Archive for July, 2005

Who is Responsible for the Death of Susie Lopez?

Some call him troubled. Others call him a “coldblooded killer.” Whatever you call him, there is no dispute that this past weekend, Jose Pena used a toddler — Susie Lopez — as a human shield as he exchangd gunfire with the LAPD. As a result, the LAPD shot and killed the toddler, along with Pena. It was reportedly the first time in the SWAT team’s 38 year history that a hostage has been killed by the LAPD. The family of Susie Lopez has retained a lawyer, Luis Carrillo, and accusations of excessive force and cover ups are already flying.

It has also been reported that Pena told the police that he was not going to jail, Pena told his stepdaughter that he was going to shoot his own daughter and Pena threatened his own wife. Had the LAPD not acted in the face of these acts and threats, does anyone doubt that lawyers would be second guessing the LAPD for inaction? (LA Times “Coroner Says Toddler Shot by LAPD Officer,” Jul. 13, MSNBC, “War of words escalates in deadly L.A. shooting,” Jul. 14.)

A thought on fast-food regulation

ABC’s John Stossel, writing in his weekly column (“Who’s really open?”, syndicated/TownHall, Jul. 13):

I did have had a wonderful time on Air America’s “Morning Sedition,” with a host who was furious that government doesn’t stop Americans from eating too many Big Macs. I treasure the moment of silence that followed my saying that government that’s big enough to tell you what to eat … is government big enough to tell you with whom you can have sex.

Suing the web’s archivist

The Internet Archive, home of the celebrated Wayback Machine which allows researchers to examine the state of the World Wide Web as it stood in the past, is being sued by a Pennsylvania company for archiving its pages without consent. After all, capturing someone’s web presence for posterity is kind of like taking a photograph of them and thereby stealing their soul, or something like that. (Tom Zeller Jr., “Keeper of Expired Web Pages Is Sued Because Archive Was Used in Another Suit”, New York Times, Jul. 13)(via Bashman).

Europe Overlawyered

In some places it’s worse: a group of French cleaning ladies organized a car-pool to take them to their jobs across the border in Luxembourg. For their efforts, they, and their employer, Onet-Luxembourg, have been sued by bus service Transports Schiocchet Excursions, for “unfair competition”; the bus company seeks to have the cars seized. The case will be heard in January. (Kim Willsher, “Bus firm takes car sharers to court”, Guardian, Jul. 11 (via Taylor); Thomas Calinon, “Préférer sa voiture au bus peut vous conduire au tribunal”, Libération, Jul. 9).

NAACP to pursue reparations claims

“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.

“Hockey mom wants daughter allowed in boys’ change room”

In Lumby, British Columbia, soccer mom Jane Emlyn is pursuing a complaint with the province’s Human Rights Tribunal saying “female minor hockey players’ rights are violated when they’re forced to use separate changing rooms.”

According to Al Berg, a member of the B.C. association’s coaching committee, the policy was introduced in January 2001 by Hockey Canada, after a Human Rights Commission mediation session in Ontario. It states players over the age of 11 of different gender are not allowed to change in the same room at the same time. The policy came as a result of increased female participation on integrated teams.

Ms. Emlyn, whose 14-year-old daughter Jewel plays on the Lumby Stars with two other girls, says a more gender-equitable policy would be to separate the sexes only for actual showering; at other times the boys would stay in boxer shorts and the girls in equivalent top-and-bottom skivvies. “A similar policy was introduced in New Brunswick last October, after the Human Rights Commission ruled a 14-year-old female player had her rights violated when she was forced to change separately.” According to Ms. Emlyn, “most of the youngsters on the team say they’re fine with mixed changing rooms”. (Lori-Anne Charlton, Vancouver Province/Canada.com, Jul. 11).

“Users of Assistance Dogs Leave a Trail of Lawsuits”

Erma Miller has filed 21 discrimination claims in southern California over alleged failure to serve her because of her assistance dog. Some defendants suspect a scam: Miller regularly alleges that the failure to permit entrance to the dog meant she couldn’t use the restroom and soiled herself. They’re also suspicious of Miller’s “practice of providing Rottweilers to other people, who took the dogs to businesses, got bounced and filed lawsuits,” and hints that her disbarred-attorney ex-con husband has a hand in the litigation. Lynn Stites had served eight years for a multi-million-dollar litigation-related insurance fraud scheme out of a Grisham novel:

During the 1980s, Stites organized a clandestine network of attorneys who infiltrated complex civil cases in Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties by getting insured defendants to hire them in place of their insurance company lawyers.

Posing as independent and, at times, snarling adversaries, they worked in concert to manufacture new legal controversies so that lawsuits would grow in complexity and cost.

In some cases, the lawyers paid kickbacks to clients for the right to defend them on the insurers’ dime. Stites essentially franchised the litigation, directing strategy and assigning lawyers to various defendants. His minions, in turn, kicked back a cut of their take—paying in cash, precious metals, and improvements to his house.

Three cases are scheduled for trial in the next few months. Miller has already collected six digits worth of settlements, but a suit against Marriott did not go as well:

As part of her deposition, Marriott lawyers videotaped Miller with Giggy, the Rottweiler mix involved in the Marriott suit and several others. Giggy could not obey commands to sit, to pick up Miller’s cane or to help her through the door.

(Myron Levin, LA Times, Jul. 10). More on service dog suits: May 5 and links therein.

Disclosure: At my former firm, I represented Marriott in unrelated litigation. As with all my posts, I speak for myself, and not for my current employer, my former employers, nor my former clients.