Crystal Timpanaro was sitting in a golf cart near the 16th tee at Owl’s Creek Golf Course in Virginia Beach watching her boyfriend play when a golfer at the 17th hole shanked a drive that hit her, per her lawsuit, which claims inadequate warning and misdesign of the course. (Deirdre Fernandes, “Woman struck by golf ball files suit, alleging design flaw in Beach course”, Virginian-Pilot, Jan. 5).
Archive for January, 2008
Implausible defense department
In a deposition, [Dov Charney, founder and chief executive of casual fashion giant American Apparel] said that during the time of Nelson’s employment he “frequently had been in my underpants . . . because I was designing an underwear line.”
“I’m very proud of the underwear,” he added.
In an interview, he also defended appearing in front of Nelson with just his genitals covered. “The demonstration of the” garment, Charney said, “was a product we were considering — and I was in fit condition for it.” He ultimately decided against putting it in the American Apparel line. “It wasn’t classy,” he said.
(A local designer “burst into laughter” when hearing Charney’s explanation from a reporter; per the New York Post, the garment that the LA Times is too prim to mention is a “sock on his privates”; per Dateline NBC, it appears to have a rhyming name.) Mary Nelson’s suit against Charney is docketed in Los Angeles Superior Court; he denies creating a hostile work environment or propositioning Nelson and claims Nelson was fired for poor performance (which Nelson, in turn, denies). This is the fourth sexual harassment suit against Charney, who won one and settled two. (Carla Hall, “Lawsuit has fashion mogul in spotlight”, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 17; Dateline NBC (via ABA Journal)).
January 18 roundup
- Protection of ugly garage views? Garrison Keillor vs. neighbors in St. Paul, Minn. [NYTimes]
- If you’re a lawyer who practices before the south Florida bench, it’s not a recommended career move to use a blog to call one of its judges an “evil, unfair witch” [WSJ Law Blog]
- Nonprofit sleep-off center that takes in drunks sued after rescuing man who then succeeds in laying his hands on more liquor and drinking himself to death [Anchorage Daily News]
- New Starbucks offering of “skinny” drinks “could easily be considered a form of size discrimination” and lead to litigation, complains ticked-off barista [StarbucksGossip]
- Appearance of impartiality? West Virginia high court judge cavorted on Riviera with coal exec whose big case was pending before his court [Liptak/NYT] Update: Now recused, per WV Record.
- Retired drug enforcement officers sue Universal Studios, saying they were defamed as a group by “American Gangster” [MSNBC]
- Not much likelihood of confusion: shirtmaker Lacoste can’t keep two dentists in Cheltenham, England from using toothy crocodile as logo for their practice [Reuters]
- People seized randomly off street for compulsory jury duty in St. Johnsbury, Vt. and Greeley, Colo. [AP/Findlaw via KipEsquire, Greeley Tribune]
- Federal judge orders attorney Robert Arledge of Vicksburg, Miss. to pay $5.8 million in restitution after conviction for organizing bogus fen-phen claims [Clarion-Ledger; earlier]
- Canada: abuser of crystal meth successfully sues her drug dealer [BBC]
- Animal rights group tries to shut down “happy cows” ad campaign [three years ago on Overlawyered]
“Bush Exempts Navy from Environmental Law” II
After years of wrangling in the Ninth Circuit and lower courts over environmentalist efforts to block Navy anti-sub sonar exercises on the grounds that they disturb marine mammals, the issue may be resolved by a Presidential assertion of national security interest.
A commenter asked why Bush had the authority to do this. President Bush’s order is on-line. The claimed authority is based on 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(1)(B), which reads in relevant part:
After any final judgment, decree, or order of any Federal court that is appealable under section 1291 or 1292 of title 28, or under any other applicable provision of Federal law, that a specific Federal agency activity is not in compliance with [the Coastal Zone Management Act], and certification by the Secretary that mediation under subsection (h) of this section is not likely to result in such compliance, the President may, upon written request from the Secretary, exempt from compliance those elements of the Federal agency activity that are found by the Federal court to be inconsistent with an approved State program, if the President determines that the activity is in the paramount interest of the United States.
The claim by the NRDC that the president’s action is “an attack on the rule of law” and “flouting the will of Congress” is thus invalid: Congress explicitly reserved to the president the power to override a court decision finding a federal agency in violation of the Coastal Zone Management Act by exempting the agency from its requirements. The case has been remanded to district court, but whether it is sound policy to value military convenience over whales is now a political question that will now be resolved by Congress and the President, with nothing more for the court to decide, as the court does not have the authority to second-guess the president’s decision whether something is in the “paramount interest of the United States.”
