Declaring that he had “better things to do”, U.S. District Judge Frederick Motz in Baltimore has dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an action by plaintiff’s lawyers seeking to grab more than $24 million from a $79 million fee pot awarded another group of lawyers for their work suing Microsoft in six states and the District of Columbia. The lawyers are still free to pursue their claims in state courts. (Brian Witte, “Federal judge dismisses request for legal fees in Microsoft case”, AP/Grand Forks Herald, Oct. 27). More on MS fee-ing frenzies: Jul. 25, 2004 and links from there.
Posts tagged as:
Baltimore
New Orleans criminal defense attorney Joseph Larre’s 300 clients were evacuated and now sit in lockups across the South, some as far away as Jacksonville, Fla. Many of his case records were destroyed by floodwater, and the city’s criminal courts have not reopened. So Larre, 47, drove around the city last week in his champagne-colored Ford Explorer and nailed signs to telephone poles announcing, in big red letters, “KATRINA CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT.”
By Friday, he had received 300 phone calls. At least two other lawyers, he said, have put up similar signs.
Larre said he hasn’t decided whom to sue for what. But he says he has heard from homeowners who fear that insurance companies will scrimp on settlements, as well as irate residents looking to haul New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and even the Red Cross into court.
As he considered potential defendants, Larre said, “I definitely like the oil companies and their insurance companies.”…
“You really hit the jackpot if you nail the Army Corps of Engineers,” he mused, standing in a mud-caked intersection in his shorts, T-shirt and running shoes.
(Douglas Birch, “Lawyers drawn to storm cases”, Baltimore Sun, Oct. 10).
{ 1 comment }
I was a guest on Kirby Wilbur’s nationally syndicated radio show last Friday, based at Seattle’s KVI, to discuss the Supreme Court vacancy. Yesterday I appeared on Danny Fontana’s Charlotte-based show and Ron Smith’s popular show on Baltimore’s WBAL to discuss President Bush’s selection of Harriet Miers and other legal issues.
Another tidbit from Sadakat Kadri’s colorful history The Trial, which I reviewed yesterday:
Howe’s [legendary NYC courtroom lawyer William Howe, whose heyday was the late 19th century] most remarkable talent, a skill that won him plaudits from colleagues and hoodlums alike, was an apparent ability to weep at will. Although [prosecutor Francis L.] Wellman suspected that he used an onion-scented handkerchief to get in the mood, the ducts, once opened, flowed steady as a siphon, and never were they deployed more effectively than during his summation in 1887 for a client named Edward Unger.
“Absolutely, we will be pursuing reparations from companies that have historical ties to slavery and engaging all parties to come to the table,” says the group’s interim president, Dennis C. Hayes. The definition of historical ties is conveniently elastic, too:
James Lide, director of the international division at History Associates Inc., a Rockville firm that researches old records, said determining how many U.S. businesses are linked to slavery depends upon definition.Almost every business has at least an indirect link to slavery, he said. For example, some railroad and Southern utility companies can trace their roots to businesses that used slave labor. Textile companies, for example, use cotton that was grown on Southern plantations.
“There’s never going to be a solid number because the idea of how you connect a company to slavery is more a political one than a historical one,” Mr. Lide said.
(Brian DeBose, “NAACP to target private business”, Washington Times, Jul. 12). Ironically or otherwise, large American businesses — including some of the same ones targeted in the reparations demands — are already the NAACP’s biggest source of financial support. “We will take your money today,” said Hayes, “and sue you tomorrow.” (Greg Barrett and Kelly Brewington, “Corporate Funding Raises Ethical Questions For NAACP”, Baltimore Sun, Dec. 13, 2004). More on reparations: Jun. 10 (again), Jul. 7, Jul. 9 and many more.
{ 2 comments }
With yesterday’s successful crash into a comet by NASA’s “Deep Impact” probe, the press is remembering a Russian astrologer’s nine-billion-ruble lawsuit in Moscow court claiming that the mission will “deform her horoscope.” (She claims it’s not about the money.)
We covered this on May 19, and the press reports that the case is scheduled for trial July 28. NASA representatives did not attend a July 4 hearing. Russian law supposedly allows “plaintiffs to recover an amount equal to the cost of the undertaking that allegedly does the harm.” (”Lawsuit aims to halt comet bomb”, Baltimore Sun, Jun. 27; AP, Jul. 5; Itar-TASS, Jul. 4).
{ 3 comments }
The Lost Coast Brewery in Humboldt, Calif. says it will take off the shelves its Indica India Pale Ale, whose label currently depicts the Indian elephant-god Ganesh “holding a beer in one of his four hands, and another in his trunk”. Although brewery co-owner Barbara Groom said her Hindu friends don’t mind the label, a California man named Brij Dhir sued the brewery, along with other defendants such as the Safeway supermarket chain, claiming that it is offensive and intimidates Hindus from practicing their religion. “Dhir seeks at least $25,000 and his lawsuit mentions that $1 billion would be appropriate to compensate Hindus around the world.” “It’s a hate crime”, Dhir told the Contra Costa Times. (”Brewery pulls label showing Hindu god”, RealBeer.com, May 9). (& welcome visitors from Blog Mela, the periodic tour of India-related blogs, hosted this time by Shanti Mangala, and from Sepia Mutiny). And: reader Rich B. from Baltimore is reminded of the recent post (Mar. 17) on the theme of how we’re lucky we don’t have blasphemy laws the way Europe does, and asks: why make a law when you can just sue about it?
