- “N.J. High Court to Review Drunken Drivers’ Right to Sue Bars That Served Them” [NJLJ]
- Recipe for Oakland-style public unionism: “Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act” pending on Capitol Hill would impose public-service collective bargaining and labor arbitration on local governments nationwide [Cavanaugh/Reason, more, effects on police misconduct accountability]
- iPhone class action of doubtful benefit to consumers [Hahn & Passell, Regulation 2.0]
- U.K.: “Fired Top In-House Lawyer Testifies She Was Bullied by Underling” [ABA Journal]
- Due this fall: Norma Zager book “Erin Brockovich and the Beverly Hills Greenscam” [Pelican Publishing] Weitz firm invokes Brockovich association to drum up Gulf spill business [Michael Daly, NYDN]
- Paperwork nightmare: “Health Care Reform’s Terrible, Tiny Tax” [Megan McArdle]
- Three views of Sherrod fiasco [Rick Esenberg, Radley Balko, John Derbyshire]
- This time the feds look serious about foisting low-flow showerheads on unwilling consumers [Heritage Foundry]
Posts Tagged ‘class actions’
“99 Cents Only Stores sued over price increase”
Although the company president says the California-based chain has “basically bombard[ed]” its customers with notifications about its price increase to 99.99 cents an item, class action lawyers say it’s unfair and misleading. [L.A. Times] One reader is reminded of the words of Lionel Hutz: “Mr. Simpson, this is the most blatant case of fraudulent advertising since my suit against the film, ‘The Never-Ending Story.’”
P.S. Orange County attorney Dan Callahan, described as having filed one of the suits, looks to be the same Daniel Callahan of Callahan and Blaine who has appeared in these columns twice before.
“Crazy claims no reason to reject class action, lawyer says”
“Ludicrous claims shouldn’t have caused U.S. District Joseph Goodwin to reject a class action over economic damages from heart medicine Digitek, according to Fred Thompson of Motley Rice.” [Chamber-backed WV Record] The background of the court action is interesting too:
Litigation began in 2008, after Actavis Totowa discovered 20 pills of double thickness in a batch at its plant in Little Falls, New Jersey.
Actavis Totowa recalled the batch, and no plaintiff has produced a double thick pill.
Some plaintiffs nevertheless claimed personal injuries and wrongful death. Others claimed only economic damages.
Thompson sought certification of a national economic damages class or single state classes in West Virginia, New Jersey, Kansas and Kentucky.
Judge Goodwin found that the claimants were too disparate in their posture to be joined appropriately as members of a single class; some had put in for the cost of such things as eyeglasses and enemas.
July 13 roundup
- Wal-Mart spending millions to fight $7,000 OSHA fine? Not so paradoxical when you think about it [Coyote]
- Proliferation of product recalls, as with warnings, can result in consumer fatigue and inattention [WaPo via PoL]
- Settlement said to be near between casino and gambler who lost $127 million [WSJ, UPI, earlier]
- “Think Globally, Sue Locally: Out-of-Court Tactics Employed by Plaintiffs, Their Lawyers, and Their Advocates in Transnational Tort Cases” [study, PDF and press release; Jonathan Drimmer for US Chamber, related WSJ]
- “End of an Era? Another Crunch Berries Case Dismissed” [Lowering the Bar, California Civil Justice, earlier on “froot” cases here, here, etc.]
- New Jersey: “School legal costs are a killer” [Rayner, Daily Record]
- ABA Journal profiles Ted Frank;
- We’re the ones who write the laws around here, not you legislators: Washington Supreme Court strikes down med-mal notice law [SeattlePI.com]
“Brooklyn Man Suing Yoo-Hoo For False Advertising”
“Timothy Dahl, 35, is suing Yoo-Hoo’s parent company, the Dr Pepper Snapple Group, in federal court because he claims the product’s ‘good for you’ ad slogan is simply not truthful.” The suit is an intended class action. [Gothamist, New York Post, Legal Blog Watch] We’ve covered the many “froot” class action suits alleging that CrunchBerries, Froot Loops, etc. are not particularly healthy things to eat; at least one suit has similarly assailed Cocoa Puffs.
And then went back to “access to justice” chatter
Lawyers in a class action seek a high appeal bond to insulate their fee award. [CCAF]
“Another frooty lawsuit”
Something about fruit-flavored snack foods seems to get the class-action lawyers going. A Brooklyn woman is now suing General Mills, saying its Fruit Roll-Ups, popular with kids, are not as healthy as buyers might think from its marketing. [California Civil Justice Blog, Reuters, New York Daily News]
Schmooze-fests for public pension officials
Thrown with help from a class action law firm [Peter Beller, Forbes]
“Milberg Argues Its Use of Subsequently Discredited Witnesses Was in Good Faith”
We were as surprised as anyone else by the turn of events in our class action suit over allegedly defective televisions, says the big plaintiff’s firm. Sorry we drove into your window, no need for anything drastic like fee shifting under Rule 11, right? [NYLJ]
Jerman v. Carlisle
Reader John B. alerts us: “If you haven’t already seen it, there’s excellent Overlawyered-type rhetoric from Justice Kennedy in Monday’s Supreme Court opinion on debt collectors’ liability under federal statutory law. Unfortunately it’s in the dissent (PDF).”
Wrote Kennedy:
[The Court’s decision today] aligns the judicial system with those who would use litigation to enrich themselves at the expense of attorneys who strictly follow and adhere to professional and ethical standards.
When the law is used to punish good-faith mistakes; when adopting reasonable safeguards is not enough to avoid liability; when the costs of discovery and litigation are used to force settlement even absent fault or injury; when class-action suits transform technical legal violations into windfalls for plaintiffs or their attorneys, the Court, by failing to adopt a reasonable interpretation to counter these excesses, risks compromising its own institutional responsibility to ensure a workable and just litigation system.