A local NBC affiliate covers the extraordinary lawsuit-abuse ring run by a tow-operator-gone-wrong in San Benito, Santa Clara and Monterey counties. Attorney Greg Adler deserves credit for cracking the scheme (via Legal Ethics Forum; earlier here and here).
Posts Tagged ‘California’
February 22 roundup
- He wuz framed? Lawyers say wearing glasses will help a criminal defendant win acquittal [NYDN, ABA Journal]
- “Are Judges ‘Employees’ Covered by State Antidiscrimination Law?” [Volokh, Fox]
- Pursuing food safety, Congress ensures only unintended consequences [Paul Schwennesen, The Freeman]
- High cost of litigation for Louisiana cities and towns [LLAW, PDF, via NJLRA; Daily Comet]
- Calif. Kwikset decision not entirely a debacle for defendants [Russell Jackson, earlier] More: Cal. Civil Justice.
- Pennsylvania lawmakers consider reform of joint and several liability [Post-Gazette]
- Lawsuit fears tame a Frederick, Md. ice playground [Free-Range Kids]
- Following scrutiny by Albuquerque newspaper, lawyer drops life insurance class action settlement [ten years ago on Overlawyered]
Update: Lodi emerges from water-suit “legal hell”
“The city of Lodi ended a long legal battle over groundwater contamination earlier this month,” accepting $6.3 million from insurers for local businesses. [Lodi News-Sentinel] We covered the convoluted litigation, in which the California city sued numerous local businesses, in reports here and here.
“Man Sues All-You-Can-Eat Sushi Joint Because He Didn’t Want To Eat Rice”
The customer says he has diabetes and should be entitled to scrape the rice off and just eat the fish. “The rice is part of the all-you-can-eat sushi,” said the restaurant owner, who says the plaintiff has asked $6,000 to drop his suit. “If you only eat the fish, I would go broke.” [Consumerist; David Lazarus, L.A. Times]
California bars retailers from asking for zip codes, class actions follow
Lawyers jump into action with multiple suits after the California Supreme Court decides it’s a violation of state consumer privacy law to ask customers for their zip code at the checkout. [L.A. Times, Recorder, WSJ Law Blog] Ira Stoll discusses the silliness of the purported consumer protection rationale. More: Coyote.
Deep pocket files: Highway 101 crash
In 2007, on Highway 101 north of Ventura, Jeremy White plowed his pickup truck into a vehicle parked along the roadside, killing its driver and paralyzing a California highway patrolman who was standing alongside. White “pleaded guilty in September 2008 to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and selling and transporting marijuana. He was sentenced to 15 years.” While he had an insurance policy, its limit was a paltry $15,000. So which deep pockets will be left responsible for paying the nearly $50 million a jury has awarded in damages? The answer, apparently: 1) White’s insurance company, despite the policy limit, due to the magic of “insurance bad faith” law; 2) Bert’s Mega Mall in Covina, whose employees, according to the plaintiffs in the case, “didn’t properly strap down two dirt bikes in the back of White’s truck, which caused a distraction and contributed to the crash.”
After the trial ended Tuesday, the mall’s lawyer, Terrence Cranert, said they would appeal.
He said there was significant evidence the jury didn’t receive, including a statement from White’s passenger who told the CHP that he and White had stopped to smoke marijuana after leaving the mall. Cranert said they weren’t able to find White’s passenger for the trial, but felt the information should have been allowed.
The judge, however, disagreed.
White’s passenger also told the CHP that he and White went into the back of the truck and opened a tool box to get the marijuana, according to Cranert. “They would have to unstrap the motorcycles,” Cranert said.
[Ventura County Star reporting, liability and damages phases]
January 21 roundup
- More commentary on Obama regulatory initiative [Federal News Radio with quotes from Cass Sunstein, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Steven Malanga, David Harsanyi, Carter Wood/ShopFloor, Iain Murray, Lammi/WLF, earlier]
- Corporate governance buffs will want to check out new Proxy Monitor website from Manhattan Institute which includes a database of shareholder resolution activity at the 100 largest public companies [Jim Copland/Point of Law (some early empirical findings), Bainbridge (“This is going to be a great resource for anyone interested in shareholder activism”), ShopFloor]
- Lawyer solicits subway blizzard strandees. OK under NY rules? [Turkewitz]
- California reform ideas: “A Modest Proposal For Fixing Proposition 65” [Cal Biz Lit] “A Better Consumer Legal Remedies Act” [same]
- Proposed criminal prohibition on doctors’ questioning patients about guns “would violate the First Amendment, as well as just being a lousy idea” [Volokh]
- Oldest federal bench ever — and the problems that can cause [Joseph Goldstein, Slate]
- Attention “payday lending” critics: “Lawsuit Loans Add New Risk for the Injured” [NY Times, Kenneth Anderson, California Civil Justice; defenses of champerty/litigation finance from Larry Ribstein and Stephen Gillers]
- Wisconsin student sues unsuccessfully over summer homework requirement for pre-calculus class [six years ago on Overlawyered]
California’s new online-impersonation ban
Liability is predicated on “intent to harm, intimidate, threaten, or defraud another person – not necessarily the person you are impersonating.” [Michael Arrington, TechCrunch] Despite talk of using the statute against stalkers, Choire Sicha predicts a somewhat different application: “harm as in ‘brand dilution’ — that is what will be prosecuted. Of course there is no carve-out for playful, political or non-murderous uses of online impersonation.” The bill’s text, notes Arrington, doesn’t address such free speech issues as satire and parody, though it does restrict itself to impersonations that are “credible.” Compare: much-demonized Koch Industries goes to court to identify originators (apparently political critics) of website imitating its own [Web Host Industry Review]
Update: California tow-and-sue scam
In an elaborate scheme discussed in this space in May, a northern California towing operator towed cars without authority, then proceeded to sue the owners — and even some non-owners — for exaggerated storage and handling fees. The enterprise was eventually exposed by Greg Adler, a young lawyer who estimates that he spent 1,200 hours documenting the misdeeds. Two of the scammers are now headed to prison, with one receiving a 14-year sentence. [San Jose Mercury News via Legal Ethics Forum]
November 23 roundup
- Growth of regulatory state makes lobbying more attractive path than innovation [Morris Panner, WaPo]
- Long-awaited Norma Zager book flays Erin Brockovich role in Beverly Hills High School controversy [CJAC]
- Colorado high court: no need to limit medical fee awards to sums plaintiffs actually paid [CCJL, Law Week Colorado]
- Please, law firm marketers, don’t assume we’re in need of your services [Popehat]
- Updates on prosecutorial silencing of pain treatment activist Siobhan Reynolds [Sullum, more, yet more, Balko]
- Comments of NTSB official notwithstanding, riding motorcycle without helmet is no “public health issue” [Boaz, Cato] Watch out for more paternalism premised on government health care expenditures [Coyote]
- No contracting out? Can California really be this screwed up? [Coyote]
- Claim: railroad should have warned against walking on the right-of-way [six years ago on Overlawyered]