- Worst, most dangerous legal trend of the moment: trial lawyers continue big Capitol Hill push to overturn Supreme Court’s valuable Iqbal and Twombly decisions on lawsuit procedure [Point of Law and more, Thomas Dupree/WLF, Beck & Herrmann and more, earlier]
- Lawyers rush to courthouse to beat deadline for new Oklahoma limits on liability suits [Tulsa World]
- Spokesman for Attorney General Jerry Brown admits he’s taped reporter conversations without their consent, seeming violation of California law [SF Chronicle]
- UK: motorist could face prosecution for splashing kids by driving through puddle, at what she says was kids’ request [BoingBoing]
- “Is the pay czar unconstitutional?” [Bainbridge on McConnell, WSJ; Ribstein on link to PCAOB case]
- More “deceptively named fruity cereal” suits in California [Lowering the Bar ("I still think this is like claiming emotional distress because you just learned 'The Hobbit' isn't a true story,") Ken at Popehat ("Froot of the Poisonous Tree of Litigiousness"), earlier here, here, here, here, etc.]
- A city of stool pigeons: Chicago to pay those who inform on tax cheats [NBC Chicago]
- Ill-fated stint as pole dancer leads to lawsuit against Arizona bar [Above the Law]
Tagged as:
advertising,
California,
Chicago,
Jerry Brown,
Oklahoma,
pleading,
strippers and exotic dancers,
United Kingdom,
whistleblowers
Disgruntled California consumer Roy Werbel is the latest to file putative class-action complaints against the makers of Cap’n Crunch Crunchberries and Froot Loops because their products do not contain actual fruit or, as the case may be, froot. [SF Weekly and followup via Above the Law] Earlier coverage here, here, here, etc.
Tagged as:
advertising,
class actions
Russell Jackson on Dannon’s proposed deal to resolve class action lawsuits (see Jan. 24, 2008) over its promotion of its Activia and DanActive lines as beneficial to health:
The proposed settlement also contains “equitable relief” in the form of restrictions on advertising and labeling. Reading these so-called restrictions, I am struck by the fact that the statements challenged in these lawsuits clearly were not false. Indeed, if I were still teaching my Product Liability course, I would ask my students to study this settlement and tell me whom they trust the most to issue restrictions on speech based on the results of scientific research: lawyers (as here), judges, juries, or scientists employed by regulatory bodies.
Lawyers want $10 million plus expenses, while Dannon’s outlays will depend in part on how many consumers file claims (via Calif. Civil Justice).
P.S. Should have caught this before: Ted discussed this case yesterday at his Center for Class Action Fairness blog.
Tagged as:
advertising,
class action settlements
And a New Jersey lawyer hopes to hold them to it via lawsuit, despite a “we will not honor typos” clause in the retailer’s announced policy. [ABA Journal]
Tagged as:
advertising,
contracts
An old contract-law chestnut: when does a public statement along these lines rise to the status of a legally enforceable reward offer? Dave Hoffman at Concurring Opinions considers it unlikely that a law student will get past summary judgment in his suit against a criminal defense attorney who went on Dateline and promised (or at least seemed to promise) a cool million to anyone who proved his client could have committed the crime of which he was accused.
Tagged as:
advertising
A judge has tossed a California woman’s would-be class action lawsuit, however, finding that a reasonable consumer would not expect the brightly colored balls to be or contain actual berries or fruit. Per Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar: “Plaintiff did not explain why she could not reasonably have figured this out at any point during the four years she alleged she bought Cap’n Crunch with Crunchberries in reliance on defendant’s fraud.” More: California Civil Justice (same law firm sued over Froot Loops); update from Lowering the Bar.
And: Hal Hewell of Hewell Law Firm, which filed the suit, writes in comments that neither the plaintiff
nor her first amended complaint stated that she believed “crunchberries” was a real fruit (check it out on Pacer, along with our motion for reconsideration to get the full story). Your contention that she did is simply false and has exposed her to widespread (and unwarranted) ridicule.
Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story…. You owe her an apology.
My response: Okay, let’s try to phrase things in a way highly favorable to Hewell and his client. The suit sought recovery against the cereal maker on the grounds a reasonable consumer would understand “Crunchberries” to contain actual fruit, whereas they apparently in fact contain only a little strawberry juice concentrate. (I’ve slightly expanded the first sentence above accordingly). In reaching his conclusion that the only course consistent with “personal responsibility and common sense” was to dismiss the case, the judge found it significant that it is common knowledge that no fruit known as a “crunchberry” grows wild or occurs naturally in any part of the world. Any reasonable consumer would therefore understand that the brightly colored balls must be a composite of ingredients not including that fictional berry, and (the judge found) could not reasonably claim to have been deceived by the monicker “CrunchBerries” into expecting something with more actual fruit content. Perhaps Mr. Hewell’s motion for reconsideration (PDF) will persuade the judge otherwise, and if so, I look forward to reporting that. (Update Jun. 15: judge denies reconsideration).
