“[Joe] Francis spends a lot of money on lawyers” as both a defendant and plaintiff, and generates a lot of Overlawyered posts in the process (Sept. 28-30, 2001; Mar. 6-7, 2002; May 1, 2006; July 4) as well as extensive comment threads. Sunday’s LA Times article, which will no doubt presage other litigation, is grounds to reopen the topic.
Archive for August, 2006
“Our Lawyer Made Us Change The Name Of This Song So We Wouldn’t Get Sued”
Peter Lattman reports about the band Fall Out Boy:
“Our Lawyer Made Us Change The Name Of This Song So We Wouldn’t Get Sued” was originally called, “My Name is David Ruffin and These Are the Temptations,” Wentz says. After Ruffin broke with the famed Motown group, he kept attending shows and would steal the microphones away from his former bandmembers, unable to wean himself from the limelight. Wentz says his original song title, “was a play on Ruffin’s egomania and general narcissism.” Here are the song’s lyrics.
Wentz’s father advised his son against using the song title, for fear that the group would be sued. Did the younger Wentz listen? “No, because he was my dad. He advised me against a lot of things that I do,” he said with a playful hint of mischief in his voice. According to Wentz the Younger, the band’s lawyers also told them they’d be slapped with a hefty lawsuit, and offered up a few options — they could sign a waiver; include a reference to Ruffin in the song (which somehow would shield against a lawsuit); or change the name of the song.
Lattman wonders why including Ruffin’s name in the song would shield against a lawsuit, and the answer comes from the Sixth Circuit’s deplorable decision in the Rosa Parks case, which we covered Apr. 15, 2005:
The Sixth Circuit held that the rappers did not have a first amendment right to name their song “Rosa Parks” because they could have called it “Back of the Bus” rather than use an allusive title. One looks forward to more federal court diktats over song titles. (Parks v. LaFace Records (6th Cir. 2003)).
Lattman reports that Wentz says the band is hit with a lawsuit a day and has to retain an attorney half-time.
Self-parody law firm employment case
Scanning through million-dollar verdicts looking for Overlawyered stories, I found this $1.1 million verdict against a California law firm for failure to accommodate an attorney who asked to be able to bill 140 hours a month while undergoing treatment for liver disease.
Not especially notable, but I was highly entertained that the law firm’s defense was that it really fired Warren Snider because he took time off to go to his father-in-law’s memorial service. (Tina Bay, “Jury Awards Lawyer $1.1 Million in Wrongful Termination Suit”, Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Aug. 7).
Update: Crime & Federalism has more.
Walter Olson on Carruthers
“If American criminal law applies to servers in Costa Rica, might authorities in other countries not try to impose their law on servers based in Texas? You might almost bet that will happen, were it legal to bet.” Walter has a good piece in the London Times on the David Carruthers arrest (Jul. 27, Jul. 20).
The Vioxx litigation scam
I have an op-ed in today’s New York Sun on shenanigans in recent Vioxx litigation, and what it means to the calls for a “global settlement.” For more on the Vioxx litigation, see our ongoing coverage at Point of Law.
Update: David Bernstein comments.
Defense verdict in Mississippi lead paint case
Five Mississippi plaintiff families wanted to claim their children’s learning disabilities were the fault of a lead paint manufacturer. Unfortunately for them, the parents also had learning disabilities (and some were even considered retarded by social workers), and the defense (led by Kirkland & Ellis’s Michael Jones) was able to successfully argue that genetics was at least a likely cause as environment. (Sheila Byrd, AP, Aug. 4; Townhall.com, Jul. 13). Undeterred, the plaintiffs’ attorney, Michael Casano, plans to bring further lawsuits on behalf of other residents of the decades-old apartment buildings.
$18 million “sudden acceleration” verdict in South Carolina
It’s been nearly two decades since NHTSA refuted the concept of sudden acceleration, yet state courts are still permitting junk science experts to put forward irreproducable theories of electromagnetic interference taking over cruise control. Seventeen-year-old Sonya Thomas claims EMI caused her automobile to take off, causing her to lose control and kill a passenger and paralyze herself. Of course, rather than turn the cruise control off or hit the brakes, Thomas unbuckled her seatbelt and reached under the seat to unstick a gas pedal, which is more consistent with her jamming the gas pedal under an upside-down floormat than anything else. Never mind: though belted passengers were uninjured in the 70-80 mph crash, the South Carolina state jury awarded $18 million to the plaintiffs, and the American automobile industry died a little bit more. (Paul Alongi and Jess Davis, “Cruise control led to crash, jury says”, Greenville News, Aug. 7; Julie Howle, “Jury begins deliberations in crash trial”, Greenville News, Aug. 6; Julie Howle, “Witness disputes seat-belt usage in crash”, Greenville News, Aug. 5; Julie Howle, “Jurors in lawsuit see hard evidence in 1999 rollover”, Greenville News, Jul. 25; “Jury Hears Claims Of Ford Explorer Problems”, WYFF4, Jul. 20).
(March 2010 update: Reversed.)
$9 million back injury verdict tossed in Indiana
Christopher Berrier claimed, along with his for-hire medical experts, that his back injuries were solely the result of falling on a treadmill at a fitness club. The appeals court reversed because the trial court did not allow the defendant to question experts over Berrier’s previous “back injuries from playing football, a car accident and a fall down seven stairs at work.” (Reliable Development Corp. d/b/a The Fitness Barn v. Christopher Berrier, Jul. 31; AP, Aug. 2). Dr. Linda Stewart had testified that Berrier had absolutely no problem with his back before the date of the accident, so one can see the prejudice in not permititng cross-examination on this point.
Pro-plaintiff liability reform
Here’s a case where loser-pays would have helped the plaintiff. Municipal liability is capped in Florida at $100,000. The city lawyer for Hollywood, Florida, refused to settle an auto accident case for $85,000, though he acknowledges the defense case is weak, because he (correctly) saw little downside. Hollywood is also appealing the jury verdict for the plaintiff. “Why not?” (John Holland, “Rejected crash settlement could cost Hollywood more than $1 million”, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Aug. 4).
Breaking: $105 million Aramark verdict reversed
The New Jersey court’s opinion yesterday in Verni v. Harry M. Stevens ordered a new trial because of the unfairly prejudicial evidence introduced at trial. (Laura Mansnerus, “Court Overturns Jury Award Against Stadium Concessionaire”, NY Times, Aug. 4; Kibret Markos, “Paralyzed Cliffside girl may have to go through new trial”, NorthJersey.com, Aug. 4).
Plaintiffs sought to blame a drunk-driving accident several hours after a Giants game on stadium beer vendors, a feat eased when the drunk driver, Daniel Lanzano, settled with plaintiffs and changed his testimony to be consistent with their theory of the case. Lanzano drank at two go-go bars after the game. The court also noted the failure of the jury to be instructed to consider the relative liability of other settling parties that the plaintiffs had sued in a shotgun complaint, including the NFL, the Giants, Toyota, and Michael Holder, who committed the sin of drinking with Lanzano that day. We had provided extensive coverage from the beginnings of the suit: Oct. 10, 2003; Jan. 21, 2005; a must-read Feb. 2, 2005 post; Jun. 6.
Update: another aspect of the appellate court opinion is that it recognized corporate boundaries. The trial court sought to hold Aramark liable for alleged negligence of its subsidiaries.