Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Fox’s thin pelt

Shrinking the parody exception? “Fox News Channel has sued liberal humorist Al Franken and the Penguin Group to stop them from using the phrase ‘fair and balanced’ in the title of his upcoming book. Filed Monday in Manhattan, the trademark infringement lawsuit seeks a court order forcing Penguin to rename the book, ‘Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.’ It also asks for unspecified damages. Fox News registered ‘Fair & Balanced’ as a trademark in 1995, the suit says.” The suit claims that Franken displays a “clear” intent “to exploit Fox News’ trademark, confuse the public as to the origins of the book and, accordingly, boost sales of the book”. (“Fox Sues Humorist Al Franken Over Slogan”, AP/Washington Post, Aug. 11). Last month it was reported that lawyers for Fox had sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Austin, Tex. creators of a T-shirt with a message “Faux News: We Distort, You Comply”, parodying the network’s well-known slogan. (Lee Nichols, Austin Chronicle, Jul. 11; AgitProperties website, Jun. 20).

In June radio talk show host Michael Savage, who at the time also had a TV talk show on MSNBC, sued three critics who had been urging advertisers to boycott his show (“Savage sues ‘rats'”, Southern Voice, Jun. 27; defendants SavageStupidity.com and TakeBacktheMedia). Separately, Savage’s producers fell short in an effort to argue that SavageStupidity.com’s domain name was “confusingly similar” to that of Savage’s own website and should be forfeited. (& more on the Fox/Franken case: New York Times, Eugene Volokh, Kevin Drum, Matt Yglesias, and (via InstaPundit) Alex Knapp, Jeff Jarvis)(& letter to the editor, Dec. 6).

Filed under: , , , , ,

Upcoming in Milwaukee, Oklahoma City

This Thursday, Aug. 14, our editor will be giving a luncheon speech to the Milwaukee chapter of the Lawyers Division, Federalist Society (details). And on Wed., Aug. 20, he’ll address the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs as the final speaker in its Summer Speaker series in Oklahoma City (flyer) (Tulsa Today). In conjunction with the OCPA event he’ll be heard on several broadcast shows in the Sooner State, including, on Tues. Aug. 12 at 1 p.m. CDT, station WKY with host Brandon Dutcher, and on Fri. Aug. 15 at 7:15 a.m. CDT, station KTOK with host Cam Edwards, as well as a discussion show (time TBA) on KFOR-TV (NBC, ch. 4).

Filed under: , , , , ,

A career of suing foodmakers

“A fast-food company like McDonald’s may not be responsible for the entire obesity epidemic,” litigious law prof John Banzhaf tells Time, “but let’s say they’re 5% responsible. Five percent of $117 billion is still an enormous amount of money.” Brian Murphy, a recent Rutgers law grad who attended this summer’s Northeastern U. let’s-sue-foodmakers confab, said: “It’s a very important and pressing issue, and its outcome will be with us for years to come. I’m hoping to be able to build a career out of this issue.”

However, even many anti-sweets activists gag at Banzhaf’s notion of suing school districts that enter vending-machine deals. “Brita Butler-Wall, executive director of Seattle-based Citizens’ Campaign for Commercial-Free Schools, has been lobbying the school board for more than a year to get rid of the Coca-Cola contract. Yet, as a parent of an eighth-grader in a local public school, she says, ‘I don’t want to see our district spending its money hiring more lawyers to fight a legal battle.’ Adam Drewnowski, director of the Center for Public Health Nutrition at the University of Washington, says, ‘If you want to influence the school board, you run for a seat on the board. Threatening a lawsuit is almost like blackmail. It’s just unconscionable.'” (Laura Bradford, “Fat Foods: Back in Court”, Time, Aug. 3).

Filed under: , , , ,

“S. Africa asks U.S. to dismiss suits”

Reparations watch: “The South African government has asked a U.S. court to dismiss a series of controversial multibillion dollar apartheid lawsuits against major multinational corporations, saying they could destabilize the economy. In a motion filed with the U.S. District Court in New York yesterday, Justice Minister Penuell Maduna argued the lawsuits undermine South Africa’s sovereignty and its efforts to redress nearly 50 years of white minority rule under apartheid.” (Wambui Chege, Reuters/Boston Globe, Jul. 30, no longer online; “Government Asks US to Dismiss Apartheid Cases”, SAPA/AllAfrica.com, Jul. 29). For more on the background of plaintiff’s attorney Ed Fagan, impresario of this group of suits, see Jun. 24-25, 2002, Jan. 17-19, 2003, and Nov. 17-19, 2000. Update Jan. 2, 2005: judge dismisses claims.

Filed under: , ,

Thank you

Tonight’s posting winds up my stint as guest blogger. Thanks again to Walter Olson for having me here. Anyone who hasn’t should pick up a copy of his latest book, “The Rule of Lawyers: How the New Litigation Elite Threatens America’s Rule of Law.” And, while you’re at it, read the amazon.com reviews — even a Madison County, Illinois class-action plaintiffs’ lawyer who says his firm is “routinely slagged” on this website admits the book is a “good read.”

