…providing for sanctions against attorneys in federal cases who do not make reasonable inquiries into fact or law before submitting pleadings, motions, or other papers. No surprise to anyone there.
Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure are you? (via Michelle Boardman, Volokh Conspiracy).
74-year-old Irving Rosenberg forgot that movies at the Tamarac discount movie theater were $3 on Friday nights rather than $2. Behind him in line, Yvonne Schuss impatiently kibitzed, words were exchanged, and Yvonne’s 68-year-old (and legally blind) husband Seymour interceded. In the resulting one-punch brawl, Mr. Rosenberg was knocked to the ground, lapsed into a coma, and died sixteen days later. (Mr. Schuss’s manslaughter trial ended in a mistrial this month.)
Naturally, the party to sue is the West Broward County theater, for failing to provide adequate security in the event of a retiree riot–Mr. Rosenberg’s lawyer, Michael Sobel, feels the omission is so egregious that he is seeking punitive damages. Mr. Sobel also blames the theater for failing to open the box office for 7 pm movies until 6:30, which he believes led to the frayed tempers. (Jon Burstein, “Tamarac movie theater sued for not hiring security to control unruly retirees”, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Feb. 23; “Mistrial declared in senior’s ticket-line manslaughter trial”, CourtTV, Feb. 7).
The Brennan Center at NYU Law School would typically be found on the opposite side of many or most of the views aired on this page. Which makes it all the more broad-minded of them to have invited me in as the speaker tomorrow (Tuesday) at their periodic lunch series at their Manhattan offices (161 Ave. of the Americas, 12th floor, (212) 998 6730.) I’ll be speaking to the question: “Should Progressives Favor Curbing Litigation?” and arguing the affirmative, naturally. Reservations: 212-992-8647 or email ab145 – at – nyu – dot – edu with a subject line of RSVP: Conversations.
Updating our reports of last Dec. 14 and Jul. 30: a judge in Alaska has approved a plan to divide $40 million in settlement proceeds from a lawsuit charging price-fixing in purchases of Alaskan sockeye salmon. Plaintiff’s lawyers will get $16.4 million in fees and expenses, defendants who prevailed in court will get $13.8 million to pay their lawyers and legal costs, and plaintiff fisherman will share less than $10 million. (“Court approves salmon lawsuit settlement”, AP/Anchorage Daily News, Feb. 6)
The editorialists of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch have described the court system of nearby Madison County, Ill., as aromatic (see Sept. 26, Jan. 5, etc., etc.), but now a group called Victims and Families United has formed to defend the county’s far-famed litigation culture. According to the group’s spokeswoman, “behind every lawsuit is a real victim or family who is seeking justice and democracy”. (Sanford J. Schmidt, “Victims say suits justified, to offer malpractice fixes”, Alton Telegraph, Feb. 17). Was the formation of this group a totally spontaneous outpouring of gratitude by the citizenry of Madison County toward its benefactors in the plaintiff’s bar? Some have their doubts: David Giacalone (Feb. 19) is one who suspects that these particular grass roots “got fed some fertilizer”.
Drafted with the specific intent (at least on the part of two of its best-known framers) of banning a wide range of legislatively enacted “civil unions” as well as same-sex marriage, the ghastly Federal Marriage Amendment is anything but conservative: it would succeed in damaging both federalism and the principle of separation of powers. (Jacob Levy, “Law Breaker”, The New Republic Online, Feb. 18). See Alan Cooperman, “Little Consensus On Meaning Of Marriage Amendment”, Washington Post/Constitution Center, Feb. 14 (“principal drafters” Profs. Robert George and Gerard Bradley acknowledge that they intended to ban some forms of civil unions); letter from several libertarian/conservative law professors opposing FMA (Volokh Conspiracy, Sept. 11).
Yet more links: MarriageDebate.com (published by FMA supporters, but airing both sides); FamilyScholars.org (also a mix of views); Volokh Conspiracy (numerous posts, use search function); AndrewSullivan.com; LawfullyWedded.com; Jack Balkin, Feb. 14; Prof. Bainbridge, Jan. 21 (endeavoring to defend Bush stance); Three Years of Hell, Feb. 11 (arguing that FMA would merely curb judicial activism on civil unions); David Horowitz, “Wrong Idea, Wrong Time”, TechCentralStation.com, Nov. 24; David Brooks, “Give everyone access to the power of marriage”, New York Times/International Herald Tribune, Nov. 25.
