And that includes Judge Reinhardt.
{ 1 comment }
Posts tagged as:
Ninth Circuit
The release of 25 percent of the state’s prison inmates might prove a tad controversial. [Kerr, Volokh]
{ 1 comment }
- Significant if true: Ninth Circuit may have finally decided that judges should stop micromanaging Forest Service timber sales [Lands Council v. McNair, Adler @ Volokh]
- GMU lawprof/former Specter aide whose law review output grabbed big chunks of others’ work without attribution doesn’t belong on the federal bench, though he may have a future at Harvard Law [Liptak, NYT; WSJ law blog]
- Update on gift card class actions (earlier) filed by Madison County, Ill.’s mother-daughter team of Armettia Peach and Ashley Peach [MC Record; more background here and here]
- If you regard demand letters from attorneys as menacing and aggressive, maybe you’re one of those “lawyer-haters” with cockamamie notions of loser-pays [Greenfield, and again]
- Just wait till Public Citizen goes after those “charities” that spend more on telemarketing than they raise by it — oh, wait a minute [LA Times via Postrel]
- U.K.: nursery schools urged to report as “racist” incidents in which pre-schoolers say “yuk” about spicy foreign foods [BBC, Telegraph, Taranto; the author speaks, via Michael Winter, USA Today]
- Blawg Review #167 creatively assigns each of 50+ blog posts to its own “state”, though it took some doing to associate us with “Maryland” [Jonathan Frieden, E-Commerce Law]
- I will NOT go around saying Miami-Dade judges are being paid off… I will NOT go around saying Miami-Dade judges are being paid off… [Daily Business Review, earlier]
- “‘I’m thinking of getting disability.’ … This individual figured that [it] was tantamount to a career choice”. [physician blogger Edwin Leap]
- New FASB regulation may provide fodder for trial lawyers: publicly disclose your internal analysis of liability (thus giving away crucial settlement information and attracting more lawsuits), and/or face lawsuits when your disclosure turns out to be incorrect. [CFO.com; CFO.com; NLJ/law.com ($); FASB RFC]
- NBC settles a “You-made-me-commit-suicide-by-exposing-my-pedophilia” lawsuit. [LA Times; WSJ Law Blog; Conradt v. NBC Universal]
- A victim of overwarning? 17-year-old loses hat on Six Flags Batman roller-coaster ride, ignores multiple warning signs to jump multiple fences into unauthorized area, retrieves hat, loses head. [FoxNews/AP; Atlanta Journal-Constitution; TortsProf]
- Lots of Ninth Circuit reversals this term, as per usual. [The Recorder/law.com]
- A no-Twinkie defense doesn’t fly in a maid-beating case. [CNN/AP via ATL]
- The Chinese government demonstrates that it can enforce laws against IP piracy when it wants to [Marginal Revolution]
- “Justice Scalia said he thought that the United States was ‘over-lawed,’ leading to too many lawyers in the country. ‘I don’t think our legal system should be that complex. I think that any system that requires that many of the country’s best minds, and they are the best minds, is too complex. If you look at the figures, where does the top of the class in college go to? It goes into law. They don’t go into teaching. Now I love the law, there is nothing I would rather do but it doesn’t produce anything.’” [Telegraph]
- Above the Law commenters decidedly unimpressed by my looks. Looking forward to feminists rushing to my defense against “silencing insults.” [Above the Law]
{ 10 comments }
The furor over the Kozinski web site pseudo-scandal over what Wonkette calls “the sort of naughtiness you’d find in the dirty birthday cards section at Spencer Gifts” has caused Judge Alex Kozinski to recuse himself from the obscenity trial, resulting in a mistrial. Kozinski is known for his ethical rectitude, which is perhaps why he did so, but one wishes that he didn’t permit the appalling LA Times coverage to create a perception of a perception of a bias, much less agree that that provides grounds for recusal. But with some implausibly calling for his resignation, discretion is perhaps the better part of valor. Still, as Jesse Walker notes, “There has been no shortage of free-speech trials in which the presiding judges had a moral objection to essentially innocuous material. I don’t see any reason why such a case shouldn’t be heard by a jurist with a history of tolerance.” And one wishes that the conservatives calling for Kozinski’s resignation would use that powder for Ninth Circuit judges who act ultra vires rather than for the jokes judges share in their own time.