{ 2 comments }
On Thursday the Baltimore Sun quoted me saying unflattering things about Stephen L. Snyder, the successful local attorney who’s taken out very costly ads ostensibly aimed at attracting a $1 billion case (see Feb. 16). I said Snyder has probably has made it onto the Top Ten list of tasteless lawyer-advertisers, having particularly in mind the cheesy way his website flips off would-be clients whose cases, however meritorious, lack a big enough payoff (Jennifer McMenamin, “In search of a $1 billion case, fielding 100 calls”, Baltimore Sun, Feb. 16)(reg). A week earlier the same paper quoted me commenting on the likely impact on civil litigation of a federal grand jury’s indictment of the W.R. Grace Co. and seven of its current or former executives; the charges arise from the widely publicized exposure of townspeople and others to asbestos hazards from the company’s vermiculite mine at Libby, Montana. (William Patalon III, “Grace’s plight made worse”, Feb. 9).
And: Rob Asghar of the Ashland (Ore.) Daily Tidings devoted two recent columns to the problem of overlawyering and was kind enough to quote my opinions (”Law and disorder”, part 1 (Feb. 7) and part 2 (Feb. 14)). NYC councilman David Yassky, sponsor of the let’s-sue-over-guns ordinance that I criticized in the New York Times two weeks ago (see Feb. 6), responds today with a letter to the editor defending the legislation (Feb. 20). My Manhattan Institute colleague Jim Copland, writing in the Washington Times on the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act, quotes my Feb. 11 post on the subject (”Tort tax cut”, Feb. 15). Finally, the New York Sun covers a recent Institute luncheon at which I introduced ABC’s John Stossel (Robert E. Sullivan, “John Stossel Chides the ‘Liberal’ Press for Spinelessness”, Feb. 9)(sub-$).
If yours isn’t worth a cool billion, Mr. Snyder of Baltimore doesn’t want to hear from you. We’ve come a long way from the taxi-hire model of lawyer service to the public, that’s for sure. (Jonathan D. Glater, “Advertising: Lawyer Spends a Million Dollars in Quest for a Verdict”, New York Times, Feb. 15). More: Feb. 20.
In December, Kevin Lindsey, a public school teacher and principal for thirty years, was arrested and “charged with two counts of child abuse, two counts of second-degree sex offense and one count of third-degree sex offense.” His name, and the allegations that he had abused two students in the late 1970s, made headlines in his community. Three weeks later, the charges were dropped because of a lack of evidence about the girls’ “recovered memories” and everything went back to normal for Mr. Lindsey. Right?
Not quite. Though he has been reinstated as the principal of his school after briefly being reassigned to the district office, one can only imagine the long-term damage done to his reputation. Now he has filed suit against the women, asking for $8 million for “malicious prosecution, defamation and invasion of privacy.” (Sara Neufeld, “Principal files lawsuit against accusers,” Baltimore Sun, Feb. 2).
{ 8 comments }
Boy meets girl. Boy marries girl and later assaults her. Girl successfully sues Internet foreign-brides matchmaking agency Encounters International for as much as $434,000 before a Baltimore jury, “for failing to screen its male clients and failing to tell her about the so-called battered spouse waiver, a provision in immigration law intended to help foreign nationals escape abusive relationships without fear of automatic deportation.” (Eric Rich, “Battered Wife Wins Suit Against Md. Matchmaker”, Washington Post, Nov. 19). More: Nadya Labi covered the Fox-Spivack lawsuit in Legal Affairs’ Jan.-Feb issue. And the text of the 1996 federal law on mail-order brides is here.
I’ll be speaking this evening (Thurs. Sept. 30) in Baltimore as part of a dinner-hour panel discussion on medical malpractice reform sponsored by the Chesapeake Lawyers’ Chapter of the Federalist Society. Other events scheduled for this fall (sponsored by the Federalist Society unless otherwise specified):
* Mon. Oct. 11, Whittier Law School, Costa Mesa, Calif.
* Tues. Oct. 12, Chapman Law School, Orange, Calif. (lunch) and Trinity Law School, Santa Ana, Calif. (late afternoon)
* Thurs. Oct. 14, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C., Legal Reform Summit, debating Bob Levy of Cato on federalism and litigation reform
* Wed. Nov. 10, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., commenting on publication of Bob Levy’s new book Shakedown
* Fri., Nov. 12, Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention, Washington, D.C., panel discussion on regulation by litigation with (among others) former Mississippi Attorney General Michael Moore and Michigan Supreme Court Justice Robert Young, Jr.;
* week of Nov. 15 (exact date TBA), Fordham Law School, New York City.
