Posts tagged as:

Cleveland

“A Rhode Island jury today found Sherwin-Williams Co. and two other paintmakers guilty of creating a ‘public nuisance’ by manufacturing lead paint after it was found to be dangerous.” If upheld, the verdict will force the companies to contribute millions toward abatement of existing paint; a judge will also consider demands for punitive damages. The ruling, the first of its kind, is also expected to encourage the filing of more suits against the industry; the cities of Chicago and Milwaukee are among those with suits in progress. (Maya R. Payne, “Jury finds against three paintmakers”, Crain’s Cleveland Business, Feb. 22; AP/Boston Globe; Reuters). Blogger Jane Genova has been covering the three-month trial from the scene.

The verdict is an unfortunate confirmation that the “tobacco model” of mass tort litigation remains alive and well. In particular, contingency-fee private counsel have once again managed to 1) dream up a novel idea for litigation based on the idea that some category of public expenditure is really blameable on long-ago sales of a product; 2) sell the idea of suing to public officials who agree to front the action, and who thus provide (along with advocacy groups) a suitably public face for the lawsuit; and 3) manage to get liability attributed retroactively to businesses whose actions decades ago were plainly lawful under the standards of that time. In the Rhode Island case, in particular, the outcome represents the culmination of years of careful groundwork by South Carolina-based asbestos/tobacco powerhouse plaintiff’s firm Motley Rice (earlier Ness Motley), which some years embarked on a strategy of making itself a behind-the-scenes kingmaker in Rhode Island — one of America’s most politically insider-ish, as well as smallest, states. For details on how the Motley firm quickly established itself the number one donor in Rhode Island politics, with special generosity toward officials who could be helpful to its idea for a lead paint suit, see Jun. 7, 2001.

For more coverage of the Rhode Island suit, see Jun. 8-10, 2001; Jul. 2, Nov. 1 and Nov. 16, 2005; and various other entries.

{ 3 comments }

Nanotech’s legal risks

by Walter Olson on December 1, 2005

They’re anything but infinitesimal, or so conferees were told recently:

“However,” Monica warns, “no industry — including the nanotechnology industry — is beyond the reach of American trial lawyers. Concerns about possible health and safety hazards posed by nanomaterials are being raised among labor unions and environmentalists; trial lawyers cannot be far behind. Some have even begun to compare nanotechnology to asbestos, a material plagued by $70 billion in litigation over the past three decades.”

Lawyer John C. Monica Jr. of Porter Wright Morris & Arthur in Cleveland, along with colleagues, wrote the paper, which was entitled “Preparing for Future Health Litigation: The Application of Product Liability Law to Nanotechnology.” (Keay Davidson, “Big troubles may lurk in super-tiny tech”, San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 31)(more tech law coverage)(& welcome InstaPundit readers).

{ 1 comment }

Geoffrey Fieger update

by Ted Frank on October 24, 2005

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).

{ 1 comment }

The Wall Street Journal editorial page celebrates the likelihood that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act will pass, which would end the gun-control-through-litigation movement.

State legislatures have been rolling back firearm laws because the restrictions were both ineffectual and unpopular. Gun-controllers have responded by avoiding legislatures and going to court, teaming with trial lawyers and big city mayors to file lawsuits blaming gun makers for murder. Companies have been hit with at least 25 major lawsuits, from the likes of Boston, Atlanta, St. Louis, Chicago and Cleveland. A couple of the larger suits (New York and Washington, D.C.) are sitting in front of highly creative judges and could drag on for years.

Which seems to be part of the point. The plaintiffs have asked judges to impose the sort of “remedies” that Congress has refused to impose, such as trigger locks or tougher restrictions on gun sales. Some mayors no doubt also hope for a big payday. But short of that, the gun-control lobby’s goal seems to be keep the suits going long enough to drain profit from the low-margin gun industry.

(Wall Street Journal, Jul. 27 ($)). Democratic Senator John D. Rockefeller IV yesterday became the sixtieth co-sponsor. Still, the Journal may be celebrating prematurely. Last term, the legislation was scuttled by the attachment of clever poison-pill amendments that caused the most fervent guns-rights advocates to withdraw support for the bill, so the fact that the current bill has supermajority support surprisingly doesn’t mean that it’s out of the woods yet. For more, see our ongoing coverage.

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).