(Separately, the Navy complied with the National Environmental Protection Act when the Council for Environmental Quality issued a letter (151-page PDF, but pages 3-4 are the relevant ones for the lay curious) under 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11; this will likely get litigated by NRDC, as who better to determine the military needs of the United States than a private litigant and a federal judge?)
Welcome New Zealand radio listeners
I was on Marcus Lush’s Radio Live talk show out of Auckland this morning, discussing American employment law. My book The Excuse Factory: How Employment Law Is Paralyzing the American Workplace is available on Amazon.
Vioxx roundup, January 15-17
(Re-posted from Point of Law.)
CCALA: California schools “ripped off by litigation”
A report from California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse tells us: “In fiscal year 2005, three of California’s five largest school districts (listed above) paid $32.8 million in litigation costs – $8.0 million in verdicts and settlements and $24.8 million to outside counsel.”
I wish the report could have been more persuasive on the costs of litigation: when the unwritten math is done, Los Angeles Unified School District spent less than $40/student on legal costs in FY 2005, which is just under 1% of their budget. (Between 2002 and 2005, the average was $70/student/year, and a little less than 2% of the budget.) Is that too much? Relatively little? I’m hard-pressed to say (school officials do do actionable things that get themselves legitimately sued), and the report does not give us a baseline. Did something change to cause costs to go down by over 60% between 2002 and 2005, or was 2002 (or 2005) an outlier? The report does not indicate. Why does Elk Grove’s number include insurance costs and LAUSD’s doesn’t? (Is the report understating liability expense?)
Other data in the report are more interesting and troubling: “A 2004 study by Harris Interactive revealed that more than half of educators are concerned about the risks of legal challenges in their jobs and most educators feel the current legal climate has resulted in ‘defensive teaching,’” and a sizable majority feel that their own ability to do the job has been adversely affected by liability fears. And there is an extensive report of a lawsuit against a Napa school district dress code that led the school district to change the policy rather than spend a small fortune defending it in court—though that is a consequence more of federal courts’ meddling in school administration on purportedly constitutional grounds (Nov. 2003) than of anything state legislative action can do, if a reminder that presidential judicial appointments really matter.
“Bush Exempts Navy From Environmental Law”
After years of wrangling in the Ninth Circuit and lower courts over environmentalist efforts to block Navy anti-sub sonar exercises on the grounds that they disturb marine mammals, the issue may be resolved by a Presidential assertion of national security interest. (Pauline Jelinek, AP/Google, Jan. 16). Earlier coverage here. More: NYTimes.
Scruggs’s defense unsealed
It will evidently involve trying to get wiretap recordings excluded and seizing on a few of the (many, wandering and seemingly inconsistent) things that informant Tim Balducci said in conversation with Judge Lackey, some of which can be read as portraying Scruggs as out of the bribery loop — though such remarks can be read as simply reflecting the wish of a then conspirator to protect Mr. Scruggs’ plausible deniability, and although other remarks of Balducci’s point in the opposite direction. Coverage: Michael Kunzelman, AP/Biloxi Sun-Herald, Jan. 16; Anita Lee, “Attorney says Scruggs had no knowledge of Balducci’s attempted bribe; trial delayed”, Biloxi Sun-Herald, Jan. 16; Rossmiller, Jan. 16; Folo multiple guest posts). Update: David Rossmiller now has a more substantial post up analyzing the defense (Jan. 17).
The prosecution, for its part, on Tuesday unsealed some explosive new contentions in the case, alleging that mystery figure P.L. Blake, whose role in the disposition of tobacco settlement money has already been the subject of much discussion, was also a behind-the-scenes player in the attempted Lackey bribe. “In a Sept. 28 telephone call secretly tape-recorded by the government, [Steven] Patterson told Balducci his wife had just gotten off the phone with Blake, who had met with Scruggs, [Assistant U.S. Attorney Bob] Norman said.” (Jerry Mitchell, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Jan. 16).
Damages: $0 settlement; Attorneys’ fees: $9.5 million
The lead plaintiff had claimed losses of $25 million, but settled for zero plus some corporate-governance changes that, as a Rutgers professor notes, probably would have happened anyway. But a settlement approved by a New Jersey federal judge in a shareholder suit against Schering-Plough awarded $9.5 million in attorneys’ fees, even applying a multiplier to lodestar hourly rates. [New Jersey Law Journal/law.com; In re Schering-Plough Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:01cv829 (D.N.J.)] Paying for those fees: shareholders, who also paid for what were likely multi-million dollar defense costs of litigation. Judge Katharine Sweeney Hayden, when certifying a single class in 2003, rejected arguments that there was an inherent conflict between class members that had already sold their stock and class members who continued to hold stock; she was appointed by Clinton in 1997.