- High-profile Pennsylvania attorney John P. Karoly Jr. pleads guilty to tax evasion, faces possible prison term [Allentown Morning Call, Legal Intelligencer, Lehigh Valley Live, WFMZ, his website; earlier]
- Tennessee congressman pushes to overturn NBA age limit [Fanhouse, Sports Law Blog]
- $262 million in bankruptcy fees to date for Lehman, ultimate figure could approach $1 billion [Hartley]
- Complaint by gay altar server to Ontario Human Rights Tribunal menaces church’s autonomy [National Post via Box Turtle Bulletin]
- Lawsuit seeks shutdown of Domelights.com, private message board for Philadelphia cops that has had “racially offensive” posts and comments [CNN, Post @ Volokh] 2002 Sotomayor decision in Pappas v. Giuliani may be on point [Popehat, Kennerly]
- New Jersey organ scandal should come as little surprise given our failed policies on kidney donation [Satel, WSJ]
- Deputy D.A. arrested for drunk driving lands on her feet, hired by local DWI Resource Center [KRQE, Albuquerque]
- “San Diego Judge Denies Class Action Motions in 2007 Wildfires” [California Civil Justice]
Posts Tagged ‘San Diego’
July 19 roundup
- Federal court rules “shy bladder syndrome” an ADA-protected disability [World of Work via Hyman]
- “Goldman Sachs Backs Down in Long Legal Battle With Blogger” [American Lawyer, WSJ Law Blog, Coleman, earlier]
- San Diego: unforeseen consequences of “anti-blight” lender regulation [Outside the Box]
- 1,000 lose jobs as environmental litigation halts Northern California refinery project [Wood, ShopFloor, update]
- City of Detroit lawyers on ethical hot seat after former mayor’s texting coverup scandal [ABA Journal, earlier]
- What happens when IP law firms breed homegrown patent trolls? [Ron Coleman]
- “It’s kind of like the practice of law, except that the clients are more likely to leave happy.” [Glenn Reynolds being naughty on Instapundit]
- U.K.: Owner of copyright to John Cage’s avant-garde “four minutes and thirty-three seconds of silence” work sues later impresario whose album track includes one minute of silence [seven years ago on Overlawyered; New Yorker treatment]
Thumb-in-the-eye II: Cal Supremes affirm Buell-Wilson
We’ve been following Buell-Wilson v. Ford for some time, including the U.S. Supreme Court remand. Curt Cutting’s blog has the latest in two April posts here and here. Cal Biz Lit also has good commentary.
California: “Three Offices of Attorney Declared ‘Vexatious Litigant’ Shut Down”
Mitchell W. Roth had offices in Sherman Oaks, San Diego, and Riverside, per the NLJ. Roth’s appearances on the Internet include CaliforniaSpineInjury.com and the “Middle Class Advocate” blog.
$55 million in Marine helicopter crash
Curt Cutting at California Punitive Damages takes note of a jury’s very large verdict against San Diego Gas and Electric last month, including $40 million in punitive damages, after a helicopter fatally collided with a 130-foot utility tower located on the base at Camp Pendleton. “The plaintiffs claimed that SDG&E was negligent for not installing safety lights on the tower. SDG&E says the tower had been on the base for 25 years and they would have installed lights if the Marine Corps had asked. They contend the crash was the result of errors by the crew and they plan to appeal.” (Sept. 3; Tony Perry, “$55.6 million awarded in fatal Marine helicopter crash”, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 4). Bruce Nye at Cal Biz Lit calls the verdict a “stunner” (Sept. 8).
“Require that employees get permission first before using their BlackBerrys after work hours”
Otherwise, the employer may just be setting itself up for wage-hour suits based on the premise that the after-hours use constitutes uncompensated overtime, says Mitch Danzig, “an attorney in the San Diego office of Boston-based Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo. Danzig advises his clients to give BlackBerrys only to employees who are exempt from overtime laws. ‘Plaintiffs’ firms are trolling for this,’ he said. ‘Now what you’re seeing on [plaintiffs’] firms’ Web sites are, “Have you been assigned a BlackBerry or a phone? If so, give us a call.”‘” (Ashby Jones, WSJ law blog, Apr. 22; Tresa Baldas, NLJ, Apr. 28). More: Jeffrey Hirsch, Workplace Prof Blog.
Update: paid too much for their house
Following up on Jan. 22’s story from California: “It took a jury less than two hours Thursday afternoon to unanimously clear a real estate agent accused of failing in his duties to a couple he helped buy a tony Carlsbad home.” Marty and Vernon Ummel claimed that ReMax agent Mike Little had not kept them from overpaying for the house they bought with his help. (North County Times, San Diego Union-Tribune, Voice of San Diego).
