl and four of his buddies celebrated Pohl’s farewell to Iraq with pitchers of beer at a gentlemen’s club before deciding to go to a local McDonald’s. Standing outside of the car to make a cell phone call, Pohl notices two “very, very pretty” girls in another vehicle in the drive-thru lane. When Pohl approached the car, the driver, Erin Elliott, 19, rolled down her window and flashed a knife at him. A McDonald’s employee testified that the woman frantically yelled into the ordering microphone that a “creepy guy” was bothering them.
Pohl returned to the car with his buddies and after relaying the story to them, Pohl’s uncle, who is a policeman, exited the vehicle and approached Elliott’s car. According to Pohl’s deposition, Elliott slashed the uncle’s right bicep. Thereafter, when Pohl exited the car to help his uncle he was struck by Elliott’s car and dragged a short distance across the parking lot.
Pohl sued Elliott and McDonald’s. The suit against Elliott was settled.
In his suit against McDonald’s, Pohl contends that McDonald’s “owed a duty to exercise ordinary care for the safety of their invitees,” and, thus, should have had a security guard on duty.
The jury disagreed and dismissed the case, leaving Pohl’s attorney to comment that, “[the] jurors felt that to have guards at a McDonald’s shouldn’t be necessary, and that Mr. Pohl should have stayed in his vehicle, which we never denied. But it was our position that even if McDonald’s was 5 percent negligent and our client the more negligent, that McDonald’s was still in the wrong.”
Pohl’s attorney added that the jury was “calloused and business friendly.”
—Source: Albuquerque Journal
No Horsing Around for this Massage Therapist
A Maryland woman is suing two state agencies, claiming they are unfairly barring her from massaging horses. Mercedes Clemens of Damascus, Maryland, said she had to shut down her equine massage practice in the Washington, D.C., suburb after being told that only certified veterinarians may perform such services. Clemens is certified to massage humans.
“This isn’t just a career for me, it’s my passion,” Clemens said. “If I was independently wealthy and I didn’t need an income, I would do this for nothing. That’s how much I love it.” Prior to the state’s notice, Clemens had about 30 regular horse clients, including her own horse, Chanty.
Despite earning a private animal massage certification about two years ago, in a letter from the Maryland Board of Chiropractic Examiners the state told her that the law is very specific in barring massage therapists from practicing on animals. That’s when she filed suit, claiming she is being unfairly targeted as the state allows other animal massage therapists to practice. Clemens is not seeking monetary compensation or damages.
The Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm, is representing Clemens in the case. “If it was just me it wouldn’t really be worth all this,” she said. “But this is a much bigger constitutional issue.”
—Source: The Associated Press
Lawsuit Alleges Thong Gone Wrong
Perhaps a first for the company, Victoria’s Secret has been sued in a product liability case. Macrida Patterson, a 52-year-old Los Angeles traffic cop, is suing the lingerie retailer for an eye injury she claims to have received as a result of a defective pair of thong underwear that had a rhinestone heart connected to the fabric by metal links.
“I was putting on my underwear from Victoria’s Secret, and the metal popped into my eye,” Patterson said. “It happened really quickly. I was in excruciating pain. I screamed. That’s what happened.”
Patterson’s attorney, Jason Buccat, is unwilling to specify the amount of damages sought, but noted that it is in excess of $25,000. “This case is definitely about protecting the consumer from defective products,” he said. “In terms of money, that’s not what we really want here. We want to make Macrida fully redressed for her grievous injury. She’s missed work. She’s gone through a lot of suffering as well. We want to make Macrida Patterson whole again.”
Buccat added, “Victoria’s Secret does have its angels, but as we say, the devil is in the details. And the details here will definitely show there is a defective product, both in its design and its manufacture.”
A Victoria’s Secret representative declined to comment.
—Source: MSNBC.com
Football is King in Texas
Even in the heat of summer, Texans have football on their minds. That’s true, at least, for Austin, Texas federal judge James Nowlin.
In a personal injury lawsuit involving Wal-Mart, a dispute arose over the location of a deposition for a Wal-Mart representative. The choices were San Antonio, Texas and Bentonville, Arkansas.
