From London, an unsettling tale of zealous policing (Nicky Samengo-Turner, “The policeman found my penknife. ‘You’re going down, mate,’ he said”, Daily Telegraph, Nov. 28; “New Labour’s police state”, The Spectator, Nov. 27).
Archive for November, 2004
PETA wields s. 17200
One of the most justly unpopular of animal-rights groups is hoping to exploit the speech-suppressing potential of the California law invoked in Nike v. Kasky: “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Inc. accused the California Milk Advisory Board of violating the state’s unfair competition law by portraying an idyllic lifestyle for California dairy cows while knowing they endure a “harsh, uncomfortable and often painful existence.” The group is appealing a San Francisco judge’s ruling that the law’s false-advertising provisions cannot be invoked against a governmental entity such as the milk board. (Mike McKee, “PETA Cries Over Cow-Filled Milk Board Ads”, The Recorder, Nov. 18). For more on Nike v. Kasky, see Jul. 1, Jul. 9, Sept. 14, 2003. (Update Jan. 16, 2005: appeals court rules against PETA.)
Suing car dealers
Litigation against auto dealers has gotten better-organized and more entrepreneurial, according to a report in the trade publication FastTrack.
“We probably have 12 to 13 lawyers down here who make their living solely on suing auto dealers,” says Ted Smith, Executive Director of the Florida Auto Dealers Association. “The Florida litigation environment for dealers is an evolving nightmare. It is a norm to see an attorney bring a case for damages of $10,000 and a court award of $200,000 in attorneys’ fees. There is no way to stop the trial lawyer from churning fees even [in] small damages cases.”
California lawyers invoked the state’s famously broad consumer-protection laws to sue about 1,200 auto dealers for sins that included using the wrong font size in ads or using the acronym “A.P.R” instead of spelling out “Annual Percentage Rate”. Dealers were graciously afforded the chance to settle for $10,000 apiece. (Matt Pinnell, “Hunt for the Frivolous Lawsuit”, FastTrack (AIADA), Fall). And New Jersey lawyers have hit nearly every dealership in the state with class actions alleging excessive or poorly disclosed fees for vehicle registration and other services; settlements have been controversial, however, for providing juicy fees to the lawyers while affording consumers only coupons. (Charles Toutant, “Car-Dealer Class Actions: Coupons for Clients, Big Bucks for Lawyers”, New Jersey Law Journal, Nov. 3).
“Repeat Caesareans Becoming Harder to Avoid”
“Women around the country are finding that more and more hospitals that once allowed vaginal birth after Caesarean, or VBAC (commonly pronounced VEE-back), are now banning it and insisting on repeat Caesareans. About 300,000 women a year have repeat Caesareans. The rate of vaginal births in women who have had Caesareans has fallen by more than half, from 28.3 percent in 1996 to 10.6 percent in 2003. …
“On a practical level, many women prefer vaginal birth because they recover more quickly and with less pain than they do from a Caesarean. In addition, each Caesarean increases the risk of complications in the next pregnancy, so women who want more than two or three children often hope to avoid the operation.
“Some doctors and hospitals freely acknowledge that fear of being sued has driven their decisions. Hospitals say they cannot comply with guidelines issued in 1999 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which call for a doctor to be available ‘immediately’ throughout active labor during such a birth, to perform an emergency Caesarean if needed. Previous guidelines had called for them to be ‘readily’ available.” (Denise Grady, New York Times, Nov. 29)(via Lone Star Times). We covered the issue Jul. 18, 2003.
Latest newsletter
The latest installment of our free periodic newsletter went out this afternoon to its c. 2300 subscribers, covering the last three or four weeks’ worth of postings in cryptic, occasionally droll style. It’s a great way to keep up with items you may have missed; when you’re finished, pass on the email to let a friend know about the site. Sign up today, right here.
MEMRI v. Juan Cole
It seems that getting involved in debates over Mideast politics counts as a high-risk activity, legally speaking. Aside from the defamation suits and threats of suits advanced by the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) (see Sept. 17, Nov. 24), the pro-Israel Middle East Media Research Institute has now threatened legal action against one of its ideological opposite numbers, University of Michigan professor and blogger Juan Cole. (Reason “Hit and Run”, Nov. 24; Cole blog, Nov. 24; Crooked Timber, Nov. 24). And Cole himself, it develops, has been known to menace his critics with threats of legal action (Martin Kramer, Nov. 25; Reason “Hit and Run”, Nov. 26). For more, see Mickey Kaus, Nov. 25 (scroll), and David Frum, Nov. 27.
Basketbrawl II
John Green, accused of throwing the cup that sparked a mini-riot at a Pistons game (Nov. 24), appeared on Larry King Live with his attorney, who can’t be said to have done his client much good when he allowed him to go on the air, where he was bound to get asked an obvious question, with this result:
U.K. mulls cameras in courts
“We don’t want our courts turned into U.S-style media circuses,” insists the Blair government’s Lord Chancellor. In that case, maybe the British would be better off emulating our federal courts, which generally (unlike state courts) disallow televising of proceedings and have mostly managed to avoid the popcorn-justice syndrome. (“Should Trials Play on the Telly?”, AP/Law.com, Nov. 16).
ADA filing mills defended
And now, by way of giving our opposite numbers their say: the disabled-rights magazine Ragged Edge is out with a pair of articles defending the accessibility filing mills that roam the land grinding out lawsuits against restaurants and other small businesses, with demands for legal fees an important part of the negotiations (see Jul. 9, Mar. 9, Jan. 14 and links from there). The main article gives us a mention (Mary Johnson, “The Lawsuit Dilemma”, Nov.). A shorter companion piece includes the following interesting comments:
With a lawsuit, the disabled person has [a] lawyer (and the lawyer will, in the end, be paid by the defendant). With a lawsuit, their attorney can hire an ADA consultant, who will also be paid by the defendant. The costs of preparing for negotiating, the costs of drafting settlement agreements, the costs of mediation (including paying the mediator) can all be paid by the defendant. With a lawsuit, there is money to pay for these things. Without a lawsuit, there is no money. …
By suing. we are in the driver’s seat. …
Nonprofit groups handling ADA compliance efforts can be funded through lawsuits. One of the more active disability rights plaintiff organizations in this country has been able [to] do its work because it receives donations from the lawyers who earn fees representing the organization’s members in ADA lawsuits.
(Fred Shotz, “Why Suing is Important”, Nov.)
Damn Yankee lawsuits
Elsewhere in dollar-sign-headlines in Thursday’s New York Post, Nicholas Malossi was ejected from a September 22 Yankees game when a player’s wife complained to security of being harassed. He and his friend, with their lawyer, David Brickman, are suing the Yankees, the security company for the Yankees, and the city for $6 million. A city lawyer called the suit frivolous. (Carl Campanile, “Fans $lug Yanks”, New York Post, Nov. 25). “In the coming weeks, Brickman is also expecting to file another lawsuit against the Yankees that involves a 14-year-old Clifton Park resident who was physically denied a ‘beanie buddy’ promotional gift at the stadium turnstile because he was thought to be too old.” (Robert Cristo, “Local fans drop Bronx bombshell”, Troy Record, Nov. 26).