Litigation and the threat of litigation may be costing California taxpayers more than they know, if a secret settlement of the threat of an employment lawsuit—without approval from the Board of Regents—is more than an aberration. The San Francisco Chronicle reports (via Newmark).
Archive for December, 2005
Judge Murphy’s “fascinatingly repellent” letters
That’s what media critic Dan Kennedy (Dec. 21) calls an excerpt from one of the handwritten letters that Boston judge Ernest Murphy sent to Boston Herald publisher Pat Purcell following Murphy’s securing of a libel judgment of more than $2 million against the newspaper (Dec. 8). One of the letters proposes to Purcell an “AB-SO-LUTE-LY confidential and ‘off the record'” meeting which he is not to tell Brown Rudnick, the newspaper’s chief legal counsel, about.
So here’s the deal. I’d like to meet with you at the Union Club on Monday, March 7….You will bring to that meeting a cashier’s check, payable to me, in the sum of $3,260,000. No check, no meeting.
And Dan Kennedy comments:
This much is certain: If Murphy’s letters are typical of what takes place between parties in a lawsuit, then the legal sausage-making process is a lot uglier than many of us realize.
(via Romenesko, who has links to the Boston press coverage). Boston Phoenix media critic Mark Jurkowitz also covers the story here and (Murphy’s lawyer’s response) here. A Jurkowitz commenter observes: “Settlement discussions are frequently unsightly — they often have a ‘Surrender, Dorothy’ flavor.”
Seatbelts = light cigarettes?
Via Martin Grace, Craig Newmark tag teams with David Kopel on the Price v. Philip Morris case:
The plaintiff’s theory–agreed to, mind you, by the trial court–was that
. . . the marketing of “light” cigarettes was a form of consumer fraud. Because the cigarettes have less tar, some smokers compensated for the lower quantity of tar in an individual cigarette by inhaling deeper, or smoking larger quantities. Thus, according to the trial court, Philip Morris deceived smokers into thinking the cigarettes were safer.
How strange, except that if the theory were widely accepted the plaintiff’s bar would have more work than they could handle until the end of the world. Economists have good evidence that seatbelts change drivers’ behavior a little for the worse. So should any devices–padded dashes, anti-lock brakes, airbags–that make drivers safer. “Child-proof” caps on medicines also seem to have made people less careful in storing drugs. And Kopel notes that the theory seems tailor-made to sue makers of low-calorie foods. If this theory of harm were accepted, all those companies and more–many more–would, I assume, be liable.
Kopel concludes:
That the tobacco companies were sued for manufacturing and advertising a safer product is a good example of the perversity of modern tort law, and of the determination of anti-tobacco extremists to punish cigarette companies even when cigarette companies took affirmitive steps to reduce the dangers of smoking.
“Perversity,” indeed.
Previous commentary at Point of Law and links therein.
Restraining Letterman, frivolously
From “Vic” in the Volokh comments, on the furor over that temporary restraining order against David Letterman [typos cleaned up]:
I think this illustrates the problem with trying to enumerate how many lawsuits are frivolous.
Most attempts at enumerating the amount of frivolous lawsuits have focused on asking judges about their perception of the number of frivolous lawsuits that pass through their corthouse. And the judges say: a trivial amount. I have always felt that the reason this number is said to be trivial is that the judge who allows a garbage lawsuit to go to trial, when he/she could have stopped it from proceeding further, is not going to say: Yeah, it was frivolous, but I didn’t want to throw it out when I could have.
Also David Kopel examines the question of whether it’s now illegal for Letterman to possess a gun (Volokh, Dec. 22). Update Jan. 2 (judge lifts order).
Batch of reader letters
We’ve posted four more missives on our letters page. Among the topics this time: a reader notices a funny warning label on a prescription purchase (“If unconscious, call right away!”; another defends “patent trolls“; the writer of a book about Lord of the Rings tangles with the Tolkien estate; and reflections on discrimination against persons of “Appalachian heritage“.
