More attempts to sue/uncover anonymous blog commenters: “I was subpoenaed for a discovery deposition about one of my posts on this blog.” [Medblogger Dr. Wes]
When infamous NYC lawyer Burt Pugach calls, hang up [Greenfield]
Colleague described as “a soap opera doctor” elects to spend more time in the courtroom than in the operating room [Throckmorton]
Dear Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee: “Please resist the efforts of vaccine-injury plaintiffs’ advocates to define themselves as representatives of ‘the autism community.’” [Kathleen Seidel, Neurodiversity]
Although lawsuits against “Ladies’ Nights” discounts have prevailed in California and Colorado, a New York judge has thrown out Roy Den Hollander’s much-publicized suit seeking class action status on behalf of men not offered discounts at China Club and other Manhattan nightclubs. (AP/CBS News, Sept. 29; earlier here, here, here, and other posts at our tag). More: Hollander was advancing the relatively unusual argument that the discounts were unconstitutional, which failed when the judge declined to find that they constituted state action; earlier lawsuits against the discounts have generally been based on anti-discrimination statutes, and the case might have come out very differently had those theories been relied on.
Steve Chapman talks some common sense on sex-discrimination lawsuits filed by purportedly offended men, a perennial topic at this site, and many commenters @ Volokh chime in (syndicated/Reason, Sept. 18; Somin @ Volokh).
A New Yorker is back in the news with his attempts to shut down the sex-based discounts at drinking spots. (Gothamist, Dec. 17). See Jul. 29, etc., etc.
ABC News files a report on a sector of litigation we’ve covered extensively over the years:
Tim Gleason, general manager of the China Club in New York, calls [attorney Roy Den] Hollander’s complaint “pathetic” and echoes other club owners who argue that the discounts actually help both sexes by balancing out the ratio between men and women….
“Ladies’ Night benefits the men as much as it benefits the ladies, the clubs and society,” said John Juliano, owner of the recently closed Copacabana Nightclub. “And the only loser here is this grouch with a warped point of view.”
GWU lawprof and inveterate publicity hound John Banzhaf, whose “suing for credit” course has generated one such suit, gets a mention too. (Brittany Bacon, “‘Ladies’ Night’ Lawsuits on the Rocks?”, Jul. 25; 239 reader comments so far). More: Lat, Jul. 30.
“Ladies’ night” at the local tavern — sometimes it’s every night; sometimes it’s during certain hours — the idea is, the more females in the establishment, the better the “atmosphere” for the guys who pay for all the drinks anyway. So there’s no cover charge for women, or free drinks, or whatever. (Okay, so some of us don’t know so much about how bars work.) The point is it’s an economic calculation that no one really complains about because, after all, the guys like a nice “atmosphere.” Of course, lots of us have wondered if it’s really legal that girl elbow-benders don’t pay and boys do, but no one really thought it was something anyone was going to kvetch a court about.
New York attorney Roy Den Hollander, a solo practitioner for more than 15 years who deals primarily with civil litigation and corporate governance, has filed a class action against certain Manhattan nightclubs for “invidious discrimination” against men in their policies for admitting patrons….
Hollander says he attended each of these venues on nights when they held promotions offering women either free or reduced fees, shorter waiting periods, or longer windows for free or reduced admission that were not available to men.
“It’s either more money, more time or more burdensome,” said Hollander of the difficulties men face in gaining admittance to nightclubs…
Hollander also foresees an “uphill battle” in classifying the action as invidious discrimination, since he is arguing on behalf of men and not women, whom he says the U.S. Supreme Court has given “preferential treatment for past invidious, economic discrimination.”
“Whether this case succeeds or fails,” says Hollander, “it will result in a much needed victory for men.”
Mm, and how would that be, exactly? Seems from here that the exact opposite is probably the case — if it fails, well, how is that a victory except in the sense that nothing happening to you, and living another day so you can drink another Sam Adams is a victory? And if the case succeeds, probably fewer women will go to bars.
Unless, perhaps, you’re like Roy Den Hollander, and prefer drinking alone, or otherwise without having to wait for the distaff-side customers to be served sooner. Or cheaper. Or less burdensomely. Maybe Roy Den Hollander just doesn’t appreciate “atmosphere.”
“A cop sues McDonalds because of the slimy stuff a couple of teens put in his sandwich. His biggest problem may be that he didn’t even take a bite” [Turkewitz]
Montana Supreme Court: hunter can’t blame state for being attacked by bear [On Point]
Don’t: provide your criminal client with means to escape [Fulton County Daily Report]; alter documents responsive to discovery requests [The Recorder]; hide evidence in multi-billion dollar insurance litigation [NY Sun via Lattman]; or videotape your fellow lawyers changing clothes [ATL].