In deciding the jurisdictional issue, Judge Nowlin expressed sympathy for both sides, at least so far as football allegiances go. “Surely Defendant’s corporate representative, a resident of Arkansas, would feel great humiliation by being forced to enter the home state of the University of Texas, where the legendary Texas Longhorns have wrought havoc on the Arkansas Razorbacks,” Judge Nowlin wrote. Acknowledging a similar conflict, he noted that Texans entering Arkansas may fear retribution considering Texas’ win over Arkansas in the 1969 National Championship.
With no compromise in sight, Judge Nowlin ordered that the deposition take place at the Texarkana Federal Building, the only federal building in the nation that resides in two states.
—Source: The Wall Street Journal
Vacancy for some; No Vacancy for others
Lawyers engaged in a legal battle between Barbie-maker Mattel Inc. and rival Bratz-maker MGA Entertainment found more to argue about in front of the judge – hotel rooms.
According to news reports, when Mattel lawyers tried to book rooms in a Riverside, California hotel for the trial dates, they were turned down by the hotel, even though there was vacancy. Not only had opposing counsel booked rooms at the same hotel, but the hotel had signed a contract barring Mattel’s lawyers from sharing the accommodations.
Bratz counsel, Tom Nolan of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP defended its position by saying, “It’s like when Coke decides to meet with its agents, they don’t want Pepsi in the hotel. It's the same thing here.”
Barbie counsel John Quinn, of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP, filed a request with the judge presiding over the case to deem the contract unenforceable. The judge declined to resolve the dispute.
—Source: The Wall Street Journal
Biting the Hand that Feeds You
A Florida teenager has been charged with misdemeanor domestic battery and violation of probation after biting her mother’s hand. The Panhandle mother told police that her daughter bit the top of her hand after she tried to take away her daughter’s cell phone as punishment for breaking curfew.
The girl defended her action by stating that she was merely trying to get her cell phone back. A deputy found two sets of teeth marks on the top of the hand, as well as dried blood.
—Source: Pensacola News Journal (FL)
Won’t you be my neighbor? Not!
A parking dispute in a senior citizens’ community has sparked a lawsuit. Loren Walker, 74, has filed suit against his condominium homeowner’s association after his van was towed because the bumper infringed on the space in front of his neighbor’s home. Walker paid a $160 fee to get the van back and sued the association to reimburse him. The association countersued.
According to news reports, shortly after moving in, Walker, who lived in a corner unit with a one-car driveway, began parking his second vehicle on the street, to the right of his drive, between his condominium and the one next door. After his new neighbor complained to the association, a rule was adopted, stating, “Residents or occupants parking in the street must park within their property lot lines unless authorized by their neighbor.” Shortly thereafter, an orange line appeared on the street delineating the property line.
Even after Walker’s neighbor moved out, after marrying the head of the association, Walker continued to be chastised if his van crossed the line.
Walker, who conceded that both sides have acted “childish” about the issue, stated that “It’s so ridiculous, I’m ashamed to be a part of this, but that’s the way it is.”
Recently, the judge ruled that the association should pay Walker’s attorneys fees and costs as a penalty for filing a frivolous counterclaim in a lawsuit. “Basically the court found there was no factual or legal basis for main counterclaim,” said Pamela Jo Hatley, the Tampa attorney representing Walker. The amount to be paid is yet to be determined, but Hatley has submitted a bill for legal services for $15,610.
The court has yet to determine whether the association must pay for the tow.
—Source: St. Petersburg Times (Florida)
A Sticky Situation
A Missouri man is suing Home Depot for injuries suffered when he came in contact with a toilet seat “covered with adhesive.” Haywood Rosales alleges that he “received cuts, bruises, and tearing on his buttocks and thighs,” when he stood up from the toilet in a Home Depot restroom.
Home Depot’s insurance carrier summarily rejected the claim, prompting Rosales to file the lawsuit. Rosales is seeking in excess of $25,000 in damages, which includes pain and suffering and his inability to work due to the injuries. His claim cites a similar 2005 incident involving a Colorado man, charging that Home Depot should have recognized that “there would be a strong possibility that instances of copycat behavior would occur,” thereby maintaining that Home Depot had prior actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous toilet.
