Michael Krauss at Point Of Law today reports on a securities action against drugmaker Bristol-Myers Squibb in which the company won an outright dismissal of the case (“with prejudice” = cannot be filed again), but paid $300 million anyway rather than take its chances on appeal. Also at Point Of Law today: the Federal Trade Commission is throwing a conference next month on the subject of protecting consumers in class actions; and if you want a press pass to the ATLA convention, be aware that certain kinds of press are not welcome. Update Mar. 2, 2005 (judge in Bristol-Myers case slashes fees).
Author Archive
Beware the Indian-artifacts police
A 1990 federal law restricts commercial trade in American Indian archaelogical remains and so-called sacred objects, and pressures public institutions to hand over (“repatriate”) such holdings to tribes. According to its critics, the law has begun to put a serious crimp in archaelogical investigation of the North American continent. It also menaces legitimate dealers of artifacts with prison terms over vaguely defined offenses, all while providing the adherents of certain religious tenets (those claimed to be traditional native beliefs) with powerful legal muscle not available to those of us who may hold other (or no) religious beliefs. (Steven Vincent, “Grave Injustice”, Reason, Jul.). For the “Kennewick Man” controversy, the most famous thus far to arise under the law, see Feb. 14 and links from there. For cases with sometimes-overlapping effect arising from a federal law which restricts trade in artifacts whose components include the feathers of eagles and other protected birds, see Sept. 11-12, 1999.
Update: Supreme Court ducks ADA stadium-seating issue
Despite a split between circuits on the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to resolve “whether disabled moviegoers must be given better seats than the front-row accommodations they’re provided in many new stadium-seating theaters. … Instead, at the urging of the Bush administration, they left undisturbed rulings against two theater companies while the government reviews its guidelines for movie theater owners.” (Gina Holland, “Court Dodges Fight Over Disabled Seating”, AP/WTOP, Jun. 28; “Supreme Court decision lets disabled sit away from the picture”, KATU, Jul. 1; “Beyond the letter of the ADA” (editorial), The Oregonian, Jul. 3; Christine M. Garton, “Disabled Moviegoers Fight Stadium Seating”, Legal Times, Jun. 24). For more on the controversy, see Nov. 11 and links from there.
Latest newsletter
The latest installment of our free periodic newsletter went out this afternoon to its c. 2300 subscribers, covering the last month or so’s worth of postings in telegraphic, even punchy style. It’s a great way to keep up with items you may have missed; when you’re through, you can forward the email to a friend or three to let them know about the site. Sign up today, right here.
Update: “Friends” harassment case headed for Calif. high court
The California Supreme Court, which must know a hot case when it sees one, has unanimously agreed to review the recently reinstated harassment lawsuit in which Amaani Lyle, fired as a writers’ assistant on the TV comedy “Friends”, complained that the atmosphere in the scriptwriters’ office had included joking about women and sex (see Apr. 23, Jul. 19) (Mike McKee, “Calif. Justices Hit Rewind on ‘Friends’ Suit”, The Recorder, Jul. 23).
Capped in Canada
Pain and suffering awards — not just in suits against doctors, but in suits generally — top out at $280,000 (U.S. $210,000) in our northern neighbor’s courtrooms. More details at Point of Law (Olson, Krauss, Krauss). Also discussed there this week: a new report on the incidence of medical errors (Krauss, Olson). And Jim Copland, the site’s managing editor, dares tort czar Fred Baron to substantiate his claim that drug, insurance and chemical companies “have spent over $200 million over the last five years in ad campaigns that make trial lawyers look like villains”.
“Pay the lawyers in coupons, too”
The editorialists of Denver’s Rocky Mountain News (Jul. 25) are critical of the settlement of a class action suit against AT&T Wireless said to be worth a maximum of $20 million in coupons, airtime and other benefits. Under the deal, most former subscribers will be offered noncash benefits with a value not to exceed $3, while current subscribers will be offered noncash benefits with an estimated average value of $10.50. Denver law firm Hill & Robbins (see also Jun. 9) is asking for $3 million cash in fees, plus $750,000 in expenses. The suit challenged the cell-phone company’s practice of delayed roaming charge billing, under which some roaming fees were not charged to customers’ bills until the next month, resulting in a detriment to those customers who had used up all their allotted minutes in the later month. See also John Accola, “Lawyers’ bonanza in AT&T lawsuit”, Scripps Howard/Sun, Jul. 20 (via Colorado Civil Justice League).
Welcome New York Times (and Wonkette) readers
Yesterday John Tierney in the New York Times quoted me calculating that the $2.4 million that the Democrats paid for general liability insurance for their four-day convention amounted to roughly $500 per delegate/alternate, or about $120 per day apiece. My suggested line for Sen. John Edwards’s acceptance speech: “I’m worth it.” (John Tierney and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Rehabilitating the L-Word”, New York Times, Jul. 29). For more on the Democrats’ insurance bill (they paid an extra $86,000, on top of the $2.4 million, to add terrorism coverage), see “Democrats’ Insurance Coverage To Top $2.6m For Convention”, Bestwire (A.M. Best & Co.), Jul. 12.
Also welcome to readers of Wonkette, which picked up the item (Jul. 29). I should point out, however, that contrary to the site’s description of me I’m not a lawyer.
The “litigatory equivalent of road rage”
Regarding a dispute between a townhouse owner and his homeowners’ association: “Their quarrel, which began over a basketball hoop and a parking space, has resulted in at least four separate actions, with an intimation of more to come. At a loss as to why so little has generated so much conflict, we can only surmise that we are in the middle of what may be the litigatory equivalent of road rage. The number of actions, the sheer ferocity with which they have been pursued, and the inconsequential nature of what has been sought offer us little hope that we are wrong in this assessment.” — Maryland Court of Special Appeals in Campbell v. Lake Hallowell Homeowner’s Association (PDF) (via Dave Stratton, Insurance Defense Blog, Jul. 19).
Victory in St. Louis (again)
“Saying a newly revised Missouri law bars such legal action, a state appeals court refused Tuesday to reinstate the city’s [St. Louis’s] lawsuit that sought compensation from gunmakers, distributors and related trade groups for gun-related injuries. … Tuesday’s decision upheld a St. Louis County judge’s dismissal last October of the city’s 1999 lawsuit. In that ruling, Circuit Judge Emmett O’Brien said such lawsuits would open ‘a floodgate to additional litigation,’ and that ‘issues of both logic and fairness’ favored throwing out the case.” (Jim Suhr, “Appeals court rejects St. Louis city’s lawsuit against gunmakers”, AP/Kansas City Star, Jul. 27)(via Conservative Contrarian)(see Oct. 29).
More: One of the few bright spots for the anti-gun side has been a decision by the Indiana Supreme Court allowing the city of Gary’s suit to stay alive. The victory however was not exactly a famous one: “Although Indiana’s high court ruled that the city’s pleadings were legally sufficient, the unanimous panel expressed skepticism that Gary’s counsel could connect all of the links in the causal chain from manufacturer to injured party.” (Andrew Harris, “Court reinstates Indiana gun suit”, National Law Journal, Jan. 5).