{ 33 comments }
- Ninth Circuit, Kozinski, J., rules 8-3 that Roommates.com can be found to have violated fair housing law by asking users to sort themselves according to their wish to room with males or other protected groups; the court distinguished the Craigslist cases [L.A. Times, Volokh, Drum]
- Class-action claim: Apple says its 20-inch iMac displays millions of colors but the true number is a mere 262,144, the others being simulated [WaPo]
- U.K.: compulsive gambler loses $2 million suit against his bookmakers, who are awarded hefty costs under loser-pays rule [BBC first, second, third, fourth stories]
- Pittsburgh couple sue Google saying its Street Views invades their privacy by including pics of their house [The Smoking Gun via WSJ law blog]
- U.S. labor unions keep going to International Labour Organization trying to get current federal ground rules on union organizing declared in violation of international law [PoL]
- Illinois Supreme Court reverses $2 million jury award to woman who sued her fiance’s parents for not warning her he had AIDS [Chicago Tribune]
- Italian family “preparing to sue the previous owners of their house for not telling them it was haunted”; perhaps most famous such case was in Nyack, N.Y. [Ananova, Cleverly]
- Per their hired expert, Kentucky lawyers charged with fen-phen settlement fraud “relied heavily on the advice of famed trial lawyer Stan Chesley in the handling of” the $200 million deal [Lexington Herald-Leader]
- Actor Hal Holbrook of Mark Twain fame doesn’t think much of those local anti-tobacco ordinances that ban smoking on stage even when needed for dramatic effect [Bruce Ramsey, Seattle Times]
- Six U.S. cities so far have been caught “shortening the amber cycles below what is allowed by law on intersections equipped with cameras meant to catch red-light runners.” [Left Lane via Virtuous Republic and Asymmetrical Information]
{ 7 comments }
All-automotive edition:
- Court won’t unseal settlement arising from $105 million Aramark/Giants Stadium dramshop case for fear girl’s father will try to get his hands on money [NJLJ, NorthJersey.com, Childs; earlier]
- Great moments in insurance defense law: you mean it wasn’t a good idea to infiltrate that church meeting to investigate the crash claim? [Turkewitz first, second posts]
- Columnist Paul Mulshine rejoices: Ninth Circuit decision “if it stands, will lead to the end of the SUV as we know it” [Newark Star-Ledger]
- Is it unfair — and should it be unlawful? — for insurers to settle crash victims’ claims too early? [Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog]
- If Ron Krist prevails in shoot-out of Texas plaintiff titans, he vows to have sheriff seize John O’Quinn’s Batmobile [American Lawyer; see also Ted's take earlier]
- In much-watched case, Australian high court by 3-2 split upholds highway authority against claim defective bridge design was blameworthy after youth’s dive into shallow water [RTA NSW v. Dederer, Aug. 30]
- Redesigning Toyota’s occupant restraint system? Clearly another job for the Marshall, Texas courts [SE Texas Record; Point of Law; more]
- Bench trial results in $55 million verdict against U.S. government after Army employee on business runs red light and paralyzes small child [OC Register]
- Vision in a purple Gremlin: her Yale Law days shaped Hillary in many ways [Stearns/McClatchy]
- Zero tolerance for motorists’ blood-alcohol — are we sure we want to go there? [Harsanyi, Reason]
- Driver falls asleep, so of course Ford must pay [two years ago on Overlawyered; much more on our automotive page]
{ 4 comments }
We’ve extensively covered the various fair-housing complaints against Craiglist (Aug. 10, 2005; Feb. 9, Feb. 20, Mar. 6, Jun. 28, Dec. 1, 2006) for that service’s hosting ads for housing and roommates that fall afoul of non-discrimination laws—it’s technically illegal for a woman to say that she’s looking for another woman to share her apartment with, much less a co-religionist or someone without kids. We somehow missed the Santa Clara and San Diego lawsuits against Roommates.com over the same issue. While a district threw out the case, an appeal went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and that was that: the three judges, Kozinski, Reinhardt, and Ikuta, wrote three separate opinions, with two of them deciding that there was enough for a suit to go forward on the grounds that there may be a cause of action under the Fair Housing Act because Roommate.com makes it easier for their users to express discriminatory preferences by using questionnaires that are then translated into searchable advertisements, thus supposedly running outside the Communications Decency Act’s immunity provision by being an “information content provider” because it is “responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of [the] information”:
“By categorizing, channeling and limiting the distribution of users’ profiles, Roommate provides an additional layer of information that it is “responsible” at least “in part” for creating or developing.”
