Archive for July, 2006

RIAA [might be] told to pay attorney fees

The recording industry association sued Debbie Foster of Oklahoma along with her daughter Amanda for $5000, saying her broadband account had been used for song downloading. But when Foster resisted the suit, and requested to know the dates and song titles of the allegedly infringing downloads, the association failed to respond. Foster filed for summary judgment and RIAA withdrew its suit against her. A judge said Foster counted as a prevailing party under the terms of the Copyright Act and that RIAA should could apply for RIAA to pay her attorney’s fees. (Eric Bangeman, Ars Tecnica, Jul. 13). See, e.g., Nov. 4, 2005, Feb. 7, 2005. (Fixed Jul. 16 to respond to reader comment noting that the judge did not in fact order a fee shift but only declared Foster eligible to apply for one. A PDF of the ruling is here)

$4 million custody fight over dog

In Manhattan, “Alexis Carroll, 26, is suing her former roommate, Michelle Clarity, also 26,” seeking the return of a West Highland terrier that both women had considered their pet when they shared an apartment in Tribeca. She also wants $4 million. (Janon Fisher, “Pals’ $4 M fight over puppy love”, New York Post, Jul. 2)(via KipEsquire).

ATLA name change official

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America is going to attempt to hide the fact that its interests are solely those that enrich trial lawyers, and change its name to the Orwellian “American Association for Justice,” with truth and the American way apparently not making the cut, and “jackpots” too obvious. Al Kamen and Lisa Rickard snicker in the Washington Post. (“Just Don’t Call Them the Suers”, Jul. 14).

Junk faxes? Make ’em your college fund

We’ve posted repeatedly about the federal junk-fax law, which authorizes lawsuits for $500 apiece for inadvertent participation in unsolicited sending of faxes (and $1500 apiece for knowing violations); lawyers have learned to roll together class actions so as to generate million-dollar class actions against unsophisticated local businesses who weren’t aware of the law’s application to them (Oct. 22, 1999; see also Dec. 15, 2004; Mar. 19, 2004, Jul. 19, 2003, etc.). Now the Internet and Class Action Law Blog, published by a Naperville, Ill. class-action attorney, takes note of the phenomenon — not merely as an annoyance, but as a business opportunity. “Damages in these cases can be very large. If a blast fax has 50,000 recipients, damages could total $25,000,000! Why not turn all those junk faxes into a college fund for your kids?” (Jun. 30).

Demand: let my service dog onto your nude beach

Mark DelCore, 39, says in his federal lawsuit that he has a medical need to sunbathe at the Fire Island nude beach because of a skin condition. The beach rules allow for seeing-eye dogs, but DelCore’s is an “emotional support” dog (see May 14, etc.) who assists with post-traumatic stress he says he’s suffered since the 9/11 attacks. One big problem: it’s feared a greater dog presence at water’s edge would interfere with the doings of the piping plover, an endangered shorebird whose protection has already been cited as reason to suppress many human activities on Long Island beaches. (The Smoking Gun, Jul. 13). More: Ann Althouse, who has covered service-dog accommodation controversies in the past, is on this one too. Update: Jul. 22 (DelCore thinking of dropping suit).

Baltimore Examiner (& publicity roundup)

Lawsuits filed against the city of Baltimore demand hundreds of millions of dollars, but the city pays out only a minute fraction of that sum — one of many reasons being that “the city caps awards for lawsuits at $200,000, save for intentional bad acts by city employees.” An editorial in the Baltimore Examiner quotes me on the subject (“Slow lawsuits; charge losers fees”, Jul. 13). For more on New York City’s tort predicament, see Jun. 15.

Last month Overlawyered.com was named “Web Site of the Day” by the Bulletin Board at the St. Paul Pioneer Press, one of the Twin Cities’ two big papers (Jun. 2). The British publication The Lawyer cited our coverage of Bill Lerach’s Enron fees (Jun. 5). And New York-based journalist Robert A. George (the “good” Robert George) calls this website “great”, though he erroneously thinks me a lawyer (Jun. 5).

I’ve also been quoted on same-sex marriage issues in a variety of venues, including by Lou Chibbaro Jr. in the Washington Blade (“Amendment bars states from marrying gay couples: experts”, Apr. 20); Jonathan Rauch at MarriageDebate.com (May 6); Andy Humm, “Gay Marriage Ruling Highlights a Changing Court”, Gotham Gazette, Jul. 10); and the Robert A. George post above. For more of my views on that subject, see Jun. 2, etc.

“File when ready”

It’s best to choose your words carefully when writing about this aspiring Delaware politician. “Lawsuits have been a big part of Korn’s life for the better part of two decades….’I would sue anybody again if I had to, if something were not right or accurate,’ Korn said. ‘I will go to the ends of what it takes if I feel I’ve been slandered, libeled or maligned in any way.'” (Celia Cohen, Delaware Grapevine, Jun. 26).

Transit union not liable for bicyclist’s accident

New York City: “A judge has dismissed a lawsuit that claimed the union representing the city’s bus and subway workers was responsible for an accident that left a firefighter critically injured because workers went on strike. Matthew Long, 39, was run over by a private bus while he was bicycling to work during the December walkout. He sued the Transport Workers Union Local 100 in February, arguing the accident would not have happened had the union not gone on strike.” (“Judge dismisses firefighter’s lawsuit claiming strike responsible for injury”, AP/CourtTV, Jul. 7). For more on the lawsuit, see “Firefighter wants transit union to pay”, Gothamist, Feb. 14.

Parents’ liability for kids’ drinking in homes

Drexel lawprof Dan Filler at Concurring Opinions reports (Jul. 6) that Mountain Brook, Ala., a well-off suburb of Birmingham,

is considering adopting a new “open house party” ordinance. It would fine homeowners when two or more underage people drink alcohol in the house. On the third offense, the law provides that the homeowners would be guilty of a misdemeanor. Homeowners, by which we really mean parents, would be criminally liable even if they were unaware that kids were drinking in their homes. They are strictly liable – guilty even if they had no intent to break the law, had no knowledge it was being broken, and were not even negligent in allowing the infraction to occur.

Prof. Filler isn’t enthusiastic about the idea:

If a parent is not negligent – she does every single thing a reasonable person would do to keep her child in check – I think it’s hard to justify punishing her. What more can we ask of a parent?