Silver dragées (& welcome Virginia Postrel readers)
Writing in the L.A. Times Magazine, Andy Meisler profiles Napa-based environmental lawyer and former SDSer Mark Pollock and his crusade to drive silver dragées, the little confectionery balls found on some Christmas cookies and gingerbread houses, out of the California market (while garnering some nice legal fees at the expense of the bakers, food importers and others he sues). (“A Tempest on a Tea Cart”, Dec. 18). Virginia Postrel calls Pollock a petty tyrant, says his activities illustrate the need for serious litigation reform, and has some kind words for us along the way (Dec. 19; also see Reason “Hit and Run”). Jim Hu at Blogs for Industry (Dec. 20) investigates exactly how hazardous the little silver balls are and finds the apparent answer: not very hazardous, compared with many other things people choose to eat. He also points out that “dragée is pronounced dra-‘zhA and is derived from the same root as ‘dredge'”. For more on California environmental-suit bounty-hunting, see Nov. 4-5, 2002, Apr. 6, 2004 and these links.
Zellweger and Chesney marriage annulled
As injustices go, it’s a tiny one. But the everyday citizenry of California has to wait six months after a separation for a divorce decree. Renee Zellweger got around this law by filing for an annulment of her short marriage to Kenny Chesney. Except that annulments are only available on fairly limited grounds. Zellweger plead fraud in her annulment filing—and admitted in a press release within days that there wasn’t any actual fraud, but that she had made the allegation out of convenience. It’s not often that a major celebrity admits committing perjury, and it’s even rarer that a court rewards the admitted perjury with the sought-after relief. But that’s what happened here, and, as of December 20, Zellweger has an annulment that wouldn’t be available to the hoi polloi.
Restraining David Letterman
Colleen Nestler, a resident of Santa Fe, N.M., alleges that late night TV host David Letterman has communicated with her in coded words in his broadcasts, has tormented her and driven her into bankruptcy, and has promised to marry her. So far, nothing terribly unusual as regards the problems celebrities face from fixated fans; Letterman himself long endured the attentions of a female stalker suffering from mental illness, Margaret Mary Ray, who repeatedly was arrested for entering Letterman’s property. This time, however, the law has taken a different attitude: according to the Santa Fe New Mexican, Judge Daniel Sanchez of the district court in Santa Fe late last week granted Ms. Nestler a temporary restraining order against Letterman, which the entertainer’s lawyers are now attempting to get lifted. Ms. Nestler’s application for the order
requested that Letterman, who tapes his show in New York, stay at least 3 yards from her and that he not “think of me, and release me from his mental harassment and hammering,” according to the application.
Nestler’s application was accompanied by a typed, six-page, double-spaced letter in which she said Letterman used code words, gestures and “eye expressions” to convey his desire to marry her and train her as his co-host. Her story also involves Regis Philbin, Kathie Lee Gifford and Kelsey Grammer, whom Nestler says either supported or attempted to thwart her “relationship” with Letterman, according to the letter….
When asked if he might have made a mistake, Sanchez said no. He also said he had read Nestler’s application.
(Jason Auslander, “Letterman lawyers: End Santa Fe claim”, Santa Fe New Mexican, Dec. 21) Discussion: Volokh, TalkLeft, and a hundred others. On judges’ over-readiness to grant restraining orders in cases of alleged domestic violence and its threat, see this set of links. Updates Dec. 23 (discussion); Jan. 2 (judge lifts order).
Advice for civil defense lawyers
When riding in an elevator with jurors who’ve just rendered a verdict against your client, avoid calling them “crackers” to their face (John Shiffman, “Workers’ bias suit ends in win, slur”, Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec. 20).
“Making the Leap from PI to IP”
Some Texas personal injury lawyers, feeling squeezed by that state’s far-reaching liability reforms, are eager to shift into contingency-fee patent litigation work, especially in the plaintiff-friendly little jurisdiction of Marshall, Texas (see Jan. 14)(Alan Cohen, Law.com/IP Law & Business, Nov. 14).