- To hold a party in the public parks of Bergenfield, N.J., you’ll need homeowner’s or renter’s insurance to throw on the line [Bergen Record]
- More on suits against Victoria’s Secret over allegedly hazardous bras, thongs, and undergarments, including an aspiring class action over contact rashes [Heller/On Point News]
- Supreme Court will review Navy sonar controversy, which we’ve long covered in this space [Adler @ Volokh]
- Hope of legalized online gambling fades, and you can blame Republicans on Capitol Hill for that [Stuttaford, NRO “Corner”]
- Disney said to be behind bad proposal to soak foreign tourists to fund visit-America promotions [Crooked Timber]
- “Squishier than most”: Nocera on A.M.D.’s predatory-pricing antitrust suit against Intel [NYT]
- Process serving company lied about delivering SEC witness subpoena and falsified later document, judge rules, awarding victim $3 million [Boston Globe]
- Revisiting the false-accusation ordeal of Dr. Patrick Griffin, and how it relates to pressure to have needless chaperones at medical procedures [Buckeye Surgeon, Dorothy Rabinowitz Pulitzer piece]
- Overlawyered turns nine years old tomorrow (more). Commenters: how long have you been reading the site? Any of you go back to its first year?
Posts Tagged ‘Disney’
May 28 roundup
- More on that New Mexico claim of “electro-sensitive” Wi-Fi allergy: quoted complainant is a longtime activist who’s written an anti-microwave book [VNUNet, USA Today “On Deadline” via ABA Journal]
- Your wisecracks belong to us: “Giant Wall of Legal Disclaimers” at Monsters Inc. Laugh Floor at Disneyland [Lileks; h/t Carter Wood]
- New at Point of Law: AAJ commissions a poll on arbitration and gets the results it wants; carbon nanotubes, tomorrow’s asbestos? California will require lawyers operating without professional liability insurance to inform clients of that fact (earlier here and here); and much more.
- Actuaries being sued for underestimating funding woes of public pension plans [NY Times via ABA Journal]
- City of Santa Monica and other defendants will pay $21 million to wrap up lawsuits from elderly driver’s 2003 rampage through downtown farmers’ market [L.A. Times; earlier]
- Sequel to Giants Stadium/Aramark dramshop case, which won a gigantic award later set aside, is fee claim by fired lawyer for plaintiff [NJLJ; Rosemarie Arnold site]
- Privacy law with an asterisk: federal law curbing access to drivers license databases has exemption that lets lawyers purchase personal data to help in litigation [Daily Business Review]
- Terror of FEMA: formaldehyde in Katrina trailers looks to emerge as mass toxic injury claim, and maybe we’ll find out fifteen years hence whether there was anything to it [AP/NOCB]
- Suit by “ABC” firm alleges that Yellow Book let other advertisers improperly sneak in with earlier alphabetical entries [Madison County Record]
- Gun law compliance, something for the little people? A tale from Chicago’s Board of Aldermen [Sun-Times, Ald. Richard Mell]
- Think twice about commissioning a mural for your building since federal law may restrain you from reclaiming the wall at a later date [four years ago on Overlawyered]
“Disney sued for Segway ban”
“Three disabled people have sued Walt Disney World for not allowing them to use their Segways to move around its theme parks. … Disney says it fears Segways could endanger other guests because they can go faster than 12 mph.” (AP/Centre Daily Times (Pa.), Nov. 11). More: Washington Post, MagicalMountain.net. in Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas (“Note to Disney: Don’t give up on Segway suit”, Nov. 13) writes:
If a disabled person can get around just as well in a wheelchair as on a Segway, does Disney have the right to pick the wheelchair in the interest of guest safety?
One of the people suing Disney says she did not want her children seeing her rely on a wheelchair.
But to go that route means we expand the ADA to accommodate not only people’s disabilities but also their feelings about their disabilities.
I feel for that woman, but this is a huge legal leap.
Juicy Legal Fallout from Cancellation of O.J. Simpson’s Book Deal
The recent decision by News Corp. publishing subsidiary HarperCollins to cancel the publication of O.J. Simpson’s no-tell tell-all If I Did It is generating ripple upon ripple of actual and threatened litigation. Last Friday, Dec. 15, News Corp. summarily fired Judith Regan, who made the Simpson deal and who would have published the book under her Regan Books imprint. Notwithstanding her personal responsibility for one of the great debacles of contemporary media, Regan maintains she is the wronged party in the firing and has hired high-profile Hollywood lawyer Bert Fields to take on her former employers.