—Source: The Smoking Gun.com
Just Desserts for Pie Thief?
A 79-year-old Florida man was taken to jail and charged with retail theft after failing to pay $5.29 for an apple pie at a local Publix grocery store. George Schwartz spent 10 hours in jail on misdemeanor charges, punishable by 60 days in jail.
According to Schwartz’ lawyer, the cashier who bagged the groceries failed to notice the pie left in the basket. Schwartz paid for his other groceries. Managers at the Publix claimed in the police report that Schwartz has shoplifted before.
Schwartz maintains that the pie incident is the result of a misunderstanding and his short-term memory loss problems.
—Source: Pensacola News Journal
A Terrifying Decision
Remarkably, a court recently upheld a jury verdict that found the owners of buildings that were terrorized more culpable than the terrorists.
A New York state appeals court upheld the jury’s allocation of 68 percent of the blame for the 1993 World Trade Center bombings on the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owned the buildings. Citing the jury’s finding that several explicit warnings were provided to the Port Authority by credible sources, including Scotland Yard, the majority of the blame (and corresponding damages) was placed on the Port Authority. Moreover, the court cited precedent that holds that an owner’s negligence can be at least 50 percent to blame for harm even when the harm was caused by another party’s deliberate actions.
“Defendant’s negligence had been extraordinarily conducive of the terrorists’ conduct – so much so that the fulfilment [sic] of the terrorists’ plot and the ensuing harm could with clear justification have been understood as primarily attributable to that negligence,” the court ruled. “The intentional act [of the terrorists] causally did little more than bring the incipient catastrophic potential of the negligence to terrible fruition.”
—Source: The Washington Examiner
Man Sues to Re-Write History
A history scholar is suing U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, trying to force the government to recognize the ten men who he says served as President before George Washington.
According to Florida resident Stanley L. Klos, 54, ten men served as and signed documents as the President of this country’s national government, known as the United States in Congress Assembled, before Washington took office in 1789.
“They actually enacted treaties, laws, proclamations and resolutions as presidents of the United States,” Klos said. The leaders were Samuel Huntington, Thomas McKean, John Hanson, Elias Boudinot, Thomas Mifflin, Richard Henry Lee, John Hancock, Nathanial Gorham, Arthur St. Clair and Cyrus Griffin.
The lawsuit cites the “Presidential Coin Act,” and seeks to have the ten recognized as presidents on coins. Klos claims in his lawsuit that failing to recognize these men harms his children and all students in America by misleading them about “the existence and identity of the earliest founders and the presidents of the United States.”
According to news reports, Harry Rubenstein, chair of the Division of Politics and Reform at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, responded that, “These were important political leaders in the country. They did help shape our nation in its formative years, but they’re not the same” as presidents since George Washington.
Klos has written a book on the subject and formed a corporation called Forgotten Founders Inc.
—Source: Tampa Tribune
Cutting Through the Red Tape
Louisiana resident and barber Clyde Scott is in trouble with the law – an old law, simply for cutting hair on a Monday. A law on the books in Houma, Louisiana, bans barbers from working on Sundays, Mondays and several holidays.
Scott, unfamiliar with the decades-old law, opened briefly on a Monday to trim up a few students who were getting ready for graduation. Houma police were called to the scene to investigate why people were loitering outside the barbershop. An officer was instructed to issue a summons to Scott for violation of the ordinance.
According to news reports, District Attorney Joe Waitz Jr. won’t be prosecuting the case. Rather, he is asking the parish council to repeal the law as unconstitutional.
—Source: Pensacola News Journal
Would-be Thief has Change of Heart
A Florida man apparently had a change of heart after robbing a local convenience store. Jereb Johnson, 21, entered a Tom Thumb store, reached over the counter, grabbed money from the cash register, and fled the store. Before leaving the scene, he returned the money to the cashier.
Johnson was later arrested and taken to jail.
