To borrow the summary from the highly recommended Arts & Letters Daily: “The British love their trees, but across the land beautiful old trees are being chopped down in their thousands. The reason? Safety rules and hungry lawyers… ” (Michael McCarthy, “Green giants: Our love affair with trees”, Independent (U.K.), Apr. 25). Earlier: Dec. 3, 2006, etc. More: Scott Greenfield says don’t blame the lawyers, blame the towns and other authorities for overreacting.
Archive for April, 2008
FACTA receipts, restaurant coupons and “annihilating” damages
Entrepreneurial lawyers have launched a thriving industry of class actions demanding statutory damages of $100-$1000 per violation (times the number of customers) from businesses that continue printing too much credit card information on receipts despite a federal law requiring them to stop that practice, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA). Kings Family Restaurants, a Western Pennsylvania chain, has agreed to distribute coupons, as well as very non-couponic attorney’s fees, in one such case (WSJ law blog, Apr. 25). “Coffee Bean Tea & Leaf, a Los Angeles-based coffee-shop chain, agreed to give customers free drinks and pay customer lawyers $110,000.” On the other hand, judges have not always gone along with demands for class certification: “Costco, the largest U.S. warehouse-club chain, might have to pay as much as $17 billion without having harmed anyone, U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz said in January, refusing to certify a class action. That’s 15 times the Issaquah, Washington-based company’s 2007 profit.” (Cynthia Cotts, “Costco, Kinko’s Battle Trial Lawyers Over Credit-Card Receipts”, Bloomberg, Apr. 5). One tactic, used in suits against U-Haul and In-N-Out Burger, is to limit the scope of the class action to a few stores or locations, on the theory that a court that might not let a class action with “annihilating” damages go forward might yet approve one inflicting a nonfatal though large shark-bite. (Matthew Hirsch, “Plaintiffs Attorneys Think Globally, Act Locally in Financial Privacy Cases”, The Recorder, Aug. 27, 2007). Among the 300+ defendants in receipt suits is 1-800-FLOWERS, whose attorney David E. Block expresses outrage:
“In 22 years, I have never had a plaintiff sit across the table from me and say, ‘I have no damages. My identity hasn’t been stolen. I’m just bringing this lawsuit because I can,'” said Block of the Miami office of Jackson Lewis. “There’s something inherently wrong with a lawsuit where the plaintiff has no injury.”
(Tresa Baldas, “Landslide of Suits Over Data on Receipts”, National Law Journal, Apr. 7). “Receipts” needn’t actually be printed out in a shop or public place to trigger the act; those that flash on a customer’s home computer screen count too. (WSJ law blog, Apr. 8). Our earlier coverage: May 10 and Oct. 31, 2007, and Apr. 4 of this year.
After Casey Martin: accommodation demands in sports
Marc Edelman, guest posting at Above the Law (Apr. 24):
For an example of one of the more extreme disability claims, in Badgett v. Alabama High School Athletic Association, 2007 WL 2461928 (N.D. Ala. 2007), the parents of a wheelchair-bound student with cerebral palsy, Mallerie Badgett, brought a claim arguing that wheelchair-bound students should be allowed to compete for team points against able-bodied students running in a track race on foot. According to the complaint, “Miss Badgett [was] concerned that competing in a separate wheelchair division [would] affect her ability to receive college scholarships and other benefits.” The Northern District of Alabama ultimately, and wisely, denied Badgett’s request for a preliminary injunction.
Edelman also discusses the better-known controversy in which the Lausanne-based Court of Arbitration for Sport will consider (presumably not applying U.S. law) the appeal of double-amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius who will be arguing that his prosthetic legs do not in fact provide an edge over real legs.
Lott v. Levitt, Part X
As we discussed in Part IX, one of John Lott’s two claims was settled, when Steven Levitt apologized for e-mails he sent another economist. It’s questionable how much satisfaction Lott can get from this, since, as an economist, he surely realizes that, without a loser-pays rule or agreement, there is a pooling equilibrium whereby both the sincerely-apologizing Levitt and the insincerely-apologizing Levitt would take the same course of action to avoid spending tens of thousands of dollars defending a de minimis allegation of libel, regardless of the merits of the claim.
The more significant, if less meritorious, claim of libel in Freakonomics is on appeal; Lott is now claiming that the case should have been decided under the allegedly more friendly Virginia libel law than the Illinois law under which his claim fails, but that is generally an argument for (at best) a claim of legal malpractice, rather than for a do-over for an expressly waived argument in federal court. Lott has posted the briefs; David Glenn blogs about the 2-year mark in the case. Not that I think Lott has a valid legal malpractice claim, either, unless his attorneys told him he had a good shot at winning more than he would spend in legal fees.
Lott does interesting economic research, and it is unfortunate he is tarring his reputation with a lawsuit that has the potential to impinge upon academic freedom.
