“The New York Police Department is trying to give back about 6,000 cars that were confiscated in the last five years or so from suspects in drunken driving and other criminal cases, city officials said yesterday.” The city’s practice of seizing vehicles in the absence of any finding of guilt — and sometimes notwithstanding actual acquittals of the drivers (see Jan. 31, 2000 and links from there) — fared badly before judges. Among those who deserve credit for correcting the abuses are federal judge Michael Mukasey, who handed down rulings chastising the city for its failure to observe due process, and Tom O’Brien, a lawyer for the Legal Aid Society who filed the original challenge in 1999. (Susan Saulny, “City Police Giving Back Seized Cars”, New York Times, Mar. 9)(via Vice Squad)(more on forfeiture/seizure: Mar. 19-20, 2001; May 25, 2000; Jul. 21, 1999).
Author Archive
Update: court OKs “ghost blurber” case, Sony likely to settle
After a California court of appeals ruled that a class action could go forward against Sony Pictures over its use of quotes from “ghost blurber” David Manning, the company said it was preparing to settle the case. (see Jun. 12, 2001). Judge Reuben Ortega, dissenting from his colleagues’ decision to let the suit proceed, wrote: “This is the most frivolous case with which I have ever had to deal. Imagine the great contribution this case will make to our quality of life and to justice in America. … A new day will dawn from which time no one will ever again be fooled by a promotion touting a movie as the greatest artistic accomplishment of the ages. From that day on, all persons will be able to absolutely rely on the truth and accuracy of movie ads. No longer will people be seen lurching like mindless zombies toward the movie theatre, compelled by a puff piece. … I cannot see breathing life into this farce. We should be occupying ourselves with resolving legitimate disputes instead of laughable cases designed not to gain anything for the plaintiffs, but rather to generate fees for the only true beneficiaries of this disgrace, the attorneys.” (opinion in PDF format).
Last year, Sony agreed to pay the state of Connecticut $325,000 following an investigation by grandstanding state AG Richard Blumenthal. The Connecticut connection that Blumenthal seized on? Well, it was that the (fictitious) Manning had been said to work for a (real) newspaper in Connecticut, the Ridgefield Press. “When the scandal was revealed, the Ridgefield Press demanded only an apology from Sony, which it got. ‘We’re not interested in grubbing money,’ [executive editor Jack] Sanders said. ‘A lot of people suggested we sue, but we’re not that kind of people. We just hope they don’t subpoena us to fly out and testify, unless they’re going to pay for transportation.'” (Emanuella Grinberg, “Moviegoers to settle with studio after being lured by phony critic”, CourtTV, Mar. 8). Update Aug. 3, 2005: Sony settles for $1.5 million.
Cheeseburger seconds
“Given that a 2003 Gallup Poll found that 89 percent of Americans don’t believe in blaming the fast-food industry for obesity, you’d think the bill is unnecessary. I take this vote as Washington’s way of recognizing that in America, a bad idea, given enough time, will gain support, take root and become law.” (Debra Saunders, “If you are what you eat, then sue”, San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 12). “Victor Schwartz, a leading expert on tort law who has been advising the National Restaurant Association, says these lawsuits still face formidable obstacles. He thinks a greater danger to the industry is that at some point state attorneys general will start filing lawsuits demanding compensation for Medicaid expenses, as they did with tobacco.” (Jacob Sullum, “Fast Food Damnation”, syndicated/Reason, Mar. 5). Blogger Kevin Drum (Calpundit) is torn and, he says, open to argument: “On the one hand, I don’t think much of using civil damage suits aimed at a specific industry as a way of changing social policy. Down that road lies madness. But at the same time, I also don’t think much of Congress exempting specific industries from the civil justice system. That can lead to some madness of its own.” (Mar. 11). Vice Squad (Mar. 11) has links on various topics including McDonald’s elimination of its Supersize offerings and developments in the U.K. on food regulation. The roll call on Wednesday’s vote is here. (See Mar. 11 and links from there.) More: in a commentary for Knight-Ridder, Fort Worth editorialist Linda P. Campbell defends the suits (“A helping of tort with your fast food”, Nov. 12, 2003). Restaurants are feeling the heat (Kim Severson, “Make it a super size, then call your lawyer”, San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 12, 2003).
