George Gillespie of Medina County, Ohio, is suing America Online for allegedly failing to do anything about teasing, humiliation and abuse he endured in one of the online service’s chat rooms. His suit also names individual defendants who live in Oregon and Alabama; Gillespie alleges that the Alabama man actually traveled to Ohio to further his campaign of harassment. Attorney Mark Tarallo of Holland & Knight in Boston believes the plaintiff “will face a tough battle, particularly in the fight with AOL.” (Tresa Baldas, “Chat Room Chatter Draws Lawsuit”, National Law Journal, Jan. 6; Julie Wallace, “Internet, civil liberties collide in unique lawsuit”, Akron Beacon Journal, Dec. 19).
Posts Tagged ‘Ohio’
“Andi the Ohio Police Dog Named In Lawsuit”
A lawsuit by a convicted drug dealer in Athens County, Ohio, demanding $450,000, names police investigators, the county sheriff, the trial judge who ruled in the case and also Andi, the police dog who helped in the raid. “That dog could’ve done something to me or one of my attendants,” said Wayne Francis Green, 46, who said “that he felt endangered by Andi’s presence….With a paw print, the dog ‘signed’ the paper indicating he had been formally served with the complaint.” (AP/San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 14).
Geoffrey Fieger update
You will recall that Geoffrey Fieger’s modus operandi is to engage in outrageous behavior to get judges thrown off of cases and otherwise accuse judges who rule against him or his clients of misconduct (Nov. 20; Mar. 24). Now, in the aftermath of Hollins v. Jordan (Nov. 20 and links therein), Fieger is attacking an Ohio probate court judge who is daring to try to protect the settlement of the brain-damaged and legally incompetent plaintiff from Fieger’s machinations.
“This is all about intimidation,” [Judge] Corrigan said. He accused the plaintiffs’ out-of-town lawyers of “forum-shopping” to take the case away from him and give it to a Michigan judge more acquiescent to their wishes.
(James F. McCarty, “$30 million verdict spawns new legal battle”, Cleveland Plain-Dealer, Oct. 9). This dispute is over a $1.5 million pretrial settlement with another defendant; the $30 million verdict is also on appeal.
Back in Michigan, Fieger is offering to spend millions of dollars of his own money to run for Michigan Attorney General on the Democratic ticket. (Steven Harmon, “Fieger ready to pour own cash into attorney general fight”, Grand Rapids Press, Oct. 21). Fortunately for the Democratic Party, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of support for the idea. (Kathleen Gray, “Fieger considers running for state attorney general”, Detroit Free Press, Oct. 12). John Engler easily beat Fieger, 62 percent to 38 percent, when Fieger ran for governor in 1998.
The targeting of the incumbent attorney general, Mike Cox, may be related to “an ongoing criminal investigation of a complaint from Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land about alleged filing irregularities on $400,000 of Fieger-financed spending opposing the successful 2004 re-election of Republican Michigan Supreme Court Justice Stephen Markman.” (George Weeks, “Fieger isn’t faking bid for attorney general”, Detroit News, Oct. 13). Fieger has demonstrated his misunderstanding of principles of federal jurisdiction with a federal lawsuit against Cox and Land in an attempt to squelch the campaign finance investigation. (AP, Oct. 13).
Licensing eBay sellers, cont’d
First it was Ohio contemplating a requirement that people get an auctioneer’s license before selling goods on eBay (Mar. 21). Now it’s North Dakota, which is considering whether to force small consignment merchants like Mark Nichols to take instruction in talking rapidly and interpreting hand gestures before listing merchandise for others on the online service. (Dale Wetzel, “Internet sellers may need auctioneer license”, AP/Bismarck Tribune, Oct. 10).
“Is a cow a ‘motor vehicle’?”
A hopeful litigant asked an Ohio appellate court to rule that a collision with a cow was covered under an uninsured-motorist insurance provision; the court declined to go along, though. The opinion William Bedsworth would have given? “Hello, it’s a cow.” (May It Please the Court, Jul. 7, 2004)(via Ernie the Attorney).
Update: Larry Klayman and respectability
Litigious gadfly Larry Klayman (Apr. 16-17, 2002), having cut a rare publicity swath filing mostly long-shot legal actions against both the Clinton and Bush administrations, is now setting up a Florida office on behalf of a more conventional-seeming law firm, Cleveland, Ohio-based Walter & Haverfield. (Jessica M. Walker, “Ohio Firm Taps Judicial Watch’s Klayman for Miami Launch”, Daily Business Review, Jul. 15). For more on Klayman, see Jacob Weisberg, “Nut Watch”, Slate, Jun. 6, 1998 (sues own mother), Curmudgeonly Clerk, Sept. 23, 2003 (similar). But at least Alan Keyes admires him (Timothy Noah, “Larry Klayman for Attorney General”, Slate, Jan. 24, 2000).
“The Next Sandra Day”
I’ve got an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal (also, conveniently, featured on the Journal’s mostly-free companion site OpinionJournal.com), pointing out that retiring Justice O’Connor was remarkably outspoken in criticizing the evils of excessive litigation, and suggesting that President Bush may wish to pick a successor who shares these concerns. I also discuss some very revealing comments made by the Senate minority leader last week: as OpinionJournal.com sums up the implications, “Harry Reid may be willing to give up Roe v. Wade to get a trial lawyer on the Supreme Court”. (Walter Olson, “The Next Sandra Day”, OpinionJournal.com, Jul. 7; same article at subscriber-only WSJ site).