“Beat a woman to a pulp, demand $10 million in damages”
That’s Carter Wood’s hard-to-improve-on headline over an item on how two youths involved on the perpetrator side of a sensationally vicious attack onboard a Maryland bus are now suing over being barred from the bus system. (“Teen ‘Ringleader’ In Bus Beating Sentenced To Juvy Jail; Boys To Sue MTA, Schools”, WBAL, Apr. 24; Point of Law, Apr. 24; Jeff Quinton, Inside Charm City, Apr. 23; Malkin, Apr. 23).
Great moments in judicial campaigning
I’m all in favor of traffic court judges being fair to defendants, but was this one pledging to be more than fair?
Philadelphia Traffic Court Judge Willie F. Singletary was elected in November despite having had his driver’s license suspended until 2011 for accumulating $11,427.50 in fines for 55 traffic tickets.
Now Singletary is in danger of losing his three-month-old robe – and the $82,733-a-year paycheck that goes with it – for a campaign appearance videotaped and made public on the YouTube Internet site.
It was an appearance that raised $285 for his campaign.
The state Judicial Conduct Board filed five misconduct counts against him Tuesday for an April 22, 2007, campaign appearance in which he pressed a group of motorcyclists for campaign donations.
“You’re all going to need me in Traffic Court, am I right about that?” he asked the group.
(Joseph A. Slobodzian, “Traffic court judge may lose his seat”, Philadelphia Inquirer, Apr. 24)(via ABA Journal)
Jay Greene on NYT bullying story
In addition to being a colleague of mine at the Manhattan Institute, Jay Greene is 1) a prominent national expert on education who 2) is based in the college town of Fayetteville, Ark., so I was eager to hear what he had to say about Dan Barry’s New York Times article of last month which called shame on the Fayetteville schools for their supposed toleration of the horrendous bullying of an unoffending high school student by the name of Billy Wolfe. Today Greene has a blog post on the case which concludes, as did I in my Apr. 8 post, that Barry’s coverage was by no stretch of the imagination responsible or balanced. Greene zeroes in on Barry’s assertions that “It remains unclear why Billy became a target…” and that “[Billy] has received a few suspensions for misbehavior, though none for bullying,” both of which appear, at best, grossly misleading in the light of a police report aired in the Northwest Arkansas Times detailing Billy’s alleged aggressions against other students, physical and otherwise. Greene also observes that his inquiry to the New York Times public editor about the discrepancies has gone unanswered aside from a form response. He adds:
Finding the police report and collecting all of the interviews found in the NW AR Times article would have required — uhm — reporting. It was much easier to take the story that the Wolfes’ attorney was peddling. And yes, the Wolfes are suing some of the other students and are planning to sue the school district. Barry’s article may read like a plaintiff’s brief because there actually is a plaintiff’s brief out there. …
Unfortunately, the Fayetteville School District is inexperienced with handing national reporters and they are handcuffed in responding to accusations because of student privacy issues and a pending lawsuit. Dan Barry from the NYT was able to ride roughshod over a small town school district. Maybe the Gray Lady is the most obvious bully here.
The full post is here. Among other local coverage not linked in my earlier post is an editorial in the Northwest Arkansas Times, Mar. 30, and John Brummett, “Bullies Crying ‘Wolfe'”, Northwest Arkansas Morning News, Apr. 2.
P.S. And now Gawker is on it.
“Sued for ‘OK’ eBay feedback”
Steve Shellhorn didn’t leave negative feedback after a not entirely satisfactory transaction on the online auction site, but “neutral” feedback can harm reputation too, according to the seller’s suit. Although a judge in the plaintiff’s Buncombe County, N.C. home court threw out the action, “It cost Shellhorn $500 to hire an attorney. ‘I’m very leery. I won’t leave feedback for people anymore,’ he said.” (Jesse Jones, KING5 News (Seattle), Apr. 24).
Tort Deform
Tort Deform is the effort of trial lawyers to undo successful civil justice reforms, even naming a blog after the concept. ATRA has a new report out, “Defrocking Tort Deform,” listing some of the pending state legislation on the issue. Related: my April Liability Outlook on revivers and retroactive lawsuits.
Second Circuit tosses Whitman case
Longtime Overlawyered readers may remember my tut-tutting the original proprietor of the Bizarro-Overlawyered site for misrepresenting a Southern District of New York opinion by claiming that its disposition of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion was an affirmative finding of fact that Christine Todd Whitman had acted improperly in the wake of the September 11 attacks. (In fact, all the court did was rule that the case could go forward on the allegations of the plaintiffs’ complaint.) The Second Circuit has now spanked the district court for going even that far, and tossed the entire case, ruling that this was not an appropriate inquiry for the judicial branch, given the risk that officials will be deterred from making public statements if they could be held liable for allegedly making a mistake. Good analysis of Benzman v. Whitman by Stephen Bergstein via Bashman.