Worse, Judge Kozinski’s opinion issues irrelevant dicta, apparently aimed at a suit not being litigated before him:
Imagine, for example, www.harrassthem.com with the slogan “Don’t Get Mad, Get Even.” A visitor to this Web site would be encouraged to provide private, sensitive and/or defamatory information about others — all to be posted online for a fee.
Kozinski posits that this site—plainly based on dontdatehimgirl.com (Apr. 9 and links therein)—would also flunk the CDA protection. (Cal Law reporter/blogger Brian McDonough notes this passage, but apparently thinks it’s just a joke and thus misses its significance.) The administrators of Autoadmit/xoxohth.com (May 3) might also be concerned about this dicta. (Rebecca Tushnet makes this point independently.)
This substantial narrowing of § 230(c) protections is also bad because it now means that a number of Internet sites that were plainly protected before no longer have unambiguous protection, a problem exacerbated by the lack of a clear majority opinion. Creative lawyering can argue that these websites might be within Fair Housing Counsel‘s fact-driven exception to the CDA exception, and thus get past the motion-to-dismiss stage, forcing defendants into expensive legal proceedings.
Elsewhere on the Internet: Volokh; Eric Goldman; Adam Liptak @ NYT; Slashdot; Laura Quilter; Aaron Perzanowski; Lillian Edwards; The Register. Joe Gratz has purchased harassthem.com.
Volokh separately argues the underlying laws are unconstitutional as applied to roommates.
{ 3 comments }
We’ve had many stories on frequent filer Jared Molski, the vexatious litigant who has filed hundreds of ADA actions in the last five years, and his lawyer Thomas Frankovich, briefly suspended for related ethical violations. Today the Ninth Circuit came down with an opinion in the case of Molski v. M.J. Cable:
Molski, who is paraplegic, sued Cable’s for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California’s
Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), alleging that Cable’s
failed to accommodate the disabled. Although Molski provided
uncontradicted evidence that Cable’s did not identify
and remove architectural barriers, the jury returned a verdict
for the restaurant. The District Court denied Molski’s motion
for a new trial, speculating that the jury could have reasonably
concluded that because of Molski’s record of litigiousness, he
was a “business” and not an “individual” entitled to the
ADA’s protections. We reverse.[...]
On cross examination, Molski acknowledged that: he did not complain
to any of Cable’s employees about his access problems; he
had filed 374 similar ADA lawsuits as of October 8, 2004;
Frankovich had filed 232 of the 374 lawsuits; even more lawsuits
had been filed since that date; Molski and Frankovich
averaged $4,000 for each case that settled; Molski did not pay
any fees to Frankovich; Molski maintained no employment
besides prosecuting ADA cases, despite his possession of a
law degree; Molski’s projected annual income from settlements
was $800,000; Molski executed blank verification
forms for Frankovich to submit with responses to interrogatories;
they had also filed lawsuits against two other restaurants
owned by Cable’s; they had filed a lawsuit against a nearby
restaurant; and Sarantschin obtained up to 95% of his income
from Frankovich’s firm for performing investigations for
ADA lawsuits.