—Source: Pensacola News Journal
Lawsuit Really Stinks
A New York mother is suing the City of Norwalk, Connecticut, because her toddler’s shoes were ruined by dog poop. Kelly DeBrocky claims in her lawsuit that her 1-year-old stepped in dog feces outside the Maritime Garage. DeBrocky seeks $100 in damages. Fifty-four dollars is to pay for the replacement shoes she had to buy her son and the remainder is to reimburse the family for the wasted $50-plus admission fee they paid to enter the Maritime Aquarium. DeBrocky claims their visit to the aquarium was cut short because of the ruined shoes.
“After parking, we exited the garage and my 1-year-old son was walking around the structure outside the door of the garage and stepped in a large pile of fecal matter,” DeBrocky wrote. “I quickly picked him up and brought him to the aquarium and did my best to clean him up. … We had to pay for admission to the aquarium and my son had no shoes and it made the entire experience awful.”
City attorney M. Jeffry Spahr questioned the city’s liability and the need to discard the child’s shoes and clothes. He further opined on the frivolousness of the claim, adding “Some wacky stuff comes across. I don’t know if people are more litigious. My opinion is two things are at play. No. 1, people are resistant to taking responsibility for their own actions and No. 2, they feel there always has to somebody to blame,” Spahr said.
According to Spahr, the city will deny the claim. “The official response is her claim is denied and poop happens,” he said.
—Source: Stamford Advocate (CT)
Spelling Errors Catch an Identity Thief
A would-be identity thief was caught after a series of stupid mistakes, including repeatedly misspelling his victim’s name on order forms.
Lance Coleman of Racine, Wisconsin attempted to steal $47,000 worth of computer and other electronic equipment from Dell Inc. by impersonating Skechers USA Inc. CEO Robert Greenberg. According to news reports, Coleman identified himself as Greenberg when he placed a telephonic order for the equipment. At that time, he gave the correct tax identification number for the company, but misspelled both Mr. Greenberg’s and the company’s name. He also told the Dell account manager that the shoe company was moving its headquarters from California to Wisconsin, and gave his apartment address for delivery. In addition, Coleman gave an email address linked to an Internet provider, rather than a corporate address. That prompted the account manager to alert Skechers and the FBI.
Coleman was arrested at his apartment after an FBI agent, dressed as a delivery man, attempted to deliver the package from Dell and Coleman signed Greenberg’s name. Coleman pleaded guilty to scheming to defraud using the telephone and Internet.
—Source: The Wall Street Journal
Break Dancing
A woman who claims she suffered an injury when she broke the fall of a man who was dancing on a bar is suing a Palm Beach, Florida restaurant.
Kathryn Muth claims she was injured when 275-pound Remington Wayne Lawrence fell while dancing on the bar at Cucina Dell Arte. “This was not a bar that was made for people to dance on,” said Jodi Page, an attorney for Muth. According to the lawsuit, Lawrence landed on Muth, who was sitting nearby, and she suffered a partial tear of her rotator cuff, which required surgery.
Muth and her husband sued the restaurant for negligence and loss of consortium. She further claims that the restaurant violated ordinances, which the lawsuit maintains, “were designed to prevent the promotion of raucous nightclub behavior such as dancing in order to protect the safety and welfare of the public.”
—Source: Palm Beach Post
Tour de Courtroom
Three-time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond has been sued by bicycle-maker Trek for speaking out about steroids and doping in his sport.
Trek filed a federal lawsuit in Madison, Wisconsin, asking for permission to break its contract with LeMond. Trek began licensing a brand of road bikes under LeMond’s name in 1995.
According to news reports, Trek President John Burke stated that LeMond had a “troubling pattern of inconsistent business dealings” and that LeMond’s outspoken comments weakened the brand.
LeMond’s attorney, Denise Rahne, countered that, “Mr. LeMond has been and continues to be an outspoken critic of doping in professional cycling, which should be consistent with what Trek touts as ‘family values.’” Rahne also accused Trek of filing its lawsuit to distract attention from an earlier breach of contract suit filed by LeMond against Trek.
