Posts Tagged ‘Ninth Circuit’

ADA’s anniversary, cont’d

Among reactions and links to my Cato piece yesterday: David Frum, Brian Doherty/Reason “Hit and Run”, Richard Epstein/Ricochet, LoTempio Law Blog/Blawg Review #274, John Stossel/Fox Business (with kind words), Steve Bussey (ditto, with a historic-preservation-related reader comment).

In other news, a Ninth Circuit panel (Friedman, Nelson, Reinhardt) has ruled that the “Chipotle Experience” at Chipotle Mexican Grill, in which customers can watch their food being made behind a glass partition, violates the ADA “because the restaurants’ 45-inch counters are too high. The company now faces hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.” [AP, Reuters, decision in Antoninetti v. Chipotle courtesy Leagle]. More: Ted at PoL and my followups here and at Cato at Liberty.

“German police officer earns extra week’s holiday for getting dressed”

The test case in the city of Muenster has German municipal officials worried about busted budgets. [Guardian, Telegraph] So-called “don/doff” lawsuits have been a pretty big deal in our own employment law in recent years, although, as our 2008 report from Arkansas indicates, they don’t always have the support of the putative victims.

“Goodwin Liu’s America”

I have an op-ed about the pending Ninth Circuit nomination, which the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider tomorrow. If some of the language sounds vaguely familiar, it stems from an earlier Ted, and it especially amused me how much more appropriate Senator Kennedy’s words were for Professor Liu than for Judge Bork.

See also The Heritage Foundation’s discussion.

Update: and Ed Whelan’s NRO piece. And Ilya Shapiro and Evan Turgeon in the Daily Caller.

Scary Stephen King text message worth $175 in class action settlement

Some 60,000 cell-phone users who had signed up to receive “promotional messages” from Nextones.com in order to get a free ringtone got just such a text message on January 18, 2006 advertising a cell-phone-related Stephen King book. This resulted in a class action that was thrown out on the grounds that plaintiffs had agreed to “terms and conditions” permitting such cell-phone advertising; moreover, the federal law prohibiting the use of an automatic telephone dialing system applied only to systems that dialed numbers randomly or sequentially, and the defendants were operating off of a list of opt-in telephone numbers.

The Ninth Circuit reversed. The issue, it said, was not whether phone numbers were sequentially dialed, but whether the equipment used could hypothetically sequentially dial telephone numbers. It also held that there was a disputed issue of fact whether King’s publisher, Simon & Schuster, counted as an “affiliate.”

Faced with the prospect of going to trial and the risk of $500 to $1500 damages assessed for each call (i.e., $30 to $90 million in damages) defendants have settled. There is a settlement fund of $10 million established, plaintiffs can submit claims that will pay $175 (or a pro rata amount if the fund is exhausted) and plaintiffs’ attorneys will ask for $2.725 million from that fund.

This is superficially all well and good, but if the claim response is the all-too-typical 1%, the attorneys may well collect 27 times as much as the class will get. Indeed, assuming that $1 million for notice and administration disappears from the fund, the full $10 million won’t be paid out unless over half the class signs up. There is also a mysterious $250,000 “cy pres” award whose destination is not specified in the notice or in the settlement.

If you’re a class member who received the text message in 2006, congratulations, you can get free money: fill out a claim form before September 20 (and kudos to the parties for allowing claimants to do it online); if you’re a class member who has concerns about the settlement, contact me.

October 2 roundup

Business wins a California ADA case

“The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in favor of the retailer, finding that plaintiff Byron Chapman does not have standing to pursue claims for alleged barriers that he had not personally encountered and where he was not deterred from entering the store.” [Cynthia Lambert, California Civil Justice; Byron Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. opinion (PDF)]

July 9 roundup

  • Significant if true: Ninth Circuit may have finally decided that judges should stop micromanaging Forest Service timber sales [Lands Council v. McNair, Adler @ Volokh]
  • GMU lawprof/former Specter aide whose law review output grabbed big chunks of others’ work without attribution doesn’t belong on the federal bench, though he may have a future at Harvard Law [Liptak, NYT; WSJ law blog]
  • Update on gift card class actions (earlier) filed by Madison County, Ill.’s mother-daughter team of Armettia Peach and Ashley Peach [MC Record; more background here and here]
  • If you regard demand letters from attorneys as menacing and aggressive, maybe you’re one of those “lawyer-haters” with cockamamie notions of loser-pays [Greenfield, and again]
  • Just wait till Public Citizen goes after those “charities” that spend more on telemarketing than they raise by it — oh, wait a minute [LA Times via Postrel]
  • U.K.: nursery schools urged to report as “racist” incidents in which pre-schoolers say “yuk” about spicy foreign foods [BBC, Telegraph, Taranto; the author speaks, via Michael Winter, USA Today]
  • Blawg Review #167 creatively assigns each of 50+ blog posts to its own “state”, though it took some doing to associate us with “Maryland” [Jonathan Frieden, E-Commerce Law]
  • I will NOT go around saying Miami-Dade judges are being paid off… I will NOT go around saying Miami-Dade judges are being paid off… [Daily Business Review, earlier]
  • “‘I’m thinking of getting disability.’ … This individual figured that [it] was tantamount to a career choice”. [physician blogger Edwin Leap]