Tagged as:
advertising,
class actions,
fraud
“Inventor of Vibrating Toilet Seat Sues Google Over Allegedly Defamatory Search Results” [Citizen Media Law]
P.S. Also in the news this morning, a less colorful lawsuit against Google over search results: the principals of the New Haven, Connecticut personal injury law firm of Stratton Faxon are incensed that when you search on their firm’s name in Google, you get along with the results an auto-generated ad from a competitive firm.
Tagged as:
advertising,
Connecticut,
Google,
libel slander and defamation
The Food and Drug Administration wants to protect you, whether you’d like it to or not. Don Surber: “Next they will tell me that Lucky Charms are not magically delicious, but rather manufactured like any other cereal.”
Tagged as:
advertising,
FDA
- Boy fatally shoots stepbrother at home, mom sues school district as well as shooter’s family [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]
- Problem gambler sues Ontario lottery for C$3.5 billion [Toronto Star]
- Cop declines training in which he’d be given Taser shock, and sues [Indianapolis Star]
- Ultra-litigious inmate Jonathan Lee Riches scrawls new complaint linking Bernard Madoff, Britney Spears [Kevin LaCroix]
- Just to read this update feels like an invasion of privacy: “Judge to Hear Challenge to $6M Herpes Case Award” [On Point News, earlier]
- “Best criminal strategy: join the Spokane police” [Coyote Blog] More: Greenfield, Brayton.
- Will mommy-bloggers be held liable for freebie product reviews? [Emily Friedman, ABC News, earlier]
- Update: “Fifth Circuit says no bail for Paul Minor” [Freeland]
Tagged as:
advertising,
Canada,
Federal Trade Commission,
Indiana,
Jonathan Lee Riches,
lottery,
Paul Minor,
police,
public employment,
schools,
Washington state
- Suit by Hurricane Katrina victims against Army Corps of Engineers set for trial April 20 [WSJ law blog, Frankel/AmLaw Daily, earlier]
- Some criminal defense arguments are creative, which doesn’t mean they’ll work [Ambrogi/Legal Blog Watch]
- Words to avoid in real-estate ads: safe, quiet, family-friendly, bachelor’s, walking distance [UrbanDigs.com, New York Post] And better not mention the quadruple murder in the house either [Fountain]
- The questionable science of repressed memories [Joann Wypijewski, The Nation]
- National coverage of 14 states’ ban on fish-nibble pedicures [WSJ via OpenMarket; earlier]
- States move to revoke medical license of Dr. Ray Harron, accused of falsely diagnosing thousands of plaintiffs in asbestos cases [(Chamber-backed) SE Texas Record]
- Conan tales are public domain in New Zealand, but online reading of them there draws nastygram anyway [BoingBoing and followup]
- “Wrestler stages a fall at 7-Eleven in attempt to collect $50,000″ [Obscure Store, Philadelphia Daily News]
Tagged as:
advertising,
asbestos,
copyright,
Katrina,
New Zealand,
real estate,
taxpayers
ApartmentRatings.com is a site that invites users to post their opinions about good and bad experiences as renters with particular buildings, complexes and landlords. The owners of two Bay area apartment complexes, Parkmerced in San Francisco and Larkspur Shores in Larkspur, have now sued eighteen unnamed defendants over negative comments such as “Construction noise, poor management, tacky decor, and an indifferent staff”, “I do not think the new management is sincerely trying to improve anything”, “stay far away and never look back,”, “worst place I’ve ever lived”, and “a real dump”. The real estate firms, Parkmerced Investors Properties LLC and Stellar Larkspur Partners LLC, claim libel, tortious interference with contract, and perhaps most creatively violations of the federal Lanham Act (their basis for getting into federal court). The Lanham Act is more usually encountered in complaints of false advertising, but the plaintiffs say it applies here “because Defendants misrepresent the nature, characteristics and qualities of the Apartments”. (Sam Bayard, Citizen Media Law, Nov. 24). According to CalBizLit (Nov. 20):
The two plaintiffs allege that “on information and belief” the posting reviewers included persons who were not tenants, but were employees, agents, etc. of competing apartment house communities. “On information and belief.” That’s often lawyer language for “I got no idea whether it’s true or not, but let’s do some discovery and see what happens.”
Tagged as:
advertising,
Bay Area,
online speech,
real estate,
San Francisco
