“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General Jim Petro has asked the Ohio Supreme Court to sanction four lawyers who handled a legal challenge, later withdrawn, to last year’s presidential election in Ohio.”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.)
Archive for February, 2005
Don’t like the results of a government report? Sue.
“A nonprofit group that objects to a 2001 [GAO] report on Title IX, the 1972 law that bars gender discrimination at schools receiving federal funds, has decided to sue the messenger. The report, ‘Intercollegiate Athletics: Four-Year Colleges’ Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams,’ found that the number of men’s and women’s sports teams both increased from 1981 to 1999, although the rise in men’s teams was smaller. The report was a blow to critics who argued that enforcement of Title IX had encouraged colleges and universities to cut men’s programs to comply with the law.” So, one group hurt by the study, the College Sports Council, decided to sue, claiming that the methodology was flawed and that the results have “misled” Congress. Comptroller General David M. Walker said that this is the first time the GAO has been sued over the contents of a report. But, as Walker said, “In America, anybody can sue anybody about anything.” (Christopher Lee, “Nonprofit Sues GAO Over Title IX Report,” Wash. Post, Jan. 10).
Triple Play of Lawsuits
As I reported over on Sports Law (Feb. 1) and is also reported on Common Good (scroll down), disgruntled parents should beware the potential wrath of their children’s coaches. Parent Marc Martinez was not happy with his son’s baseball coach, John Emme, and filed a lawsuit against him “alleging that [coach Emme] hurt his son’s chances at a college baseball scholarship” by forcing him to throw too many pitches and by making “derogatory comments about [his] pitching ability to potential college coaches.” ( Martinez’s son had a 4-7 record that year.) The case received both local and national media attention and Martinez was not kind in his descriptions of Emme. So, Emme countersued for damage to his reputation. The jury favored Emme, dismissing Martinez’s claims against him and awarding the coach $700,000. Said one juror, “I think this should send a message to parents.” (Dave McKibben, “Corona del Mar High Coach Big Winner in Slander Suit,” L.A. Times, Jan. 28).
Appellate Court: Jordan suit should be heard by jury
Michael Jordan sued his ex-lover in 2002, claiming that she attempted to extort $5 million from him. The woman, Karla Knafel, countersued and claimed that “Jordan owed her the money for remaining silent and agreeing not to file a paternity suit after she became pregnant.” The district court dismissed the case, stating that the claim was extortionate and against public policy. The state appellate court, in a ruling yesterday, overturned this ruling and reinstated the case. The court wrote that the claim “is not inherently coercive or exploitive or motivated by an improper influence” and should only have been dismissed “if it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proven” entitling her to win. “We find that whether this particular oral agreement was exploitive or coercive is a matter best left to the trier of fact.” (Mickey Ciokajlo, “Jordan Headed Back to Court,” Chicago Trib., Feb. 4).
Sued for leaving cookies on porch
Colorado: “Two Durango teens thought they’d surprise neighbors with nighttime deliveries of home-baked treats. But one woman was so terrified, she sued and has won.” But Wanita Renea Young, 49, was so unnerved by the knocks at her door at 10:30 p.m. that she called sheriffs and then sought emergency room care for an anxiety attack. The teenage cookie-leavers, Taylor Ostergaard and Lindsey Jo Zellitti, wrote her letters of apology, but she sued anyway and won $900. (Electa Draper, “Cookie klatch lands girls in court”, Denver Post, Feb. 4). More: National Review Online notes the case and radio host Steve Gill tells how to send the girls money. A day or two later: public support and media appearances roll in for the cookie girls (Denver Post, Feb. 6; more). And David Giacalone enters a dissent.
Train crash worsened his drinking: $8.5 million payout
“A train conductor won an $8.5 million settlement from a railroad after claiming that a 2002 collision between his commuter train and a freight train worsened his alcoholism. Patrick Phillips, 52, contended that a mild concussion suffered in the crash triggered a desire for alcohol that transformed him from a ‘controlled’ alcoholic into one who drank himself into malnutrition and eventual dementia, his lawyer said. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway confirmed Tuesday that it settled the case out of court.” (AP/Lakeland Ledger, Feb. 2; Dan Weikel, “Conductor’s Crash Suit Is Settled”, L.A. Times, Feb. 2).
Model ships and planes
It isn’t just happening to trains (see Jun. 29): “For over half a century, kits have been sold that enable military history buffs to assemble scale models of military ships, aircraft and vehicles. But that era is coming to an end, as the manufacturers of the original equipment, especially aircraft, are demanding high royalties (up to $40 per kit) from the kit makers. Since most of these kits sell in small quantities (10-20,000) and are priced at $15-30 (for plastic kits, wooden ones are about twice as much), tacking on the royalty just prices the kit out of the market.” (James Dunnigan, “Lawyers Lay Waste to Military Models Industry”, Strategy Page, Feb. 3)(via Instapundit).
New England sledding
From north of Boston: “The Norman Rockwell image of children sledding in New England snow is being replaced by a snowy hill with a ‘No Trespassing’ sign posted. In many cases, golf courses offer the best sledding in town, but higher insurance rates — and in some cases a refusal to insure — have pushed many golf course managers to ban the traditional winter activity.” (David Rattigan, “This winter, sledders finding it a tough go”, Boston Globe, Jan. 6)(via Common Good Society Watch). For similar reports from New Jersey, see Jan. 28.
Nannyware blocks Overlawyered
About a year ago we printed a reader letter saying that (Symantec) Norton Internet Security was blocking access to our site because, with all our discussion of firearms litigation, we had too much talk about “weapons”. Now Martin Grace is reporting the same problem (Feb. 1).
California court to examine award in biotech case
The California Supreme Court has agreed to review a judgment of $500 million against Genentech, a California biotechnology company. The judgment, which was upheld by an intermediate state appellate court, awards $300 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages to the City of Hope, a cancer research center. Genentech and City of Hope collaborated in the 1970s on a methodology for inserting human genes into bacteria and using them to produce medically useful proteins, such as insulin. This development led to the first drugs made by the biotech industry. Genentech held the patents on these technologies and was to pay royalties to City of Hope. City of Hope claims that through fraud and concealment, Genentech cheated the research center out of hundreds of millions of dollars. (Bob Egelko, “State’s highest court steps in Genentech dispute over royalties to be heard by justices,” S.F. Chron, Feb. 3).
Genentech claims that the contract required royalty payments only on patents using DNA synthesized by City of Hope. The appeal does not focus as much on the compensatory damages for breach of contract, but stresses that assessing punitive damages sets a dangerous precedent. Genentech and amici warn that assessing tort liability may stifle innovation by “reduc[ing] investment in research and development for [intellectual property] that is not yet patented — that is, the very newest technologies with the greatest potential social value.” (Mike McKee, “Calif. Justices to Review $500 Million Judgment Against Genentech,” The Recorder, Feb. 3). The knowledge that they could be liable for punitive damages if a mistake is made could prevent a number of biotech companies and research facilities from collaborating with one another, impeding biomedical and scientific development. The ruling also affects any other type of royalty agreement.