Reason #473 why I live in Virginia instead of DC: DC police catch two in middle of attempted burglary, just after being released from prison, decide to let them go because they can’t figure out what to charge them with. Good thing residents aren’t allowed to own guns to defend themselves, right? [PTN]
Last week, the California Supreme Court handed down yet another victory for abusive “antidiscrimination” litigation, ruling in favor of a California attorney who makes a business out of suing legitimate businesses for violations of California’s absurdly broad Unruh antidiscrimination law. Marc Angelucci and three of his fellow travelers sued the Century Supper Club, a nightclub, for charging women less than men on several occasions in 2002; although two lower courts found reasons to rule against them, the California Supreme Court ruled that their claims had merit. (Court decision: PDF)
Unfortunately, as a matter of law the Court is right. The Unruh law is written ridiculously, and it has no exception for bogus plaintiffs. (What’s the big deal? Just this: Unruh provides for a minimum of $4,000 damages, plus attorney’s fees, for successful plaintiffs, thus providing an incentive for Angelucci to turn an anti-Ladies’ Night crusade into a career. Even the California court recognized that its interpretation of the law improperly rewarded “professional plaintiffs and bounty-hunting attorneys,” but it (correctly) held that rewriting laws is for the legislature, not the courts.
Oh, and one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers in this case? Our old friend, Morse Mehrban. (Most recently covered: Apr. 17, and see links therein.) Mehrban and Angelucci have teamed up on these cases many times before.
This priceless segment ran on Comedy Central’s Daily Show with Jon Stewart the other day (Feb. 9). John Oliver interviews a Colorado man who’s filed bias complaint over “Ladies’ Night” bar promotions, and who insists — like so many other unintentionally silly litigants — that his cause deserves to share the moral high ground of the civil rights movement (”Sexual Stealing”).
For more on complaints targeting “Ladies’ Nights”, see Aug. 4, 2003, May 11 and Aug. 19, 2006 (Calif.), Jun. 10, 2004 (N.J.), Feb. 9 (N.H. — complainant charged with extortion).
More on the extortionate and lawless $500 billion Wal-Mart class certification. [Point of Law]
Mississippi Supreme Court rejects extortionate medical monitoring class actions. [Behrens @ WLF]
Lawyer Daniel Hynes tries to extort $2000 from New Hampshire bar holding Ladies’ Night. [Foster's Daily Democrat (h/t B.C.)]
Colorado Civil Justice League stops legislative attempt at giveaway to local trial lawyers. [Point of Law]
Wisconsin court: family can be sued for babysitter’s car accident when returning home from dropping off child. [AP/Insurance Journal]
Fox seeks to dismiss Borat suit on anti-SLAPP grounds. [Hollywood Reporter Esq. via WSJ Law Blog]
Passaic County jury: $28M for “wrongful birth.” [NorthJersey.com]
Former AG (and Dem) Griffin Bell: “Judicial Leadership Emerging In Asbestos And Silica Mass Torts” [WLF]
Utah legislature considering med-mal reform for ERs. “Neurosurgeons in this town have to pay over $90,000 a year just for the privilege of getting out of bed on a Friday night to drain the blood from the brain of a victim of a drunk driver crash. And they say, I’m not gonna do it. Because the patients are sicker. The procedures are sometimes more invasive and more risky with more complications. Why take that risk if they don’t have to?” [KCPW via Kevin MD; Provo Herald]
A little-read blog promoting a soon-to-be-pulped fictional account of tort reform is really begging for a link from us, what with three out of the last five posts making amateurish (and often false) personal attacks on this site’s authors or soliciting others to also fling poo. No dice.
Regarding Walter’s post below, I’d just like to point out that the judge probably had no choice in declining to dismiss the lawsuit. Indeed, the plaintiffs may very well win.
What is often overlooked (but not by Walter) is that California has a monstrous law called the “Unruh Act” that specifically authorizes such a cause of action for what most people consider harmless, de minimis gender-based discrimination.
I’ve heard that there are California law firms that specialize in Unruh claims. I can remember back in high school watching Judge Wapner of “The People’s Court” arbitrate an Unruh claim over a “Ladies’ Night” at a California bar — the male plaintiff won.
So, we are dealing here not with a frivolous lawsuit, but with a frivolous law. Passed by frivolous politicians.
To whom, for some reason, judges are supposed to show great deference. Go figure.
A Los Angeles psychologist who was denied a tote bag during a Mother’s Day giveaway at an Angel game is suing the baseball team, alleging sex and age discrimination.
Michael Cohn’s class-action claim in Orange County Superior Court alleges that thousands of males and fans under 18 were “treated unequally” at a “Family Sunday” promotion last May and are entitled to $4,000 each in damages.
(Dave McKibben, “L.A. Psychologist Who Didn’t Get Tote Bag at Mother’s Day Angel Game Files Lawsuit”, Los Angeles Times, May 11). Cohn’s attorney is Alfred Rava, who (as the L.A. Times really should have found out by Googling Overlawyered, if not its own archives) was among the key figures in the 2003 spree by which owners of San Diego nightspots were hit up for handsome cash settlements for having held “Ladies’ Night” promotions. The Unruh Act, California’s distinctively liberal civil rights statute, allows complainants to demand $4,000 a pop for such misdeeds, and it’s no defense to suggest that the customer’s primary reason for getting involved in the underlying transaction may have been to set up the $4,000 entitlement. More: “Lex Icon” wishes to make clear that he’s not the kind of lawyer who files cases like this (May 13).