—Source: Chicago Tribune
Neighborly Nuisance
The purchaser of an Arizona home has filed a lawsuit charging that the seller should take the home back for failure to warn him about a neighbor who he claims is a nuisance. Realtor Glenn Melton purchased the home in Phoenix for his daughter in 2005. Shortly thereafter, he learned that the next-door neighbor had called the police with complaints hundreds of times and was arrested for disorderly conduct for throwing potatoes at the seller’s home just five days before closing.
Melton, who believes seller Nathan Thinnes should have disclosed information about the nasty neighbor, sued Thinnes to take the home back. Arizona disclosure laws require a seller to reveal any nuisance that could affect a sale. According to news reports, Thinnes struggled with whether or not to disclose the neighbor’s conduct, but was advised not to by his real estate agent. The agent denies giving such advice.
Thinnes attorney claims the case has no basis. “[Melton] can’t point to any past cases that say neighbors or their disturbances are something that needs to be [disclosed],” said Thinnes’ attorney Geoffrey Crestar. “Did he need to disclose that he had a confrontation with her? Did he need to disclose she uses swear words?”
—Source: ABC News Internet Ventures
Costly Depositions
It’s common practice for a client to pay hefty prices to his lawyer for depositions. It’s less common for the client and his lawyer to pay hefty fines for misconduct during depositions.
U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno of Philadelphia issued a $29,000 fine against attorney Joseph Ziccardi and his client Aaron Wider, chief executive of HTFC Corp., for misconduct during a deposition. According to Judge Robreno’s opinion, Wider engaged in “hostile, uncivil and vulgar conduct, which persisted throughout … nearly 12 hours of depositions.” Judge Robreno found Wider’s attorney culpable as well because he “snickered” at his client’s remarks and failed to stop his client’s tirades.
The objectionable conduct included the use of profanity more than 70 times during the deposition, as well as when opposing counsel asked Mr. Wider to open a file to discuss certain documents, Mr. Wider responded: “You want me to look at something, you get the document out. Earn your [expletive] money, [expletive]. Isn’t the law wonderful?”
Wider claims his inappropriate conduct stemmed from manic-depressive disorder and the recent death of his father.
—Source: The Wall Street Journal
Casinos Dealt Lawsuit by Compulsive Gambler
A former lawyer from New York, who now lives in Minnesota, filed a lawsuit against several Atlantic City casinos and one Las Vegas casino, charging that they had a duty to notice her compulsive gambling problem and cut her off.
Arelia Margarita Taveras, who made a name for herself representing families of victims of American Airlines Flight 587, which crashed in New York’s Queens Borough in 2001, admitted becoming a regular at the casinos in order to relax and get away from her seven day a week law practice which earned her $500,000 a year. But her gambling got out of hand as she would spend days at a time at the tables, not eating or sleeping, subsisting on orange juice and candy bars, and brushing her teeth with disposable wipes.
With her losses totaling nearly $1 million, she dipped into her clients’ escrow accounts to finance her gambling. Ultimately, she was disbarred, lost her law practice, her apartment, her parents’ house and she owes the IRS $58,000.
Now she’s filed a $20 million racketeering lawsuit in federal court against Resorts Atlantic City, Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort, the Tropicana Casino Resort, the Showboat Casino Hotel, Bally’s Atlantic City, and the MGM Grand Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas.
“They knew I was going for days without eating and sleeping,” Taveras said. “I would pass out at the tables. They had a duty of care to me. Nobody in their right mind would gamble for four or five straight days without sleeping.”
The casinos deny any wrongdoing. Joe Corbo, president of the Casino Association of New Jersey, said, “This can be a delicate situation, and it comes down to an individual’s personal responsibility. We can only suggest that they receive assistance and provide information how they can obtain help, but it is up to them to commit to seek it.”
—Source: The Star Tribune (Minneapolis-St. Paul)
Best Buy’s Worst Sale
Admittedly taking a page from former administrative law judge Roy Pearson’s $54 million dollar lawsuit against a dry cleaner over a lost pair of pants, a woman sued Best Buy for $54 million for losing her laptop computer.