A Hinds County, Mississippi, jury has ordered the well-known law firm of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz to pay $595,000 in compensatory and $750,000 in punitive damages to 34-year-old Jack Muirhead, Jr. The case began when Muirhead, who had been attending an employee meeting, got into a brawl in a hotel parking lot which resulted in a $2,900 jury verdict against him. An insurer for Muirhead’s employer denied coverage on the advice of the Baker, Donelson firm that the altercation was not employment-related, and Muirhead sued, first winning a $500,000 bad faith settlement against the insurer and then cooperating with it to sue the law firm. After the latest verdict, the attorney for Baker Donelson noted that the plaintiff “has gotten $1.845 million for a parking lot brawl. The guy who lost the fight got $2,900.” (Jimmie E. Gates, “‘Wrong’ advice nets damages”, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Feb. 12; “Law firm hit with $595,000 judgment”, Feb. 11). Says an editorial in the Greenwood Commonwealth: “Pundits have argued that real tort reform will only come when the lawyers start suing the other lawyers…. that time has arrived.” (“Lawyers feel sting of absurd verdict”, Feb. 15)
Careful about letting a friend or relative crash at your house: various Floridians found themselves in for legal complications when temporary guests decided they didn’t want to leave. Calling the sheriff doesn’t necessarily work, and it’s legally hazardous to have locks changed, cut off utilities or put the interloper’s possessions out on the street. (Marcus Franklin, “Law slanted in favor of unwelcome guests”, St. Petersburg Times, Feb. 17).
“We are not going to lose the race for lack of funds”, said Dallas trial lawyer Fred Baron, finance co-chairman of the Edwards campaign (and poster boy for legal ethics) as the Wisconsin primary approached. (Rob Christensen and John Wagner, “Edwards sees no reason to surrender”, Raleigh News and Observer, Feb. 12). The challenge for Edwards’s fund-raising was spelled out by the Washington Post last month (Paul Farhi and Thomas B. Edsall, “Filling War Chests Key As Campaigns Progress”, Jan. 21): “The North Carolina senator has received a higher percentage of large donations than any other major candidate — 83 percent were between $1,000 and $2,000, the maximum allowed by law. Many of these donations came from plaintiffs’ attorneys, members of Edwards’s former profession. This means that many of Edwards’s donors have ‘maxed out’ and can give no more money. For Edwards to become fully competitive in the race for cash, he will have to find new contributors beyond his trial-lawyer base.” Why, even many of the paralegals, receptionists, bankrupt support staffers of law firms and their nonvoting husbands have maxed out (see Hill News, May 7, 2003). For more on Edwards’ fund-raising, see Feb. 3; Jan. 27; Jan. 23, 2004; Aug. 5 and Apr. 7-8, 2003; and Jul. 18 and May 1-2, 2002. More: Kerry press secretary Stephanie Cutter imprecisely describes Edwards campaign as “wholly funded by trial lawyers” (Adam Nagourney and David M. Halbfinger, “Kerry and Edwards Square Off as Dean Abandons Campaign”, New York Times, Feb. 19)
Edwards’s self-reinvention as the candidate of trade protectionism has provided another reason for sensible voters to steer clear of him. As Alex Tabarrok notes: “In his stump speech, John Edwards is fond of empathizing with the plight of a 10-year old girl ‘somewhere in America,’ who goes to bed ‘praying that tomorrow will not be as cold as today, because she doesn’t have the coat to keep her warm.’ Yet, as John Tierney points out, ‘clothing has become so cheap and plentiful (partly because of textile imports, which Mr. Edwards has proposed to limit) that there is a glut of second-hand clothing, and consequently most clothing donated to charity is shipped abroad. The second-hand children’s coats that remain in America typically sell for about $5 in thrift shops.’ (emphasis added)”. See “Nader Searches for His Roots”, New York Times, Feb. 15. To be sure, Edwards has some familiarity with the internationalization of markets: when the populist Senator and his wife left their Massachusetts Avenue mansion to trade up to a nicer mansion on P Street, they disposed of the old one “for $3 million to the Hungarian government for use as an embassy”. (Marc Fisher, “Regular Guys Who Live In Mansions”, Washington Post, Feb. 17). See also Byron York, “John Edwards Cares about YOU!”, Roll Call/National Review Online, Feb. 17. (& welcome WSJ “Best of the Web”, Andrew Sullivan, Mickey Kaus, and (thanks!) Steve Bainbridge readers)
Fox, who was previously on the offense when its sister network Fox News complained about Al Franken’s use of “fair and balanced” (Nov. 22 and links therein), now finds itself subject to a demand letter from Gold Circle Films, who complains that the title “My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancé,” a reality prank series that ends Monday, is too similar to the 2002 movie title “My Big Fat Greek Wedding.” (Sarah Hall, “Big Fat Stupid Lawsuit”, E! Online, Feb. 18). Neither the makers of the 1992 Swedish movie “My Big Fat Father” nor, to bring it full circle, Al Franken, who wrote the 1996 book “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot,” have commented.
This is not just a 21st-century issue. Urban legend has it that a movie studio complained that the movie “A Night in Casablanca” would be confused with the more memorable Humphrey Bogart movie “Casablanca”; Groucho Marx responded (perhaps as a publicity stunt) in a letter by noting that the Marx Brothers were brothers long before Warner Brothers was using the term. “I am sure that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo. I don’t know whether I could, but I certainly would like to try.” (Groucho Marx, 1946).