Update: Bonds ball

by Walter Olson on June 5, 2005

“The fan who originally gloved and then fought to keep Barry Bonds’ 73rd home run baseball may still owe his former attorney more than what the ball fetched at auction, a California appeal court ruled May 24.” Attorney Martin Triano says Alex Popov owes him $473,530; lawyers for Patrick Hayashi, the other disputant in the squabble, agreed to roll back their fees so that he would not come out behind on the episode. (Warren Lutz, “Bonds’ Ball Litigant Strikes Out in Fee Fight”, The Recorder, May 31). See Jul. 1 and Jul. 12, 2003 and Jan. 3, 2004. And independent filmmaker Michael Wranovics has made a documentary about the whole episode entitled “Up For Grabs” which won the Audience Award for Best Documentary at the Los Angeles Film Festival and has been getting good critical reviews (Clint O’Connor, “A record-breaking hit brings out the base instincts in sports fans”, Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 27; Glenn Whipp, “Big hit, comedy of errors”, Long Beach Press-Telegram, May 12; “Film Listings: Ongoing”, San Francisco Bay Guardian, May 4-May 10; Neil Davis, “You gotta catch ‘Up For Grabs’”, Stanford Daily, May 9).

Crustless wrapup

by Walter Olson on May 31, 2005

Cleveland Scene magazine follows up on the reverses suffered by the Smucker company in its efforts to patent the crustless peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich (Rebecca Meiser, “The Peanut Butter Jam”, Apr. 20)(see Apr. 9, 2005; Jan. 30 and May 1, 2001). On a more serious note, Dennis Crouch of Patent Law Blog has two recent posts on the politics of patent reform in Congress (May 25, May 26).

A Kent State student resold unopened Microsoft software at a profit, the giant company sued him, and things just spiraled from there. The two sides have settled now, though. (Denise Grollmus, “Kill Bill”, Cleveland Scene, Mar. 30).

{ 1 comment }

Jameel Talley had been fired from the local police department, but the mayor of North Randall (pop. 893 and dropping) “sent what he called a ‘second chance’ letter to Maple Heights, saying Talley should not have been fired. The mayor said he ‘erred in judgment’ and ‘recommends 100 percent (that) Talley continue his career in law enforcement.’” So Maple Heights hired him for their police department, where Talley had a spotless record, and the local Dillard’s hired him for off-duty work as a security guard.

Unfortunately, Talley had been fired from North Randall for shooting at a shoplifting suspect.

And, unfortunately again, 41-year-old Guy Wills, under the influence of drugs, decided to shoplift a leather jacket at Dillard’s, and then resist arrest from the much larger Talley. So Talley smashed him upside down into the concrete floor. Unfortunately again, Wills checked himself out of the hospital, got sick at the police station, refused treatment or a trip to the emergency room–and then fell into a coma, and when he woke up, he was dead. Shortly after the incident, Dillard’s shut down the store. Talley was convicted of voluntary manslaughter for excessive force, and sentenced to three years. And Dillard’s, as the deep pocket, was sued. (NewsNet5: Jan. 18 (featuring the great line “Dillard’s attorney, who’s [sic] name is unknown at this time”), June 23, 2003; Nov. 14, 2002; “Dillard’s to close Raleigh Springs store”, Memphis Business Journal, Jan. 27, 2003).

The attorney was none other than Geoffrey Fieger (Oct. 11 and Aug. 31 and lots of links therein), but the trial wasn’t going so well, so he adopted what seems to be a standard tactic: deliberately try to alienate the judge, and then loudly complain about prejudice.

[Judge Nancy Margaret] Russo leveled a litany of legal wrongs against Fieger, including: insulting and berating lawyers and calling them liars; making faces after she ruled against him; repeatedly interrupting testimony; entering objections loudly; and threatening an insurance adjuster with the loss of his job.

“He has been nothing but bullying, loud, obnoxious and unprofessional,” Russo said. “I have tried for three weeks to rein him in. I have done my best.”

The final straw came Thursday after attorney Larry Zukerman accused Fieger of accosting him and threatening to have his client — former Dillard’s store manager Frank Monaco — arrested for obstruction of justice.

Russo threatened Fieger with contempt, and Fieger responded by pulling himself off the case and asking for a mistrial. For some reason, Russo rewarded the antics with exactly what Fieger wanted, and now Fieger gets to start all over with another judge, and a second bite at correcting whatever problems he saw with the first trial. (James F. McCarty, “Lawyer quits case on judge’s threat”, Cleveland Plain-Dealer, Jan. 29; James F. McCarty, “Mistrial in wrongful-death case of shoplifter”, Cleveland Plain-Dealer, Feb. 1). And shame on our Cleveland readers for not letting us know about this one sooner.