To inquire about our availability for speaking engagements, email editor – at – [this-domain-name] for me or tedfrank – at – [this-domain-name] for Ted.
{ 1 comment }
Last night I mentioned some of the difficulties in trying to justify racial profiling on the grounds of efficient policing. I just wanted to add a few more comments. First, in my paper with Mike Alexeev, our generally anti-profiling “results” apply to situations where the probability of being stopped is relatively low, as it is in standard highway enforcement. If the police can stop a substantial proportion of folks (a’ la airport screening), then our results are not applicable. Second, choosing whom to stop is the first stage, but as or more important is the next stage, how those who are stopped are treated. Is the stop limited in time and intrusiveness? (Here’s one way not to treat people.) Further, is the goal that ostensibly is being served actually benefiting from the profiling? In a fine paper that looks very closely at Maryland’s I-95 stops, Samuel R. Gross and Katherine Y. Barnes attack Maryland’s stop-and-search policy partly on the grounds that it accomplishes essentially nothing in impeding the flow of drugs to Baltimore and Washington, DC. Third, I am almost ashamed to admit that my own views on racial profiling changed a bit when I found myself to be a “profilee.” (I briefly recounted the tale during an earlier guest-blogging appearance at Crescat Sententia – oh no, I don’t want to develop a reputation as someone who blogs around!) Funny how it is easier to suport a policy (our drug war comes to mind) when you are pretty sure that you and yours will not bear the costs of it.
Who’s going to be left delivering babies? Maybe foreign medical graduates, who still perceive themselves as having fewer options than the U.S.-born medical students who are increasingly steering clear of obstetrics as a specialty. Of course there’s also the option of departing a state like Maryland, where the prevailing insurance premium for an ob/gyn is slated to rise this year to $160,130, and starting up practice instead in a state like Wisconsin, where tough tort reforms keep the corresponding figure to an average of $45,000 to $50,000, according to Dr. Douglas Laube, head of an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists panel on obstetrics residency. (Jonathan Bor, “Obstetrics is failing to draw new doctors”, Baltimore Sun, Jul. 11).
“Do you like shrimp but wish it cost more? Need some bedroom furniture but hate getting a good deal on it? If so, you’re very different from most Americans. You are, however, one of the few people who can rejoice in our national trade policies. … The laws against dumping are supposed to correct the problem by banning any imports that are sold below ‘fair value,’ a baffling concept understood by bureaucrats but not economists.” (Steve Chapman, syndicated/Baltimore Sun, Jul. 9).
Roller coaster, indeed: Maryland’s highest court has thrown out a jury’s $2.5 million verdict against the operator of the Six Flags amusement park at Largo over a 1999 incident in which park employees told a family that their 4-year-old daughter did not meet the height requirement for the Typhoon Sea Coaster ride. The family refused to get off the ride and there ensued an altercation with park employees which resulted in several family members being handcuffed and led away to security — none were apparently seriously hurt — before being let go an hour later. How did a dispute of this magnitude snowball into a $2.5 million jury verdict? Well, it seems that although the original charges against the park operators did not make an issue of race, lawyers for the plaintiffs (who are African-American) had repeatedly played up racial angles before the Prince Georges County jury. Finding “a significant probability that the verdict was influenced by improper and irrelevant insinuations by their attorneys and certain of their witnesses of racial discrimination by alleged employees of the corporate defendant,” the court ordered retrial (”Court of Appeals overturns $2.5 million award in Six Flags suit”, AP/InsideBaltimore, May 17; CoasterBuzz, May 18; Tierco v. Williams, opinion in PDF format)(via Insurance Defense Blog, Jun. 1). Just to guarantee the burning up of even more resources, the case spawned insurance coverage litigation (PDF) in Delaware.
June is a time for graduation, and what graduation would be complete without at least one lawsuit over who has the highest GPA? (See Jul. 12 and links therein.) Blogger Andrea comments unkindly. (Ariel Sabar, “Suit exposes cultural clash”, Baltimore Sun, Jun. 7; AP, Jun. 3) (via Bonin).
{ 1 comment }
In the late 1930s, Edward Kasner was asked to come up with the name for a large number; as legend has it, he asked his nine-year old nephew, who said “googol,” and Kasner’s 1940 book “Mathematics and the Imagination” popularized the term for the number 1 followed by a hundred zeroes. Over a half century later, a variation of that word was used to name a popular search engine, which you may have heard is going public in an e billion dollar offering.
Now Kasner’s great-niece, Peri Fleisher, is going public herself, complaining that her family hasn’t been compensated for Google’s choice of a name, and “exploring” the possibility of legal action. Fleisher has said that she would settle for being allowed to participate as an “insider” in the IPO; the interviewer, either out of ignorance or charity, doesn’t point out that because the Google IPO is a “Dutch auction,” Fleisher already has the right to participate as an “insider” (presuming she means a “friends and family offering”), which is merely the right to buy shares in an IPO at the issuing price. (Gerald P. Merrell, “Have your Google people talk to my ‘googol’ people”, Baltimore Sun, May 16).
{ 1 comment }
