Liability roundup

  • “Syracuse woman sued for not letting adopted cat sleep in bed with her” [CNYCentral]
  • St. Louis talc cases: “Thus, in order to vindicate their Due Process rights regarding personal jurisdiction…, the defendants had to litigate with over $5 billion in potential liability hanging over their heads. Not too many defendants [can] do that.” [Jim Beck on Johnson & Johnson win]
  • Allegation: “instructed Thomas to get behind the wheel of Thomas’ Avalanche to make it appear that Thomas was driving the vehicle at the time of the staged accident.” [WDSU on indictment of five in New Orleans car-crash scheme] “Those cameras right there saved between $150,000 and $200,000 just by capturing the fraud and us not having to go and defend it.” [Mike Perlstein, WWL] “Don’t listen to the lawyers, take tough action to curb [Louisiana] car insurance costs” [R.J. Lehmann and Marc Hyden, The Advocate; earlier here, here, and here]
  • Washington Legal Foundation monograph on judicial oversight of expert testimony [Evan Tager et al.; related webinar] “Stupid expert tricks,” pharmaceutical edition [Jim Beck]
  • “Art Imitates Life: ‘Billions’ Describes Six-Figure, Part-Time Jobs On Asbestos Trusts” [Daniel Fisher, Legal Newsline, 2018]
  • “DOJ eyes requirement that False Claims Act whistleblowers disclose litigation funding” [Alison Frankel, Reuters, remarks by Deputy Associate Attorney General Stephen Cox]

Public university professor: First Amendment should bar required union representation

In the 2018 Janus decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects individual public employees from having to financially support unions to which they do not wish to belong. But labor law continues to require “exclusive representation”; individual public employees may not bargain on their own behalf in place of the designated union, nor may they enlist a different union to represent their interests. (Meanwhile, and also problematically, incumbent unions are tasked with a legal duty to represent individual employees even if they reject membership and decline to pay dues.) Jonathan Reisman is an economics professor at the University of Maine-Machias who does not wish to be represented by the recognized faculty union, which he does not believe represents his own priorities either on work-specific issues such as wages and schedules or on public policy more broadly. Reisman is now seeking Supreme Court review of his action seeking relief from exclusive representation on First Amendment grounds [Trevor Burrus and Michael Collins on Cato certiorari amicus brief in Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine]

Jury finds Avenatti guilty in $20 million Nike extortion attempt

A jury has found celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti guilty of two counts of extortion and one of honest services fraud related to his hold-up of apparel company Nike [earlier here, see also]

“And it’s worth more in exposure to me to just blow the lid on this thing. A few million dollars doesn’t move the needle for me. I’m just being really frank with you … I’ll go take $10 billion off your client’s market cap. But I’m not f—ing around.”

Avenatti demanded more than $20 million from Nike while keeping his client in the dark, testimony revealed. He said the company should hire him and another prominent attorney representing Franklin, Mark Geragos, to conduct an internal investigation.

A lawyer trying to extort a fortune from a deep pocket target. The things that go on in this world. [Stephen Rex Brown, New York Daily News;

Wage and hour roundup

Hearing might be required before city can close business under nuisance-abatement law

Earlier this month we linked the story of a Dallas car wash owner whose business was shut down by the city under a nuisance abatement law because it was deemed to attract crime, even though the owner was not alleged to have done anything to further the crime and in fact had called police many times to complain about it.

Last month a Sixth Circuit panel, over a dissent, ruled that the city of Saginaw, Mich. may have violated Rita Johnson’s rights when it shut down her Rita’s Southern Soul Café without first according her a hearing. Johnson had rented out her restaurant one evening to a private party; “For unknown reasons, individuals unaffiliated with her or the party emerged from a vehicle that night and began shooting at the restaurant.” Police surmise that rivalry between gangs might have prompted the attack, but neither perpetrators nor motive were established. The case now goes back for further litigation in which Johnson will be allowed to argue that a hearing before shutting down her café would have been warranted. [Johnson v. Morales via Institute for Justice “Short Circuit”]

Lawyer billed over 6,600 hours in year

Plausibility matters: “to hit $600,000 in two years Lester [a court-appointed defense lawyer in Charleston, W.V.] would have had to bill 13,333.3 hours during that time. This of course would be an average of 6,666.6 hours per year. Is that a lot? No. It’s an awful lot.” And when discovered, it got him in trouble, especially after an investigation found at least 17 days for which he had billed more than 24 hours. [Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar]

February 12 roundup