April 2 roundup
- Judge expresses surprise at how many law firms want in on fees in Visa/MasterCard issuer settlement [NYSun]
- Mississippi bill would require a lawyer’s presence at real estate escrow closings; so rude to cite the profession’s self-interest as a factor [Clarion-Ledger]
- Following Coughlin Stoia’s lead, Mark Lanier announces he’s expanding into intellectual property litigation [The Recorder]
- Maryland legislation would require state-aided colleges and universities to report on what they’re doing to advance “cultural diversity” [Examiner via Bader/Open Market]
- New era at UK pubs? Under new directive, “employers will risk being sued if a bar worker or waitress complains of being called ‘love’ or ‘darling’, or if staff overhear customers telling sexist jokes.” [Daily Mail]
- ACLU just sued city of San Diego and snagged $900K in legal fees, but that’s no impediment to the city’s council’s enacting a special day of tribute to the group [House of Eratosthenes]
- George Wallace, who’s guestblogged here, hosts twin editions of Blawg Review #153 at his blogs Declarations & Exclusions and A Fool in the Forest, on piratical and Punchinello themes;
- Obama won’t support lowering drinking age [Newsweek]
- Such a shame for entrepreneurial plaintiffs, post-Proposition 64 if you want to sue a California business you might actually need to have been injured [CalBizLit]
- Time mag appeals $100 million Suharto libel ruling [IHT]
- Hey, no fair enforcing that fine print disclaiming liability for sweepstakes misprints [three years ago on Overlawyered]
March 25 roundup
- Speaking of patients who act against medical advice and sue anyway: doctor who advised against home birth is cleared by Ohio jury in $13 million suit [Plain Dealer and earlier via KevinMD]
- UK: “A feud over a 4ft-wide strip of land has seen neighbours rack up £300,000 in lawyers’ bills, and left one family effectively homeless.” [Telegraph]
- Last of the Scruggs judicial bribery defendants without a plea deal, Dickie’s son Zack, takes one [Folo]
- By reader acclaim: securities trader sues over injury from lap dancer’s attentions [AP/NY Sun]
- Amid the talk of FISA and retroactive telecom immunity, it would be nice to hear more about the actual lawsuits [Obbie]
- Australian worker loses suit over firing despite a doctor’s note vouching that stress of worrying about upcoming football game made it medically necessary for him to take day off to go see it [Stumblng Tumblr]
- Megan McArdle and Tyler Cowen toss around the question of federal FDA pre-emption of drug liability suits, as raised by Medtronic;
- Should Coughlin Stoia have bought those stolen Coke documents? For one lawprof, question’s a real head-scratcher [David McGowan (San Diego), Legal Ethics Forum] And WSJ news side is oddly unskeptical of trial lawyers’ line that the affair just proves their power to go on fishing expeditions should never have been curtailed [Jones/Slater]
- Dashboard-cam caught Tennessee cops red-handed planting marijuana on suspect, or so Jonathan Turley suggests — but could it be a little more complicated than that? [WSMV, AP/WATE] (& Greenfield)
- “Heck Baptists don’t even sue you for disagreeing with them,” though no doubt there are exceptions [Instapundit; NYT on Danish cartoons; Ezra Levant with more on those Canadian speech tribunals]
- Bestselling authors who sue their critics [four years ago on Overlawyered]
Buell-Wilson v. Ford redux
In February of last year, I wrote at length about an appalling jury verdict (June 2004) and disingenuous appellate decision in an SUV rollover case:
It went generally unnoticed last November when the California Supreme Court refused to review an intermediate court’s decision in Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co. But then again, it went generally unnoticed when a jury awarded an arbitrary $368 million in damages in that case, when the trial judge reduced that verdict to an arbitrary $150 million judgment, and when an intermediate appellate court reduced that figure to an arbitrary $82.6 million (which, with interest, works out to over $100 million).
The US Supreme Court remanded to consider in light of Philip Morris v. Williams. For whatever reason, the California Court of Appeals decision to be even more disingenuous and say “We don’t care about Williams” reaffirming the $82.6 million got much more attention. Bruce Nye has the best analysis of the “thumb in your eye” decision; Lisa Perrochet also analyzes the verdict. John Rohan is critical. Press coverage: Recorder/Law.com; San Diego Union-Tribune; Reuters; AP/SJ Mercury News. Ford will appeal.