{ 2 comments }

An Ohio receiver

by Walter Olson on February 23, 2005

“Judges appoint Mark Dottore to stabilize troubled companies. Critics say he’s cleaning them out.” (Kevin Hoffman, “King Nothing”, Cleveland Scene, Feb. 9). For a glimpse at the world of court-appointed trusteeships in New York, see Nov. 11, 2003.

That’s a quote from attorney Judson Hawkins, who’s representing Mary Ellen Michaels in her lawsuit against a seven-year-old boy whose bike she collided with while rollerblading, the boy’s grandmother and parents (“who were a thousand miles away at the time”). The Ohio courts have dismissed her complaint, but Michaels vows to appeal to the state supreme court if necessary. (“Suing a 7-Year-Old”, Cleveland Scene, Feb. 9).

{ 1 comment }

“Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro has asked the Ohio Supreme Court to sanction four lawyers who handled a legal challenge, later withdrawn, to last year’s presidential election in Ohio.” The challenge focused on the long lines faced by voters, a claimed shortage of voting machines in African-American neighborhoods, and potential fraud. The AG’s motion calls the election challenge “meritless” and claims it was done for “partisan political purposes.” The motion continues, “A contest proceeding is not a toy for idle hands. It is not to be used to make a political point, or to be used as a discovery tool, or used to inconvenience or harass public officials, or to be used as a publicity gimmick. [It] is a wholly inappropriate forum to address the localized problems of long lines, shortages of machines, failing to receive notice of the proper voting precinct or casting of provisional ballots.” (Reginald Fields, “Attorney general’s call to punish lawyer is reply to election challenge,” Cleveland Plain-Dealer, Jan. 19; Editorial, “Blaming the messengers,” N.Y. Times, Feb. 3). See also earlier posts (Dec. 20; Dec. 15.)

John Gregg of Shaker Heights, Ohio wasn’t satisfied with the $30,000 that an arbitrator awarded him for supposedly slipping on soap and water in the men’s room of a McDonald’s restaurant. He insisted on a jury trial instead, but as the trial date approached the restaurant chain investigated the case further and found that Gregg, “who had a 2002 arson conviction connected to burning a relative’s car for insurance money,” wasn’t telling the strict truth when he said he didn’t know the customer who was serving as his key witness in the claim. In fact, the man had worked with Gregg at a construction firm and the two had both collected payments from Geico two years earlier after claiming that their cars had collided with each other. Calling his actions “fraudulent”, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Timothy J. McGinty found Gregg in contempt of court, “ordered him jailed for 30 days and fined him $250.” (Jim Nichols, “Pass up $30,000, go directly to jail”, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Dec. 17; “Outcome of McDonald’s suit should be modeled” (editorial), Richmond, Ind., Palladium-Item, Dec. 22).

“The Ohio Parole Board has decided a Cleveland-area man has spent the last 25 years behind bars for a crime he may not have committed and voted unanimously for his release.” Gary Reece was convicted of rape in 1980 on the accusation of a neighbor despite his denials and a lack of any evidence that he had ever been in the accuser’s apartment. In the years since then much evidence has accumulated casting doubt on the credibility of his accuser, Kimberly Croft. In fact, “on one television news program, [Croft] claimed that Gary Reece actually killed her during the attack in question, but that ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarves’ brought her back to life,’” according to a brief filed with the parole board by law students working with the Ohio Innocence Project. (Roy Wood, “UC law students convince board: Man is innocent”, Cincinnati Post, Dec. 18; “Imprisoned on a shaky story”, (editorial), Cleveland Plain Dealer, Dec. 5).

Land of junk-fax lawsuits

by Walter Olson on December 15, 2004

Illinois lawyers have established their state as the new hotbed of junk-fax litigation, according to Chicago Business. “In 2002 in Downstate St. Clair County, a Circuit Court judge ordered Seventeen Motors Inc. to pay $7 million for sending about 33,000 unsolicited faxes.” Cleveland-based Charter One Bank recently “agreed to pay $1.8 million for sending unsolicited faxes to about 70,000 phone numbers.” And “Cook County Circuit Court Judge Patrick McGann alone has since 2002 presided over more than 100 lawsuits, all seeking class action status, filed against senders of junk faxes.” Particularly active in the business: Daniel Edelman and his firm of Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC. (Shruti Dat? Singh, “An IL industry: junk-fax law suits”, Chicago Business, Dec. 12). For more on junk-fax litigation, see Mar. 19, 2004, Jul. 19, 2003, etc.

