Serial suit-filer Alfred Rava wanted to use his lawsuit against Bear Valley Ski Resort over a “Ladies’ Day” promotion as the basis for a class action, but a judge ruled that he’s not entitled to do that, because California’s Unruh Act already provides for him to get a $4,000 payday with no need to show injury:
“Assuming plaintiff succeeds on the merits, Bear Valley Ski Resort would be liable for mandatory statutory penalties of $4,000 X 995 putative class members,” [Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Anthony] Mohr wrote. “The product of $3,980,000 constitutes a draconian sum that would strip Bear Valley of its assets.”
What happened to Sacramento businesses when they offered “Furlough Friday” discounts to state workers whose pay had been cut? They found themselves the target of demand letters from an unnamed entrepreneurial San Diego lawyer who alleged that the discounts violated the state’s famously broad Unruh Act ban on discrimination, and demanded cash settlements. Lawmakers took the step of seeking and obtaining the support of the powerful state trial-lawyers’ group, Consumer Attorneys of California, for remedial legislation, which is “something you don’t see every day: trial lawyers backing a bill that would eliminate some lawsuits.” [Sacramento Bee]
Bruce Nye at Cal Biz Lit has more on the California lawyer and his numerous sex-bias challenges to stadium Mother’s-Day events and the like (Jun. 12, etc.). A coupon settlement with $260,000 in attorney’s fees is mentioned.
By reader acclaim: ESPN’s Rick Reilly is righteously hacked off at California serial litigator Alfred Rava and his sex discrimination settlement over an Oakland A’s breast cancer promotion which gave out floppy sun hats on Mother’s Day to women attending the game but not (horrors) to men. (“Make $100 the sleazy way“):
So how many guys have lined up to get their rightful floppy-hat-equivalent payment that was stolen from them by those selfish Mother’s Day-manipulating women? “Well, I haven’t taken a single call so far,” said the 1-888 operator at the firm handling claims. “And I’m here just about every day.”
Anti-feminist litigant Roy Den Hollander had claimed that Columbia University violated the law by offering courses in the study of one gender but not the other. A judge disagreed. [Corey Kilgannon, NY Times City Room via Elefant] Hollander has made earlier appearances at this site through his lawsuits against “Ladies’ Night” discounts at drinking establishments.
- Judges overheard chatting in coffee shop about sweetheart class settlement [WageLaw via Paul Karlsgodt’s weekly class action blog roundup]
- More attempts to sue/uncover anonymous blog commenters: “I was subpoenaed for a discovery deposition about one of my posts on this blog.” [Medblogger Dr. Wes]
- Thoughts prompted by the latest (NYC) round of litigation over “ladies’ nights” at drinking establishments [David Giacalone, f/k/a]
- Head of state (Bolivia’s Morales) to his lawyer: “If it’s illegal, go ahead and make it legal. That’s what you went to school for.'” [Cato at Liberty]
- Everybody run! Perennial Overlawyered mentionee Steve Berman has a blog [Class Action Law Today via his P.R. guy in Kevin O’Keefe comments]
- When infamous NYC lawyer Burt Pugach calls, hang up [Greenfield]
- Colleague described as “a soap opera doctor” elects to spend more time in the courtroom than in the operating room [Throckmorton]
- Dear Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee: “Please resist the efforts of vaccine-injury plaintiffs’ advocates to define themselves as representatives of ‘the autism community.'” [Kathleen Seidel, Neurodiversity]
Although lawsuits against “Ladies’ Nights” discounts have prevailed in California and Colorado, a New York judge has thrown out Roy Den Hollander’s much-publicized suit seeking class action status on behalf of men not offered discounts at China Club and other Manhattan nightclubs. (AP/CBS News, Sept. 29; earlier here, here, here, and other posts at our tag). More: Hollander was advancing the relatively unusual argument that the discounts were unconstitutional, which failed when the judge declined to find that they constituted state action; earlier lawsuits against the discounts have generally been based on anti-discrimination statutes, and the case might have come out very differently had those theories been relied on.