Raelyn Campbell filed the lawsuit in Washington, D.C., Superior Court after Best Buy admitted losing the computer loaded with personal information that Campbell had dropped off for repairs. Campbell contends that the amount of the alleged loss is astronomical, but months of stalling and brush-offs by the company upset her so much that she resorted to drastic measures. A Best Buy representative stated that the demands are unreasonable and that settlement offers were denied.
"It wouldn't even cover the cost of replacing the computer, let alone the software, or my time,” Campbell said of Best Buy’s $900 gift card offer. “And why would I want to go spend money at their store again after the way I was treated?"
Campbell rejected the offer, instead demanding $2,100 in cash. At the same time, Campbell was informed by a free legal aid clinic in Washington, D.C., that since her lost computer contained personal information, including her tax return, there was potential for identity theft.
That’s why Campbell also is seeking a promise from Best Buy that it will train employees on privacy issues. “I can't help but wonder how many other people have had their computer stolen (or) lost by Best Buy and then been bullied into accepting lowball compensation offers for replacement expenses and no compensation for identity theft protection expenses,” she said.
—Source: CBSNews.com
U.S. District Judge Denny Chin in Manhattan ruled that a lawsuit can proceed against General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal Inc. over a planned segment of "To Catch a Predator."
In November 2006, a cast and crew from Dateline NBC's television series were waiting outside the home of Louis William Conradt, Jr., an assistant district attorney in Rockland County, Texas, to film his arrest for allegedly attempting to solicit a minor online. Mr. Conradt reportedly shot himself when members of the police SWAT team tried to execute the arrest warrant. NBC later broadcast an episode which mentioned Conradt and his suicide.
Conradt's sister, Patricia, filed suit seeking more than $100 million in compensatory and punitive damages. In his recently issued opinion, Judge Chin allowed the claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and various civil rights violations to proceed against NBC, but dismissed claims of racketeering, negligence and unjust enrichment.
"Although many of plaintiff's claims will be dismissed, the principal claims survive, for if the allegations of the amended complaint are proven, a reasonable jury could find that NBC crossed the line from responsible journalism to irresponsible and reckless intrusion into law enforcement," the judge said.
—Source: Pensacola News Journal and Marketwatch.com
A Washington State man reportedly had his friend shoot him in the shoulder so he wouldn't have to go to work. Now, his friend has been arrested for "investigation of reckless endangerment" and the victim is expected to be charged with false reporting.
According to news reports, shooting victim Daniel Kuch initially told Sheriff's detectives in Franklin County, Washington, that he was the victim of a drive-by shooting while jogging. Later, Kuch confessed to the police that he had asked his friend to shoot him so that he could get some time off work and avoid a drug test.
Kuch's place of employment was not disclosed.
—Source: Pensacola News Journal
When H*** Froze Over in Denver
"In 42 years of litigation, I've never seen a judge set aside a verdict, then award fees to opposing counsel," said local attorney Robert Miller, of Perkins Coie LLP. "There are times when a verdict is set aside, and times when lawyers are sanctioned. But I've never heard of them happening in one case."
That was the response of a local attorney upon learning that a federal judge set aside a jury's $51 million verdict, and then ordered two trial lawyers to pay the fees and costs of the opposing lawyers for allegedly misleading jurors in a patent infringement trial.
Colorado U.S. District Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch chastised McDermott Will & Emery's Terrence McMahon and Vera Elson for "abuse of advocacy" and for having a "what can I get away with?" attitude during the patent infringement trial in Denver. Ruling that the entire trial was "frivolous," Judge Matsch wrote that McDermott's lawyers not only disregarded his instructions during the trial but argued "with full awareness that their case was without merit."
Opposing counsel's lead attorney, Jay Campbell, said, "We're very pleased with the decision. The judge wrote eloquently about the improprieties, that they had litigated to end competition rather than to enforce the patent."
The McDermott firm defended its lawyers by stating it "believes in vigorous and ethical advocacy on behalf of our clients. While we respect Judge Matsch, we disagree with the conclusions of the opinion and believe that it will be reversed on appeal." Contrary to McDermott's prediction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed Judge Matsch's decision to overturn the verdict.