Chocolates, roses, and s. 17200
Tim Sandefur has collected more examples of unsuccessful, but inevitably expensive, lawsuits invoking California’s abuse-fraught s. 17200 private-attorney-general “unfair competition” law (see Dec. 8 and links from there). All three were rejected by the Court of Appeal. In one case, Consumer Cause, Inc., associated with veteran s. 17200 impresario Morse Mehrban, had demanded damages from an auto show producer that had provided female visitors to its shows with complimentary chocolates and roses, but had made similar gifts available to men only after an affirmative request. In a second case, an attorney had sought to employ s. 17200 as a surrogate obscenity statute by suing AT&T cable services demanding a refund of all fees collected for showings of pay-per-view adult film fare. The attorney’s suit had also sought forfeiture of AT&T’s profits from the films, revocation of its cable franchise (useful as a negotiating point, that one), and of course attorneys’ fees. (Feb. 20). Yet a third s. 17200 suit was filed against abortion clinics arguing, to quote Sandefur, “that providing abortion without disclosing alleged health threats to the mother, was unfair competition under Business and Professions Code 17200”. It was dismissed under the state’s anti-SLAPP (use of litigation for harassment) statute (Feb. 24).
“Student’s mom to sue in bus attack”
Jacksonville, Fla.: “The mother of a 12-year-old boy whose videotaped beating on a school bus received national attention last month has formally notified the Duval County School Board that she is suing.” Eddie Farah, attorney for Sashemia Small, “said the attackers should have been in one of the school system’s alternative schools for students with discipline problems.” School Superintendent John Fryer, however, says: “If you were to go back and penalize every student who had more than one referral … we wouldn’t have enough alternative schools.” Small’s lawyers also say they intend to sue the First Student school bus company for failing to prevent the incident. In a company policy no doubt informed by fears of litigation, “First Student drivers aren’t allowed to touch students, even to break up a fight.” (Paul Pinkham & Cynthia L. Garza, Jacksonville Times-Union, Mar. 9).
Senate refuses to block gun suits
The House-passed bill (see Feb. 25) that would have protected firearms makers from being held liable for criminals’ misuse of guns died last week in the Senate, although endorsed by a substantial majority of members of that body. Why? Well, it seems quite a few Senators had to pretend to like the bill, given its popularity with the voters back home, but in fact were happy to see poison pill amendments attached to it that they knew would lead to its demise. (Edward Epstein, “Gun-liability bill dies in Senate”, San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 3). Editorial writers of leading newspapers opposed the lawsuit restrictions with sniffish near-unanimity; it’s not as if George Soros were funding a litigation campaign that placed them at risk of bankruptcy, after all. Gun-bias-watcher Alphecca (Mar. 8) finds a few balanced press accounts of the week’s doings, but not many. More: another helping from Alphecca. And the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action ran a story last year (Chris W. Cox, “One Big Victory, Now Another Big Battle”, May 15, 2003) summarizing the progress of the bill as well as quoting highlights from my, and others’, House testimony.
Nuestros hermanos
For flowers or other expressions of support to the people of Spain, the address is:
His Excellency Inocencio Aris
Spanish Embassy
2375 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Phone (202) 452-0100
For a list of Spanish consulates around the United States, click here. (via Dean Esmay, among others). Update: Glenn Reynolds has photos and eyewitness accounts of demonstrations of support for Spain in Washington, D.C. (more net reaction)
Cheeseburger bill passes House
By a vote of 276 to 139 with most Democrats opposed, the House gave its approval to a bill that would bar lawsuits against the food industry over obesity. (Christopher Lee, “House bill bans suits blaming eateries for obesity”, Washington Post/San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 11). The bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate; similar legislation is pending in many state legislatures and has passed in Louisiana. Jacob Sullum at Reason “Hit & Run” has two good commentaries on the bill. It’s “disconcerting to see Congress instructing state courts to dismiss patently absurd lawsuits. I worry that it’s not really necessary. I worry more that it is,” Sullum writes. (Mar. 9). Sullum also catches GW law prof John Banzhaf talking out of both sides of his mouth about whether obesity lawsuits have been successful (Mar. 10).
