More than $100 million in professional fees has been billed so far in the auto-parts maker’s insolvency. (Lattman, Dec. 14).
Archive for December, 2006
Because we all love wacky pro se suits: Ward v. Arm & Hammer
Via the District of New Jersey, please find attached the order dismissing the case in Ward v. Arm & Hammer [sic], 341 F.Supp.2d 499 (2004): no, a baking soda manufacturer has no legal duty to warn users that using baking soda to cook crack cocaine is illegal. (See David Lat’s blog for the complaint.)
We can still find something to complain about, though: the district court has the power under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to dismiss the case sua sponte as frivolous, which this case was in even the most narrow and technical senses of the word, or even just to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim without waiting for briefing. Church & Dwight Co., the makers of Arm & Hammer, was forced to retain Morgan, Lewis & Bockius to file multiple briefs in the federal court at not inconsiderable expense to rid itself of this nuisance suit.
More on product liability, including many successful cases not much less wacky than this one, on our product liability page.
Update: The post originally protested the granting of in forma pauperis status; David Giacalone correctly points out in the comments that IFP status is automatic without a showing of bad faith, and that my complaint was with the failure of the court to exercise its sua sponte powers to dismiss. I’ve corrected the post accordingly.
New guestbloggers on deck
Over the coming holidays we’re expecting no fewer than three guestbloggers to join us, each of them an experienced blogger new to posting on this site. Drop by tomorrow to see who’s the first.
Sellers “sabotaging themselves” with “evil lawyers”
One inexperienced, grandstanding or lackadaisical lawyer can foul things up. Two can make life unbearable. A few months ago — through a long, hot August — two lawyers jousted over the sale of a Sutton Place two-bedroom listed for $1.375 million, even though the buyer and seller had already agreed on a price. “Literally from the moment these two attorneys made contact,” said Joan Sacks, an associate broker at Stribling & Associates, “there were sparks.”
The lawyers’ conflagration baffled and shocked Ms. Sacks, who was representing the seller.
“There were fiery e-mails shooting between attorneys that stopped short of saying, ‘You’re a moron.’ I was trying to step in as peacemaker and say: ‘Let’s keep the deal together, boys. Let’s stay on track, let’s stay focused.’ It got to the point where it wasn’t about the deal anymore. It was about who was going to win — who was going to make the other appear to be so dumb that they would come out with some banner on their back saying they were the smartest attorney in town.”
Before the contract could be signed, brokers for both sides swooped in and deposited their clients alone together in the Sutton Place apartment.
“When they finally spoke, the intensity was defused,” Ms. Sacks said. “I think the buyer and seller were very reasonable. It’s just that sticking points that shouldn’t have existed at all were intensified as issues by the attorneys.”
Third week in a row the Sunday Real Estate section in the Times highlighted lawyer-caused problems; if only the News and Business section reporters were to take lessons. (Teri Karush Rogers, “How Not to Scare Off Buyers”, NY Times, Dec. 17).
“iPhone” iPWNed?
December 18 isn’t a typical day for new-product announcements, but Linksys announced a new VOIP phone today. The timing makes more sense when one realizes that Apple was about to announce an iPod-compatible cell phone in January, a product that was widely called “iPhone” in the press, but that Linksys owned the “iPhone” trademark since 1996. But without a product using the trademark, Linksys would not have been able to hold on to the name. By preempting the name, Linksys will either be able to extract rents from Apple on a now valuable trademark or force Apple to spend millions creating a new name for the product that doesn’t have the advantage of the brand extension from Apple’s “iMac” and “iPod.” (“The Working Guy” blog; Gizmodo blog (and followup ) (h/t WF)).
Spanking update
Company supervisors, who often administered the spankings, testified in April that [Janet] Orlando was a willing participant in the team-building exercises and that she never complained about being spanked. They said she quit because she was passed over for a promotion.
An attorney representing the company likened the activities to old-fashioned fraternity hazing and said they were not meant to harm anyone.
But a jury sided with Orlando and awarded her $1.7 million — of which Orlando was to receive $800,000.
After Alarm One filed an appeal, Orlando agreed to settle the case for $1.4 million.
Except now, Orlando’s lawyer claims, the insurer has backed out of the settlement (the insurer refused to comment, so the press has only one side to report), so he’s seeking to leverage this alleged refusal to pay into a $5.6 million bad-faith award. As for Orlando herself, she blames a recent shoplifting arrest and no-contest plea (her third in three years) on stress from the dispute and newfound fame. Also left unexplained by the story: how it came to be that Orlando was to receive less than half of her award, with the majority going to her lawyer. (Chris Collins, “Award in spanking suit going unpaid”, Fresno Bee, Dec. 14).
$5.5 million mammography verdict
It’s not going to wind up helping patients, argue two letter writers in Portland’s Oregonian (Dec. 1)(via KevinMD). Leonard Berlin, M.D., thinks providers do not always give the public a realistic view of the benefits and limitations of cancer screening (“A Manifesto for Truth-in-Mammography Advertising”, Imaging Economics, Nov. 2004).
“Our easy lawsuit funding process!”
An outfit called Oasis Legal Finance wants your business.
“Unlike love…”
Thought for the day: “Unlike love, more law does not make the world a better place.” (Gary Slapper, Times Online (UK), Dec. 11).
Update: paper money design unfair to blind
The Treasury Department is appealing U.S. District Judge James Robertson’s ruling (Nov. 29) that it’s unlawful for the nation’s paper currency not to be redesigned in ways that would make it more easily used by the visually handicapped. (“Feds Say No To Blind-Friendly Paper Money”, AP/CBSNews.com, Dec. 12). The Gimp Parade (Dec. 16) rounds up lots of links on the controversy.