Campbell has until March 12 to present his bill, which could be for millions of dollars.
—Source: The Denver Post
Learning Courtroom Etiquette — The Hard Way
A North Carolina lawyer has been held in criminal contempt for reading a magazine during a court session. District Court Judge Kevin Eddinger issued the contempt order against attorney Todd Paris after witnessing him reading Maxim, a men's magazine, while seated on a bench in court reserved for lawyers. The cover of the magazine prominently featured a female topless model.
According to the court's order, Mr. Paris apologized and "stated in his view the magazine was not pornography, was available at local stores and that he didn't intend contempt." Judge Eddinger found Mr. Paris' conduct to be "grossly inappropriate" and "patently offensive" and "impaired the respect due" the court. Mr. Paris was issued a $300 fine and a 15-day suspended prison sentence.
According to news reports, Maxim is sending both Judge Eddinger and Mr. Paris a one-year complimentary subscription.
—Source: The Wall Street Journal
Chew on this Lawsuit
A Michigan woman has sued Starburst's parent company, Mars Inc., maker of the fruit chews candy, claiming that the candies are so chewy that they should come with a warning label.
Victoria McArthur of Romeo, Michigan is seeking more than $25,000 in damages for "permanent personal injuries" she allegedly suffered after chewing on Starburst's yellow candy. McArthur claims that after about three chews her jaw literally locked and was pulled out of joint. As a result, she claims she now suffers from a condition known as temporal mandibular joint dysfunction, more commonly referred to as TMJ, which allegedly causes trouble chewing, talking and sleeping.
"Prior to said incident, Plaintiff was a reasonably strong and healthy female," says the complaint. "Due to the negligence of said defendant and injuries afore described, Plaintiff became ill, sore and lame."
McArthur's lawyer, Brian Muawad, says McArthur offered to negotiate a settlement with Starburst's insurer to pay for her rehabilitation, but the offer was denied. A spokesman for Mars Inc. refused to comment.
"I don't want to see anybody else have to go through what I have gone through from eating a piece of candy that was supposed to be soft chew," McArthur said.
—Source: FoxNews.com
Homer Simpson Weighs in on Unilateral Contracts
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Boyce Martin recently turned to Homer Simpson for legal support in his dissenting opinion.
At issue in the case: Whether an employee was bound to arbitrate, rather than sue, over an employment dispute when she continued to work at a company after it instituted an arbitration program for employment-related disputes.
In disagreement with the majority's decision, Judge Martin delved into the intricacies of contract law asking "without a signal that she understands that a contract is being made, how is one to know if she has truly accepted."
Judge Martin then footnoted a monologue of Homer Simpson, the father in the popular Fox television series, "The Simpsons."
"Homer Simpson talking to God: 'Here's the deal; you freeze everything as it is, and I won't ask for anything more. If that is OK, please give me absolutely no sign. [no response] OK, deal. In gratitude, I present you this offering of cookies and milk. If you want me to eat them for you, please give me no sign. [no response] Thy will be done.' The Simpsons: And Maggie Makes Three (Fox television broadcast, Jan. 22, 1995)"
Judge Martin, 72, credited his law clerk Anne Gordon with the analogy.
—Source: The Wall Street Journal
A Deadline is a Deadline is a Deadline
Missing a court filing deadline by one minute may prove to be a very costly mistake for a Southern California law firm. Morrison & Foerster LLP may have cost their client about $1 million because their motion for attorneys' fees was filed one minute late.
According to court papers, one of the lawyers with the firm delivered the motion to a courier service at 3:14 p.m., forty-five minutes ahead of the looming deadline. "[We] never had a problem with getting papers filed by 4 p.m. when delivering them to the attorney service [about forty-five minutes before]," one of the firm's attorneys told the court.
The courier reported after encountering "unusually heavy traffic," he arrived at the courthouse one minute late (according to his calibrated watch) and found the doors locked. Federal court Judge Cormac Carney was unsympathetic. "These circumstances, however regrettable, do not meet the standard for 'excusable neglect," Judge Carney wrote. "[T]he entirely foreseeable obstacle of traffic in Southern California in the late afternoon ... cannot justify an enlargement of time."