The Wall Street Journal (Dec. 18 – article is available to non-subscribers) reported yesterday:
But Ms. Regan is fighting back, hiring well-known Hollywood litigator Bert Fields. ‘They’ve chosen war and they will get exactly that,’ said Mr. Fields in an interview. ‘She won’t take this lying down.’
Mr. Fields said HarperCollins had used guards to lock down Ms. Regan’s office and had also impounded her personal belongings. ‘We’ll take appropriate action for everything HarperCollins has done,’ added Mr. Fields. ‘They chose this path and I hope they remember it.’ A HarperCollins spokesman said that Ms. Regan collected her personal belongings before leaving her office in Los Angeles and that her office in New York wasn’t locked and that her belongings weren’t impounded.
* * *
[T]his past week, tensions flared, although details are still sketchy. One scenario has it that Ms. Regan made some intemperate remarks to a HarperCollins attorney on Friday afternoon, causing Ms. Friedman to fire her. The termination was executed with none of the usual corporate pleasantries about "pursuing other opportunities" and long years of service.
In an intriguing sidelight, the WSJ‘s Law Blog (Dec. 18) reports that attorney Fields is, or fancies himself, a Shakespeare scholar and has had two books published on Shakespearean subjects . . . through the Regan Books imprint. (Oh no, no potential conflicts of interest there; let’s just move along.)
Fields is perhaps best known as the bane of the Walt Disney Company: he represented Jeffrey Katzenberg in the now-settled litigation arising from Katzenberg’s departure from the company, he was consulted by the Weinstein brothers of Miramax when their relationship with Disney cooled, and he has featured prominently in the seemingly never-ending dispute over the rights to Winnie the Pooh. He has also been a subject of interest, but has not been the object of any criminal charges, in the investigations surrounding wiretapping and other alleged misdeeds by "private investigator to the stars" Anthony Pellicano.
News Corp., in preparing to respond to Regan’s and Fields’ accusations, has taken the unusual step of disclosing the content of otherwise confidential notes taken by one of its own attorneys. Those notes purport to reveal anti-Semitic remarks made by Regan and claimed by News Corp. to have been the "last straw" leading to Regan’s firing. (See New York Times, Dec. 19).
Meanwhile, ABC News (Dec. 18, via the publishing weblog GalleyCat) reports that Regan and others at Regan Books, HarperCollins and News Corp. will likely either be named as defendants or at the very least have their depositions taken on behalf of the heirs of Ronald Goldman, who continue to attempt to collect on their civil wrongful death judgment against Simpson. The Goldman family sees the entire transaction as a further attempt to hide Simpson’s assets:
The lawsuit would likely be based on the legal premise of ‘fraudulent transfer,’ which in this case would contend that News Corp. executives knowingly conspired to assist Simpson in subverting a civil judgment against him.
And so the saga continues, with only the lawyers — and Simpson — seeming to gain from it.
~~~
UPDATE: The Smoking Gun (Dec. 19) has posted a copy of the Goldman lawsuit, to be filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles and naming as defendants Simpson and Lorraine Brooke Associates, a corporation created (per the Complaint) to “warehouse Simpson’s intellectual property rights” and to serve as a conduit through which proceeds of those rights might be funneled to evade the Goldman judgment.
Disney World ride fatality
Writes Prof. Childs (Jun. 15) of the lawsuit over the death of a four-year-old hours after taking part in the Mission:Space ride:
Setting aside the allegation of a failure to respond properly (about which I know nothing), the lawsuit presents a fairly fundamental question in amusement litigation: when a ride does exactly what it is supposed to do, and when that action is well-disclosed to riders and is safe for the vast majority of people, who, if anyone, is responsible when that action causes foreseeable injuries to people with unknown preexisting conditions?…
As for a warnings claim, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a ride with such thorough signage.