The court acknowledges Molski’s notorious history as a vexatious litigant, but effectively holds that the ADA permits such strategies. That legal holding appears correct (the ability of professional litigants to extort small businesses is a statutory problem with the ADA and the Unruh Act that needs to be solved by the legislature, rather than by courts). But the jury could have chosen to disbelieve Molski’s testimony, given that Molski had the burden of proof and had substantial pecuniary motivation. The Ninth Circuit simply refuses to acknowledge this possibility in reversing the jury’s verdict. (It’s unclear whether testimony the restaurant vice president provided on cross-examination provides sufficient admissions to justify the appellate court’s decision; it is possible that this is the case.) Worse, in dicta in footnote 3, the Ninth Circuit suggests that it may have been improper for the defendants to have cross-examined Molski on his full-time litigation career because such evidence would have been “irrelevant.” (Via Bashman.)
Update: The On Point blog (sadly still missing permalinks, though now with an RSS feed) posts the trial court decision denying a new trial, which is less than absolutely persuasive.
{ 3 comments }
- New Jersey Supreme Court won’t touch appellate court reversal of $105M dram-shop verdict against Aramark Corp. Not noted in our earlier coverage: Aramark was held liable as a deep pocket through illegitimate piercing of the corporate veil, adding yet another problem to an appalling series of problems with the trial. [New Jersey Law Journal; earlier on Overlawyered; Point of Law]
- Half-trillion-dollar class certified against Wal-Mart in lawless Ninth Circuit decision. [Point of Law]
- Court papers show direct link to Lerach in Milberg probe. Most entertaining: a letter by Lerach saying “Dr. Cooperman’s reputation and character are impeccable.” Cooperman has since pled guilty to taking kickbacks, and Milberg Weiss now says he has no credibility. [National Law Journal; WSJ Law Blog]
- Slip and fall worth $5.7M [Atlantic City Press]
- Cardiologists doing Brazilians: “Graduating med students aren’t blind; they see established physicians with busy practices dropping out. Looking ahead they see more headaches–more controls and regulations, more scrutiny, more liability, less money.” [TIME via Kevin MD]
- Florida law may allow men to get out of paying fraudulent paternity when DNA shows they’re not the father. [Miami Herald; see also Parker v. Parker; earlier on Overlawyered]
- Editorial: Alabama Supreme Court ruling on illegal multi-billion-dollar punitive damages award in Exxon contract dispute can prove state is no longer tort hell. [Press-Register]
- Update to earlier Overlawyered post: Danny Cuesta pleads guilty, sentenced to fifteen months; Melissa Cuesta, whose claim we covered, arrested for perjury, pleads not guilty. [EmpireStateNews.net via Teacher trash blog]
- Incomes and inequality: what the numbers don’t tell us. [Marginal Revolution]
- India and the drug patent wars. [AEI]
- I (along with John Beisner, Michael Hausfeld, and John Stoia) am speaking on a panel on the Class Action Fairness Act at the National Press Club February 14. [Federalist Society]
{ 1 comment }
The WSJ’s Law Blog reported recently on the joy being experienced by lawyers in the firms representing plaintiffs in the Exxon Valdez case, their spirits dampened only mildly by the Ninth Circuit’s recent reduction in the punitive award from $4.5 billion to $2.5 billion. Those firms include traditional plaintiffs’ firms such as Milberg Weiss, but also firms normally seen representing defendants, such as Davis Wright Tremaine and Faegre & Benson.
How do Faegre & Benson lawyers feel about the prospect of sharing in perhaps one-third of $2.5 billion? “It’s great,” said partner Brian O’Neill to the WSJ. Any grief due to the $2 billion reduction is probably tempered by the amazing $2 billion in post-judgment interest that will be tacked onto the final bill. (Actually, maybe that’s not amazing in itself, since the case has been pending since 1989. Still, the interest “is not chicken s___,” as O’Neill put it.) O’Neill said of the titanic fee that is coming their way, “This is one of the few chances a bill-by-the-hour guy and a bill-by-the-hour firm has to get ahead.” I for one have been worried for some time about how the partners in these little “bill-by-the-hour firms” were managing to get by, so it’s good to know that for once they may have been able to afford that second can of beans for the family at Christmas dinner.
Damages in the case were estimated at about $500 million. The Ninth Circuit basically held that the evidence did not warrant a punitive award that went to the limit of what is permitted under State Farm v. Campbell, a 9:1 or “single-digit” ratio, and reduced the ratio to 5:1.
