Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Archive for August, 2008

Trainspotting? Man Jumps from Train, then Sues

A U.S. District Court judge threw out the lawsuit of an Amtrak railroad passenger who claimed he injured himself when he jumped from a train that he had boarded in error.  If you guessed that alcohol would somehow be involved, you are correct.  You can download the whole decision here.

The facts are even more interesting with confusion from the plaintiff as to who sold him his ticket and how he boarded the wrong train, proving once again that you can’t make this stuff up. The Court’s decision has the details:

On the evening of May 19, 2005, the plaintiff consumed approximately five large tequila-based margarita cocktails [note to court: don’t all margaritas have tequilla?] at a New Haven restaurant before walking to the New Haven Railroad Station. …

The plaintiff testified that the ticket agent told him that the train was on track number eight, that it was already there, and that it was the last train  so he “better hurry.” Without looking at the announcement board in the train station, the plaintiff walked to platform eight and boarded out-of-service Metro-North train number 1570. The train’s doors then closed and the train traveled for between seven and fifteen minutes before stopping at the New Haven Train Yard.

When the train doors opened, the plaintiff noticed that the train was not stopped at a platform, and he walked throughout the train and yelled for assistance but was unable to find anyone. Unable to see the ground below the train, the plaintiff jumped from the train car and injured his ankle. He then called 911 with his cell phone. Metro-North police responded, and the plaintiff was transported to Yale New Haven Hospital.

And then, of course, he sued….

Filed under: , ,

“The Inverted Federalism of Grider v. Compaq”

As good an argument for the Class Action Fairness Act as any: Trial lawyers sued Compaq in Texas over an allegedly defective disk controller, though none of the plaintiffs had ever suffered a malfunction or a loss of data, alleging a violation of Texas consumer fraud law on behalf of a nationwide class.  No dice: the Texas Supreme Court threw out the case, noting that Texas law did not permit the sort of nationwide class action contemplated by the plaintiffs.  End of story?  Nope: the same trial lawyers filed the same complaint again, this time in Oklahoma state court, and asked the Oklahoma state court to apply Texas law to a nationwide class.  “Sure thing!” the court rubber-stamped–applying an ersatz version of Texas law rejected by Texas courts.  The forum-shopping was able to extract $40 million in attorneys’ fees from a questionable coupon settlement, as an Overlawyered post noted August 6.  The Summer 2008 issue of State Court Docket Watch includes my essay discussing why this is a constitutionally problematic set of decisions by Oklahoma courts–written before, though published after, the Anthony Caso analysis for WLF.

Filed under: , , , , , ,

Edwards scandal updates

  • Those who saw only the earliest version of our Friday post on Lee Rohn, the Virgin Islands attorney whose name came up in National Enquirer coverage, will want to check out the updated version, which notes Rohn’s categorical denial of the Enquirer story’s veracity and other important additions. Commenters have been adding to the picture as well;
  • Ted must be feeling prescient regarding his speculations about an Edwards-contributor refund class action now that Warren Buffett has weighed in on the idea [Kaus]. And in fact the Edwards campaign does seem to be refunding some contributions in interesting ways, if one account pans out (bundlers! Thomas Girardi! John O’Quinn!) [DBKP, more, yet more]
  • Edwards moneyman and perennial Overlawyered mentionee Fred Baron will be at the Democratic convention in Denver, and there’s little chance his name will fade from the news right away since he’s been a key backer of Sen. Biden as well [Matthew Mosk, WaPo]

Filed under: , , , ,

Law Professors for McCain

If you ignore that fact that I’m included, it’s an impressive list, as is the Lawyers for McCain Steering Committee.  If you’re a law professor interested in joining the list, do drop me a line.

I should further disclose that I am doing some pretty exciting (if unpaid) consulting for the campaign; as it will require some travel, blogging will be light from me for the next few days.

Filed under: , ,

Is It In the Job Description?

And you thought you had a tough day at work.

Apparently, that pales in comparison to the day that one undercover cop had from Texas. His job was so rough, he claims that he had to have sex with a prostitute during a sting operation.  Unfortunately for him, his superiors didn’t think it was required. After being suspended, he’s brought suit challenging his discipline. At trial, here is his, ahem, money quote: “If you are asking if I had an orgasm, yes. It was a job, sir,” the cop said. “I didn’t have pleasure doing this. I was paid to do it.” (Beaumont Enterprise, 8/21)

Filed under: , ,

Wrestlers Slam WWE and Claim: We’re Not Independent Contractors

What would Andre the Giant have thought about a new lawsuit just removed to federal court on Friday?  Three wrestlers, Scott Levy (better known as Raven), Christopher Klucsarits (known as Chris Kanyon) and Michael Sanders (“Above Average” Mike Sanders), have brought a class-action lawsuit against the Connecticut-based World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. company alleging that they have been misclassified as “independent contractors” instead of employees. They are seeking unspecified “financial benefits” that would have come with being an employee.  WWE has denied the claims in a 10-Q filing but has not filed a formal response yet.   Of course, Overlawyered has chronicled lawsuits like this before — previous a group of strippers also claimed that they were not independent contractors.   (You can read more about the claims and download the lawsuit directly at my site here.)

Filed under: , ,

Guest Blogger: May The Schwartz Be With You

Ever wonder who that “Schwartz” is listed under the “Other Law Blogs” links on the right of this page is? (Go ahead and check, I’ll wait.)

Well, it’s none other than me, Dan Schwartz, your guest blogger for the week.  I’m honored to be guest-blogging here for the week — nearly one year after I started my very own Connecticut Employment Law Blog.  When I’m not blogging, I’m a lawyer for Pullman & Comley, a terrific medium-sized firm that represents lots of businesses in Connecticut and beyond.   I’m a mere cub next to Overlawyered’s grizzled vets, but I’ll try to keep up with the pace this week.

So what do I blog about? Well, the blog’s title is that obvious, but it’s a little more than that too.  Crazy laws and strange cases are always ripe for discussion, but so does the item that passes beneath the radar.  Too often, employment cases are given short shrift with important details left out.   Litigation is much more complex than just winners and losers and sometimes the “loser” of the case may actually be the “winner” if they’ve done better than a settlement demand, for instance.

What’s on the agenda this week? You’ll just have to check back.  But keep forwarding those tips, suggestions and feedback.  And my sincere thanks to Walter and the Overlawyered team for the opportunity.

Filed under: ,