Script anachronism sinks idea-theft claim
Writers Ronnie Niederman and Judith Shangold sued Disney, claiming that in publishing “Summerland,” a novel by author Michael Chabon with a baseball theme, the entertainment giant’s Miramax Books subsidiary had ripped off one of their own 1995 idea submissions to Disney. Trouble is, the theatrical plot they claimed to have submitted in 1995 contained numerous references to the Palm Pilot personal organizer, a product not introduced until 1997. Citing “voluminous, independent and irrefutable evidence” that the plaintiffs did not create the treatment at the time they said they did, federal judge William H. Pauley concluded “that there was ‘clear and convincing’ evidence that the plaintiffs had committed a fraud on the court and ‘manipulated the judicial process.'” He dismissed their case and ordered them to pay Disney’s legal fees in an amount to be determined later. (Mark Hamblett, “Judge Blasts Bogus Proof, Rejects Claim Against Disney”, New York Law Journal, Jan. 18). Jonathan Edelstein comments at Head Heeb (Jan. 21).
It’s a common carrier, after all
Amusement park managements in California are unhappy about a new 4-3 decision by the state’s supreme court holding that operators of park rides constitute “common carriers” akin to bus and trolley lines for safety purposes, thus exposing them to a higher standard of care in injury lawsuits. Of particular concern: given that passengers on ordinary conveyances are supposed to be protected from dangers that would occasion acute personal fear and emotional distress, what are the implications for roller coasters and other thrill rides in which conveying sensations of that sort is the whole idea? Maybe the brass at Disney (which was the defendant in the suit at hand) weren’t being entirely overcautious when they slowed down the Mad Hatter’s spinning teacups (see Mar. 4 and Mar. 9, 2004). (Maura Dolan and Kimi Yoshino, “High Court Raises Bar for Safety of Thrill Rides”, Los Angeles Times, Jun. 17)(via Ken Masugi, Claremont).
Untraceable — but still under copyright
Due in part to expansions of copyright law lobbied for by Disney and other giants, a huge volume of writing, art and music which would otherwise by now have entered the public domain is still under copyright, even though the rights to much of it — things like picture postcards, ephemeral commercial illustration and sheet music issued by long-defunct publishers or with no identifying marks at all — cannot be traced to any particular current successor-owner even by good faith efforts. Per Wired News:
According to comments submitted to the copyright office, one married couple couldn’t get a wedding photograph repaired: The photography shop would not scan and reprint the photo because it was taken by a professional and the shop was afraid of violating copyright, even though the photographer was out of business.
“For heaven’s sake, this is a photograph of me and my wife, and I can’t have it legally repaired!!! Wrong, wrong, wrong!” wrote William Haynes.
(Katie Dean, “Copyright Reform to Free Orphans?”, Apr. 12).
Pooh heirs v. Disney: now we are dismissed
“The Walt Disney Company prevailed on Monday in a 13-year legal dispute over royalties related to its Winnie the Pooh franchise when a judge dismissed the case, contending the plaintiff altered confidential memorandums and covered up the theft of documents obtained by a private investigator who sifted through the company’s trash. Judge Charles W. McCoy of Los Angeles Superior Court wrote in his decision that the misconduct of the Slesinger family, which sued Disney in 1991 after contending the company cheated it out of royalty fees, was ‘so egregious that no remedy short of terminating sanctions’ would adequately protect Disney and the justice system from further abuse.” The family is vowing to appeal (Laura Holson, “After 13 Years, Judge Dismisses Case on Pooh Bear Royalties”, New York Times, Mar. 30). Earlier in the case, Disney had drawn sanctions “for deliberately destroying 40 boxes of documents that could have been relevant to the case, including a file marked ‘Winnie the Pooh-legal problems'”; see “The Document-Shredding Facility at Pooh Corner”, Aug. 24-26, 2001. For more on the propensity of some investigators retained in litigation to rifle adversaries’ garbage and commit other invasions of privacy, see Nov. 11, 2003 (FBI probe of Hollywood lawyers); Jul. 28-30, 2000 (Terry Lenzner, Oracle). More: Southern California Law Blog has followed the case.
L.A. Times on spinning teacups
Funny, pointed editorial in Los Angeles Times on the decision of one of the management dwarves at Disneyland (“probably Grumpy”) to slow down the Mad Hatter’s spinning teacups lest someone sue (see Mar. 4). “Maybe right next to the sign, ‘You Must Be This Tall to Ride,’ they should post ratings with little symbols — one lawyer with briefcase for mildly scary attractions and a whole legal assault team for roller coasters.” (“Around and Around and…” Mar. 7).