{ 7 comments }
In a 2004 case entitled Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., the Ninth Circuit ruled that federal copyright laws do not pre-empt state-law contract claims over allegedly swiped ideas for entertainment ventures, shows and products. Other federal judges have rejected that position, but a West Coast boom has ensued in idea-submission lawsuits against Hollywood and TV producers, and large plaintiff’s firms like L.A.’s Engstrom, Lipscomb and Lack are getting into the field. (Amanda Bronstad, National Law Journal, Jul. 31).
{ 3 comments }
Also commenting on the Ninth Circuit’s latest foray into questionable social policy-making: Howard Bashman and Jack Dunphy.
{ 4 comments }
With excited editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post announcing that a bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee will “gut the legal means by which prisoners prove their innocence,” it’s worth asking the following trivia question:
Q. Under the Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005, what is the minimum number of levels of judicial review a criminal defendant sentenced to death will have?
The Volokh Conspiracy’s Orin Kerr calls December 13th “Ninth Circuit Correction Day” because of two summary reversals of criminal-friendly decisions of the zany federal appellate court, which he summarizes nicely. (See also Dec. 7.) In one, Brousseau v. Haugen, the Court threw out a case that the Ninth Circuit had reinstated. Kenneth J. Haugen pled guilty to a felony, admitting that, while attempting to escape an arrest, he drove a Jeep through a “small, tight space” crowded with vehicles with “wanton or wilful disregard for the lives…of others.” But he sued the officer who apprehended him by wounding him with a shot as he was driving away (after disregarding multiple orders to surrender to an officer with a drawn weapon). The Ninth Circuit had wanted to let this case against the policewoman be decided by a jury for a supposed violation of civil rights. (David G. Savage, “Supreme Court Sides With Police”, LA Times, Dec. 13). Other police-chase lawsuits: Feb. 18; Sep. 21, 2003; Jul. 23, 2003; and older entries.
There’ll always be a Ninth Circuit: “The world’s whales, porpoises and dolphins have no standing to sue President Bush over the U.S. Navy’s use of sonar equipment that harms marine mammals, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, widely considered one of the most liberal and activist in the country, said it saw no reason why animals should not be allowed to sue [emphasis added] but said they had not yet been granted that right.” (“Court Says Whales, Dolphins Cannot Sue Bush”, Reuters/PlanetArk, Oct. 21). For more on giving animals standing to sue (= giving human lawyers standing to sue on their claimed behalf) see our animal rights archives and specifically May 14-15 and Apr. 29-30, 2002. More: Legal Reader has a link to the opinion (PDF), and Martin Grace also comments. More: Jeff Chorney, “Call Me Ishmael — and Call My Lawyer!”, The Recorder, Nov. 1.
{ 2 comments }
“Although the earth’s evaporating ozone layer affects millions of people, the damage is concrete enough that an individual can sue violators of the Clean Air Act, according to a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge. … [Judge Ronald] Gould opined that an individual can have standing to sue for global injuries which affect millions of people, such as ozone depletion, despite some precedent that widely shared injuries are so broad that they preclude individual damages.” Though it’s only a concurrence, it’s likely to encourage the global-warming-suit movement described in this space Feb. 6-9 and Jun. 12-15, 2003; Jul. 31 and Aug. 10-12, 2001, and Aug. 19, 1999. (Alexei Oreskovic, “Global Standing for Ozone Suits”, The Recorder, Feb. 9).
“John Roe” is a San Diego police officer who was fired when it was discovered that, in violation of department policies on moonlighting, he was selling videos of himself stripping from a police uniform and masturbating. (The pseudonymous Mr. Roe turns out to be considerably more modest when it comes to self-identification in his litigation, as opposed to his homemade videos.) Roe was discovered when he sold an official police uniform on eBay, and an investigation turned up the videos as well. In an expansion of existing Supreme Court precedent on the First Amendment, the Ninth Circuit in a 2-1 decision held that Roe could proceed with a lawsuit against the City over his firing. (Roe v. San Diego; Reuters, Jan. 29). (Update: Supreme Court summarily reverses in 9-0 decision, Dec. 7).