The law firm's lawyers may take solace in the fact that Judge Carney ruled that even if the motion for attorneys' fees had been filed on time it would have been denied as there wasn't sufficient evidence to justify the award.
—Source: The Wall Street Journal
A Class Action Lawsuit Sours
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the dismissal of a class action lawsuit which sought, among other things, to require sellers of milk to put labels on their containers warning consumers that some may experience adverse symptoms if they drink milk and are lactose intolerant.
According to court documents, the class of plaintiffs, defined as consisting of individuals who consumed milk before becoming aware that they were lactose intolerant, suggested two specific warnings. The first stated, "Warning - If you experience diarrhea or stomach cramps after consuming milk, you may be lactose intolerant. Check with your physician." The second proposed, "Warning - Lactose intolerant individuals may experience bloating, diarrhea, or other gastrointestinal discomfort from consuming milk. Check with your physician."
In affirming the lower court's dismissal, the appellate court concurred that the manufacturers had no duty to warn because the health consequences of being lactose intolerant are well known. "We hold as a matter of law that a reasonable consumer today would be well aware that milk may adversely affect some people," the court concluded, adding that "the risk that milk will cause temporary gas and stomach discomfort to lactose-intolerant individuals who do not yet know of their condition cannot support a failure-to-warn tort claim under D.C. tort law."
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, author of the court's opinion, cautioned that "a bout of gas or indigestion does not justify a race to the courthouse. Indeed, were the rule otherwise, a variety of food manufacturers as well as stadiums, bars, restaurants, convenience stores, and hot dog stands throughout the country would be liable to millions of would-be plaintiffs every day. Plaintiffs' novel claim falls short of what D.C. law requires."
—Source: Law.com
Wii Guitar Hero Not Bringing Shouts of Joy
We knew it wouldn't be long before the highly sought-after, incredibly popular and hard-to-come-by gift of the year, the Nintendo Wii game system, along with its games, ended up being the targets of lawsuits.
San Diego resident Samuel Livingston is suing Activision, Inc., the maker of the popular Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock game, advertised and sold as fully supported on the Nintendo Wii video game console. According to court documents, the Guitar Hero III game does not meet its claim to support Dolby Pro Logic II surround sound for the Wii. Rather, Livingston claims that gamers are only provided with mono sound for nearly all aspects of game play.
Livingston's lawsuit charges that Activision engaged in deceptive and unlawful conduct in designing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling a defectively designed music video game for the Nintendo Wii game console. In addition to seeking class action status, damages are sought in the amount of monies paid for Guitar Hero III games for Wii, and unspecified actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble damages, and such other relief as provided by statutes, equitable relief in the form of restitution and/or disgorgement of all unlawful or illegal profits received by defendant, and the costs of bringing the suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
In reporting about the lawsuit, TMZ.com, a joint venture between Telepictures Productions and AOL, noted, "The true miracle - that this player could rip himself away from the game long enough to actually file a lawsuit."
—Source: TMZ.com and court documents
Judge Rules Delay of Trial, not Game
A state judge in Louisiana agreed to postpone the start of trial because lawyers for both parties had tickets to the BCS national championship game, which was played between Louisiana State University and Ohio State University on January 7th, the same day the trial was supposed to begin.
West Baton Rouge Parish District Judge Alvin Batiste granted defense attorney Stephen Babcock’s request. “All counsel to this matter unequivocally agree that the presence of LSU in the aforementioned contest of pigskin skill unquestionably constitutes good grounds therefore,” Babcock wrote in his written request. “In fact we have been unable through much imagination and hypothetical scenarios to think of a better reason.”
According to news reports, in addition to having tickets to the game, Babcock and other LSU fans had rented out the second floor of a Bourbon Street bar for a pre-game tailgate party. In noting that the lawyers for the plaintiff also had tickets and didn’t oppose the motion, Babcock stated “we might disagree on the merits of the case, but everyone was in agreement on this, for sure.”
—Source: Pensacola News Journal
• For more: Tales Stranger than Fiction, click here.