Geoffrey Fieger’s $30 million verdict in the cerebral-palsy case Hollins v. Jordan (Oct. 11), thrown out by one judge, has been reinstated by a second judge. The press coverage isn’t clear why Judge Lawther “voluntarily removed himself” from the case; Fieger had earlier threatened to file a motion to remove the judge (Aug. 31). Fieger isn’t satisfied with $30 million; he’s going to ask the court for an additional $50 million in “pre-judgment interest.” The defendants have not had an opportunity to comment, but they’ll presumably appeal to a higher court on the grounds that led the first judge to throw out the verdict. (James F. McCarty, Cleveland Plain-Dealer, Nov. 20).

Update: Hollins v. Jordan

by Ted Frank on October 11, 2004

American Medical News has additional details on the Ohio cerebral palsy medical malpractice case of Hollins v. Jordan, which we covered Aug. 31. Interesting new and previously unreported details include: Hollins was an intrauterine growth-retarded baby, yet the plaintiff sought to blame his medical problems on a decision to hold a C-section in two hours instead of one; plaintiffs asked for triple the damages they had disclosed in an expert report; Geoffrey Fieger would regularly interrupt lawyers for the other side as if “to emulate TV trials in which lawyers can do and say whatever comes to mind.” Though Fieger wouldn’t talk to the American Medical News, the two lawyers gave an interview to an Illinois newspaper that seems to be unaware that the judge overturned the May verdict. (Tanya Albert, “Judge: Mega-verdict spawned by passion”, Oct. 11; Mark Samuels, “Difficult Questions: Who Should Pay And How Much?”, The Southern Illinoisan, Sep. 2; James F. McCarty, “Disabled boy gets $30 million”, Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 25). You may or may not be disturbed to learn that there is a Geoffrey Fieger fan club that was unhappy with the Ohio court’s decision, though don’t expect to find much in the way of reasoned analysis there. (Update, Nov. 20: verdict reinstated.)

In other cerebral palsy litigation news, the Wall Street Journal tells the tale of Brenda Stoltz. The lawyers she retained were excited about the prospect of a multi-million-dollar case involving future lifetime medical care of a brain-damaged baby, but when the child died shortly after, the attorneys dropped the case. (Rachel Zimmerman and Joseph T. Hallinan, “As Malpractice Caps Spread, Lawyers Turn Away Some Cases”, Oct. 8 ($), reprint; Grunt Doc blog, Oct. 8; Brad Parker, Galen’s Log blog, Oct. 8). The Journal article notes one side effect with non-economic damages caps; people without income–the elderly, the young, homemakers–who suffer wrongful death can be left without real recourse, though this is true for many types of untimely death.

{ 1 comment }

Fieger does it again

by Ted Frank on August 31, 2004

We’ve previously covered the exploits of Geoffrey Fieger (Jul. 24; May 31, 2001). Fieger is nationally known for defending Dr. Kevorkian, but he’s also had over $100 million in jury verdicts thrown out because of his outrageous behavior in court. Fieger’s strategy is to inflame the jury, get a huge verdict, and then hope it stands up in response to the inevitable defense motion for new trial and appeal. Most recently, in a cerebral palsy case Fieger sought to blame on a Dr. Ronald Jordan, he delivered the following in a closing argument:

“Please, please, nurses,” Fieger said in his closing arguments, “I’m a little baby, I want to play baseball, I want to hug my mother, I want to tell her that I love her. Help me. Please help me to be born.”

Judge Lawther “called it a ‘performance far beyond the bounds of theatrical license,’ designed to appeal to the jury’s natural sympathy through passion and prejudice–two factors the law says should not enter into verdicts.” (Compare: John Edwards’s closing argument in a similar case discussed in a New York Times article we linked on Jan. 31.) A Cuyahoga County jury voted 6-2 to award $30 million to Walter Hollins in May, and the judge tossed the verdict last week. Fieger defends his closing as “his specialty.” Just so. (James F. McCarthy, “Judge rejects $30 million for malpractice”, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Aug. 27). (Updates: more on case, Oct. 11; verdict reinstated, Nov. 20).

{ 4 comments }