Filed under: , ,

Federal bills seek to curb abusive fast-food lawsuits

Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rep. Ric Keller have introduced legislation to bar obesity-related lawsuits against food manufacturers and sellers. (See “US Senator in bid to fry fast-food lawsuits,” ABC News Online, July 18). “Many Americans need to take greater care in what–and how much–they eat. But it is also time to curb the voracious appetite of the personal injury lawyers and put an end to this ridiculous and costly litigation before it gets out of hand,” said McConnell, who managed to work in references to The Onion and diet guru Richard Simmons during his remarks on the Senate floor. For the text of the bills, see S. 1428 and H.R. 339. Apparently undaunted, humorist and Cheez-Its addict Dave Barry says he has decided to “summon up my willpower and accept personal responsibility for filing a huge lawsuit against Big Food.” (“Fatal Attraction,” Washington Post, Aug. 3). See our archives for earlier commentary on fast-food suits – real and satirical.

In other obesity lawsuit-related news, The New York Times has a round-up of employment-discrimination lawsuits brought by obese workers. The newspaper reports that plaintiffs take two different approaches under the Americans With Disabilities Act: “Some claim that their employers should not discriminate against them because they are disabled. Others, using an argument that has had more success in the courts, insist that they are not disabled, and that employers unfairly assumed they could not do the job.” Washington defense lawyer Peter Petesch said: “There’s no magical mathematical formula to say this obese person has a disability and this other person doesn’t. … It’s an individualized assessment. Generally, to be fat or dumpy-looking or not as good-looking as the other applicant isn’t enough to prevail under the Americans With Disabilities Act.” (Steven Greenhouse, “Obese People Are Taking Their Bias Claims to Court,” N.Y. Times, Aug. 4).

Filed under: , ,

Blumenthal embarrassed on gun suits, again

Headline-grabbing Connecticut AG Richard Blumenthal, whom we’ve slammed in this space previously for filing a dubious antitrust action aimed at punishing gun companies for having acted vigorously to stay out of the Clinton administration’s abortive Smith & Wesson deal, has just suffered an embarrassing defeat in his state’s high court. Blumenthal claimed that an email sent by one gun maker constituted proof that gun companies had acted criminally in resisting the S&W deal. But the Connecticut Supreme Court, hardly an assemblage of Second Amendment enthusiasts, has just ruled unanimously that Blumenthal’s claim was false. “[T]he e-mail reveals nothing that suggests an intent to break the law,” wrote Justice Joette Katz for the court. ” … Furthermore, to the extent that the e-mail refers to any action, it is the actions of others, and not of the respondents; it neither advocates that Kimber take any action of its own, nor that others take a particular action.” The new decision upholds the 2001 ruling of Hartford Superior Court Judge Vanessa Bryant that the e-mail was patently an “update of [firearms] litigation developments and does not advocate any criminal or illegal activity.” Will Blumenthal apologize? Will he finally start getting bad press? We’re not getting our hopes up (Thomas B. Scheffey, “Accidentally Sent Gun Industry E-Mail Found to Be Privileged”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Aug. 5).

Filed under: , , ,

“New Jersey bans drowsy driving”

Let’s criminalize everything dept.: “Sleep-deprived drivers who cause deadly crashes now face criminal penalties under a measure that became law Tuesday in New Jersey. The bill signed by Gov. James E. McGreevey allows prosecutors to charge a sleep-deprived driver with vehicular homicide, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $100,000 fine.” It is nicknamed “Maggie’s Law” after the victim of one such collision, thus confirming the truism that any enactment tagged with the given name of some recent victim (“Megan’s Law”, etc.) will combine sentimentality of intent with harshness of result (AP/CNN, Aug. 5). Meanwhile, in Watauga County, N.C., District Attorney Jerry Wilson is trying to charge a methamphetamine defendant with two counts under federal terrorism law — for “manufacturing a nuclear or chemical weapon” — in addition to more conventional drug charges. (“Prosecutor fighting meth using law that punishes terrorism”, Asheville Citizen-Times, Jul. 16) (via Volokh Conspiracy).

Filed under: , ,

NYC to stick property owners with slip-fall bill

In recent years New York City mayors have sought a long list of sorely needed limitations on municipal liability, but have been rebuffed at each turn by the city council and state assembly. Now the city council has deigned to pass one item from City Hall’s request list, and — wouldn’t you know? — it’s the least logical and attractive of the bunch. Under a bill signed last month by Mayor Bloomberg, the city will no longer be liable for claims of injury following falls on sidewalks, currently a $50 million/year drain on the municipal fisc. Instead, the owners of adjacent buildings will be liable — even though they lack even the right (let alone the responsibility) to call in crews to dig up and re-lay sidewalks that cause a hazard by cracking or heaving out of alignment. Moreover, property owners will be required to maintain insurance against this unabatable hazard, which should keep trial lawyers happy by guaranteeing them a convenient pocket to go after. (Frank Lombardi, “City won’t pay up for sidewalk falls”, New York Daily News, Jul. 17). More: reader response and further discussion Aug. 7.