One activist quoted in the new coverage is Ben Kelley, who in cooperation with Prof. Richard Daynard has taken a prominent role in organizing conferences advising lawyers on how to sue the food industry (see Elizabeth Lee, Andrew Mollison, “Food fans weigh in”, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Mar. 10). It turns out that this is none other than the same Ben Kelley we covered ten years ago when we examined how litigation consultants working with trial lawyers have successfully promoted bogus media coverage of alleged auto hazards, including NBC’s famous use of hidden incendiary devices to portray GM trucks as prone to explode (Walter Olson, “It Didn’t Start With Dateline NBC”, National Review, Jun. 21, 1993.) The pro-foodmaker Center for Consumer Freedom has more on Kelley’s recent activities: see Dan Mindus, “McLawsuit Lies”, National Review, Oct. 29; “Trial Lawyers Up Demands On Food Companies”, Oct. 30; “Update: Obesity War Loses Discredited General”, Nov. 4.
MedPundit Sydney Smith thinks (Mar. 10) that the much-headlined new study purporting to find that obesity claims more lives than smoking “is, all things considered, a very weak study. Certainly too weak to be the foundation of sweeping public policy.” For more of our coverage of obesity litigation, see Aug. 11, Jun. 20, Sept. 4, Aug. 6, Jul. 21, Jul. 3, Jul. 3 again, Jul. 1, Jun. 24, and a great deal more here. More: Radley Balko dissents from the bill on federalist grounds (Mar. 11)(& letter to the editor, Mar. 18).
Abrupt demise of doc-suers database
Targeted by trial lawyer allies in a short but effective media campaign, the website DoctorsKnow.Us (see Mar. 9) has now closed up shop, leaving the following message: “DoctorsKnow.Us has permanently ceased operations as of 3/9/04. The controversy this site has ignited was unanticipated and has polarized opinions regarding the medical malpractice crisis. Our hope is that this controversy will spark a serious discussion that results in changes that are equitable to both patients and physicians. All charges that have been collected will be returned to members and trial members.” It was probably just a matter of time until their antagonists figured out a way of suing them, anyway. More: notwithstanding claims by Texas Watch’s Dan Lambe that doctors violate ethical rules if they decline to accept potentially litigious patients, the Wall Street Journal reports: “Doctors are required by their ethics codes to treat patients in emergency situations. When there is no emergency, however, physicians generally can choose whether or not to see a patient.” (Rachel Emma Silverman, “Site on Litigious Patients Shuts”, WSJ, Mar. 11, sub$; MedRants, Mar. 6, Mar. 7). Ironically (or maybe not), Lambe’s group, which orchestrated the press brouhaha and which professes to be scandalized that plaintiffs would be included in a database without any showing that their suits were faulty, has itself campaigned for the state to make public a database of complaints against doctors themselves, even though many of those complaints prove unfounded (Andis Robeznieks, “States eye tougher stance on doctor discipline, competency testing”, American Medical News (AMA), Mar. 3, 2003)(includes quote from Texas Medical Association official calling Texas Watch “a front funded by the trial lawyers” whose “purpose is to fan the flames”). For more on the role of Texas Watch in the state’s malpractice politics, see Texans for Lawsuit Reform press release, Sept. 4, 2003. Yet more: Bard Parker (Cut to Cure) has some reflections about what the press regards as hot news as regards the withdrawal of physician services, and what it does not (Mar. 15)(& letter to the editor, Apr. 2).
Trial lawyers flex muscle in Tex. races
The plaintiff’s bar had reason to crow after Tuesday’s Texas primaries: it knocked off several incumbent Democratic lawmakers who had backed tort reform or cooperated with GOP leadership on other issues. (“Tort reform, redistricting created challenges for incumbents”, AP/News 8 Austin, Mar. 10)(see Feb. 3). Tort lawyers poured more than $100,000 into the campaign of Alma Allen, who upset State Rep. Ron Wilson for the Democratic nomination in Houston’s District 131, and similar amounts into Abel Herrero’s successful challenge to incumbent state Rep. Jaime Capelo in Corpus Christi. (Lori Rodriguez, “Wilson challenge points up Democrats’ divisions”, Houston Chronicle, Mar. 6; Tim Eaton, “Politics draws doctors, lawyers”, Corpus Christi Caller-Times, Mar. 3). Their most important vehicle was a PAC called “Texans for Insurance Reform”. Texas political observer David Guenthner writes to National Review Online (Mar. 10) that the trial lawyers have “consolidated their control” over the state Democratic party and “sent a message that minority Democrats who don?t toe their line can kiss their careers goodbye.”