A ban on the charging of different prices for men’s and women’s services, a bad idea already enacted in California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Miami and New York City, may soon be the law in Ontario if pending legislation is approved. One supporter thinks it’s unfair for hairdressers to charge more for women’s cuts than men’s, and it’s apparently beside the point that most women’s cuts are more complicated and take longer to perform. Ditto with women’s clothes at dry cleaners, which are less standardized and more likely to require individualized handling. Of course many discounts run in favor of women purchasers, most notably auto insurance for younger drivers; no word on whether Ontario legislators are hoping to defy actuarial realities on that front. (Christl Dabu, “For Canadian women, that haircut may soon get cheaper”, Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 10 — note the headline, whose counter-version about haircuts for men getting more expensive probably never stood a chance of running). For reports on legal action aimed at bar’s “Ladies’ Night” promotions, see Aug. 4, 2003 and Jun. 10, 2004.
“Why, after all, would a bar offer discounts to women? Not because the owner harbors a deep-seated hostility toward men, perpetuating centuries of oppression. People who run such establishments understand that a lot of men patronize taverns partly to meet women, and that they will come more often and stay longer if women are abundant than if they are scarce….[I]n New Jersey, unreasonableness rules.” (Steve Chapman, “Putting the brakes on ladies’ nights”, Chicago Tribune, Jun. 6). See also Aug. 4, 2003 (Calif.)
Although the California Supreme Court ruled as long ago as 1985 that the state’s civil rights law prohibits “Ladies’ Night” discounts at bars, various San Diego taverns apparently hadn’t gotten the word. That created a perfect opening for Steven Surrey and Alfred Rava to make the rounds of nightspots in the county, demanding similar discounts for themselves and taking note when they were refused. The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides $4,000 fines for each violation plus “one-way” attorneys’ fee awards (pay if you are a losing defendant, collect nothing if you win). The next step was for lawyers to swoop down and obtain $20,000 settlements from six errant bar owners and $5,000 from a seventh that was going out of business. “One of the [complainants] is a California Western School of Law classmate of the two lawyers who filed the suits on their behalf. The other is a paralegal. When asked about the social merits of these lawsuits, Erik Jenkins, one of the attorneys who filed the suits, made comparisons between ladies night discounts and the discrimination faced by African-Americans in the South.” (Alex Roth, San Diego Union-Tribune, Aug. 3).
In other news of California bounty-hunting, the Long Beach Press-Telegram (Aug. 2) has editorially cited our editor’s recent WSJ op-ed in upbraiding local Assemblywoman Martha Escutia for advancing a measure that masquerades as reform of the state’s notorious section 17200 law but in fact would give lawyers even more scope to use it for shakedowns (see Jul. 28).
Addendum: Lest anyone doubt that highly entrepreneurial applications of section 17200 remain alive and well despite the downfall of the Trevor Law Group, John Sullivan at the Civil Justice Association of California reprints a recent letter (PDF) from a Bay Area law firm demanding $6500 in legal fees in exchange for not filing a 17200 lawsuit over an allegedly erroneous advertisement; the law firm does not claim to represent any clients injured by the ad, but does state that “A substantial percentage of this firm?s practice is devoted to prosecuting UCL violations.” (”17200 Abuses don’t stop with Trevor: Shakedowns Head North”, CJAC press release, Jul. 23)
Not too long ago it was still a relatively novel idea for large law firms to sponsor or otherwise sanction blogging by their member lawyers or allied professionals. Now GeekLawBlog has a running total of 141 such blogs from 56...
In a stinging rebuke to a small army of progressive American academics, journalists, foundation grantmakers, and others whove promoted the case for years, a San Francisco jury has cleared the Chevron Corporation of all liability in the civil suit filed...
Reminder: Ill be on a morning panel discussion tomorrow sponsored by the Manhattan Institute to discuss Marie Gryphons new paper on loser-pays reform. Details here....
AmLaw Daily has some further updates on the high-stakes tobacco proceedings previewed by Prof. Krauss in this space last week. Further background here....
Some of our readers might be interested in checking out the recently established Secular Right blog, which seeks to demonstrate that atheism and secularism are compatible with being on the...
An atheist sign proclaiming that "Religion is but myth and superstition" has been included in a holiday display on public property in Olympia, Washington. The display at the Washington...
I'm delighted to report that Prof. David Hyman of the University of Illinois law school will be joining us as a co-blogger. David directs the Epstein Program in Health Law and...
Thanksgiving may be over. But it's not too late to learn one of the less-appreciated lessons of the First Thanksgiving back in 1621. As economist Benjamin Powell explains, the Pilgrims...