Arthur Andersen; blogospheric comings and goings
Pseudonymous blogger “Robert Musil” has resumed his financial and political blogging after a hiatus and is drawing pointed lessons (May 31, Jun. 1, Jun. 2) from yesterday’s unanimous Supreme Court decision overturning the conviction of Arthur Andersen in the Enron affair. For more on the Andersen case, see Point of Law’s coverage yesterday and today. Among other financial topics “Musil” has been commenting on lately: the Enron scandal itself (here and here), Sarbanes-Oxley (here and here), and the Supreme Court’s recent rebuke to the Ninth Circuit on the calculation of damages in securities cases, in the Dura case.
On a different note, alas, Tim Sandefur is suspending posting at his Freespace blog, which has been a valuable resource on law and libertarian philosophy and often the target of links from this page. Incidentally, the blogroll on Overlawyered’s front page (right-hand column) is deliberately kept short (and rotated fairly often), but the site’s General Links page offers a longer blogroll which readers may enjoy exploring, as does Point of Law (left column).
More on District of Columbia v. Beretta, U.S.A.
We get mail:
You mention in your “District of Columbia v. Beretta, U.S.A.” post that other commentators, such as Mr. Healy and Mr. Levy, have argued that individual states, not the federal government, should be initiating legislation preventing lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The idea is that businesses can “withdraw from doing business in a state that has an oppressive tort regime.” Your counter-argument, however, is that the latter idea “doesn’t help gun manufacturers who don’t do business in the District of Columbia to begin with.”
But, in fact, can’t businesses withdraw from states to the point where these businesses no longer have the “minimum contacts” necessary for the state courts to assert personal jurisdiction over the businesses? Then the businesses would be avoiding the oppressive tort laws of those states, but the states would not have personal jurisdiction for any lawsuits against these businesses.
Chris Schmitthenner
It is correct that gun manufacturers will, in litigation, attempt to get themselves out of the case by arguing lack of personal jurisdiction via such precedents as Asahi Metal Industry Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court of California. However, there are two separate issues that prevent Asahi from providing complete relief.
First, plaintiffs will argue that there are minimum contacts that suffice for personal jurisdiction. They’ll argue that the manufacturers placed ads in magazines that would be seen by residents of the state. They’ll argue purposeful availment under the same factual theories that underlie the “nuisance” claims in the Weinstein litigation. Cf. GTE New Media Services v. BellSouth Corp. (D.C. 2000) (plaintiff entitled to discovery whether defendant, while not physically present in District, intended for District residents to do business with it and caused injury within District); LaMarca v. Pak-Mor Mfg. Co. (N.Y. 2000) (distinguishing Asahi to find personal jurisdiction). In the case of the D.C. city council law, the manufacturers may even have problems to the extent they have lobbyists in the area. A particular judge may well decide that it’s a jury issue, and many manufacturers won’t want to take that risk.
Second, even if D.C. courts do not have personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer, little stops a D.C. plaintiff from suing a gun manufacturer in a state where there is personal jurisdiction. For example, in Peterson v. BASF, Minnesota state courts applied the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act to a nationwide class; in Ysbrand v. DaimlerChrysler, Oklahoma state courts applied Michigan law. One can easily imagine a D.C. plaintiff and a well-funded attorney filing suit in Los Angeles County against a California manufacturer asking for application of D.C. law. I think, in such a circumstance, gun manufacturers have strong arguments under the principles behind Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts that, if D.C. has no personal jurisdiction over a defendant, choice-of-law principles cannot be used to apply D.C. law to the defendant in a manner consistent with due process. But the question, to my knowledge, has not yet been resolved definitively; the defendants in Peterson and Ysbrand certainly were within the personal jurisdiction of the forum whose law was applied. Cf. also the different case of Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., where a New York plaintiff was allowed to sue an Ohio/California defendant using New Hampshire courts and laws, solely for the purpose of taking advantage of a favorable statute of limitations.
In short, gun manufacturers have strong arguments for application of the Healy/Levy federalism theory should such a suit actually happen. But plaintiffs get to choose their forum, and a large part of forum-shopping is finding a forum where the courts are less likely to resolve issues of law in favor of the defendant. The advantage of an immunity law is that it removes that uncertainty.
I’ve opened comments on the narrow question of the interrelationship between personal jurisdiction and choice of law. Please keep discussion civil and limited to this issue.
Ohio: let’s not license eBay sellers
Ohio lawmakers are scrambling to change a recently enacted law which starting in May would forbid state residents from selling items on eBay unless they possess an auctioneer’s license. “Under the original bill, anyone selling an item on eBay was required to use a licensed auctioneer or become an auctioneer. Becoming an auctioneer requires serving a one-year apprenticeship to an auctioneer, attending classes and other requirements.” Last Wednesday the Ohio Senate passed a bill exempting online-auction sellers from the requirements; the bill “now moves to the Ohio House, where swift approval is expected after the Easter recess.” The Ohio Auctioneers Association, however, is still pressing to get the state to regulate drop-off consignment shops which sell items on eBay for a fee. (Michael Sangiacomo, “Senate votes to exempt eBay sellers from auctioneer’s license rule”, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Mar. 17; “Ohio law would regulate eBay sellers”, CNN/Money, Mar. 7).