“Similar to its cousins the patent trolls, [Bridgeport Music Inc.] and companies like it hold portfolios of old rights (sometimes accumulated in dubious fashion) and use lawsuits to extort money from successful music artists for routine sampling, no matter how minimal or unnoticeable. … Since 2001, Bridgeport’s shotgun approach has led to many dismissals and settlements, but also two major victories. … there’s only one appellate court, the 6th Circuit, that takes the ridiculous position that any sample, no matter how minimal, needs a license.” (Tim Wu (Columbia lawprof), Slate, Nov. 16). Frank Pasquale at Concurring Opinions has some further thoughts: Nov. 21. More on sampling litigation in Ted’s “Overlawyered iMix” post, Aug. 9, 2005, and comments.
Archive for 2006
November 27 roundup
- In the Supreme Court November 29: Watters v. Wachovia. Also an AEI panel November 28, broadcast on C-SPAN1, 2pm to 4pm Eastern. [Point of Law; AEI; Zywicki @ Volokh]
- Also in the Supreme Court November 29: Massachusetts v. EPA global warming regulation case. Previously an AEI panel November 21. [Adler @ Volokh; AEI; C-SPAN (Real Media)]
- Legal cliche: If the facts are against you, pound the law; if the law is against you, pound the facts; if both are against you, pound the table. Table-pounding class of Gerry Spence protegee offers lessons in emotionally creating jury sympathy worth millions. [LATimes]
- What judicial activism?, Part 7356: Indiana state court judge holds “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” unconstitutional, complains gun industry supported the law. [Indianapolis Star via Bashman; Indiana Law Blog]
- Entertaining doctor victory in medmal case. [Musings of a Dinosaur via Kevin MD]
- Dahlia Lithwick gets something right; if only it was on an issue more important than a suit advertisement. [Slate]
- Leftover from Thanksgiving: lawyers acting like turkeys. [Ambrogi]
- Ninth Circuit grants potential standing to monkeys over Kozinski dissent. Earlier: Oct. 21, 2004. [Bashman roundup of links]
- Gloria Allred joins the Borat pile-on. [LATimes]
- Speaking of, here’s the future case of Allred v. Kramer. More Allred: Oct. 16. [Evanier]
- Speaking of Allred nostalgia, and of primates, whatever happened to chimpanzee victim St. James Davis? (Mar. 17, 2005; Mar. 8, 2005) [Inside Edition; “The Original Musings”; CNN Pipeline ($)]
- More Allred nostalgia: is Veronica Mars‘ Francis Capra the next Hunter Tylo? Discuss. [Prettier than Napoleon]
Woman hits truck, sues truck-trailer manufacturer, wins millions
Virginia Walker drove her Ford Taurus into the side of an 18-wheeler that had pulled in front of them on Highway 59, killing herself and severely injuring her front-seat passenger, Kelleigh Falcon. It’s not clear which driver was at fault, but the resulting trial brought by Walker’s relatives and Falcon focused on the deep pocket, Lufkin Industries, who dared to manufacture a truck trailer that complied with federal safety regulations. No matter: Lufkin should have anticipated that this particular truck would need sideguards that would protect the occupants of a Ford Taurus that hit it, though such sideguards would potentially make the truck geometrically mismatch and be more dangerous to still other vehicles on the road. (Press coverage does not indicate how fast the Taurus was travelling, and whether improved underride standards would actually have protected it.) Among the evidence introduced against Lufkin: they were a member of the Truck-Trailers Manufacturers Association, which, among other things, dared to speak with legislators about the financial impacts of proposed regulations; Lufkin waited until federal regulations specified underride protection standards before installing such protection, rather than taking its own initiative and discovering that the regulations asked for something else. A Texas state jury found them about 40% liable for $38.5 million in damages; press coverage doesn’t indicate who the other 60% applies to. (Jessica Savage, “Lufkin Industries plans to appeal jury’s decision in tractor-trailer accident case”, Lufkin Daily News, Nov. 21; Ramonica Jones, “Lufkin Industries Plans to Appeal $36 Million Verdict”, KTRE-TV, Nov. 22).
Learning to accept coconuts
From a New York Times article on the city of Los Angeles’s decision to curtail the planting of palm trees along public streets and parks, one reason being that the majestic plants have been known to drop bulky fronds on persons below:
“Hawaii has a lot of coconut tree liability problems because they fall on people’s heads,” he said. “But the people there have said, ‘That is something that we have to accept.’”
(Jennifer Steinhauer, “City Says Its Urban Jungle Has Little Room for Palms”, Nov. 26). See also Jun. 11 (similar, from Torquay, England). More on coconut liability, in both cases relating to the decorated Mardi Gras variety: Mar. 4, 2005 (thrown at parade spectators); Mar. 13-14, 2002 (copyright claim).
James Bond and currency controls
Virginia Postrel (channeling author Simon Winder) explains the policy background of Casino Royale (Nov. 21)
Matrimonial data mining
Contemplating a splitup? Grab the family hard drive and get it into your lawyer’s hands ASAP. Such a stratagem “can be best explained to the client as an important first glimpse into the overall actions and conduct of the adverse party in the litigation”. (Scott Andino, “Digging Deeply Into Matrimonial Data Mining”, The Matrimonial Strategist/Law.com, Nov. 10).
Oz: but where are the clients’ bonuses?
Updating the Oct. 3 item from Australia: “Law firm Slater & Gordon was within its rights to pay a senior partner $1 million from the profits of a breast implant class action without informing clients, according to the Law Institute of Victoria. The bonus, which came to light this week, means senior partner Peter Gordon received at least eight times more from the class action than any one of the firm’s 3100 clients. Their payouts ranged from a few hundred dollars up to $120,000. However, law institute head Michael Brett Young said yesterday there had been no need to inform the women about the payment to Mr Gordon because the settlement in the action had been authorised by a judge.” (Chris Merritt and Tracy Ong, “Law firm ‘in rights’ on payout”, The Australian, Sept. 16). For allegations that the $1 million was improperly paid to Mr. Slater although earmarked as “post-settlement expenses”, see the Oct. 3 post.
Hey, look, I’m suing Cisco Systems
Dr. Michael Hébert opens his mail to learn that the law firms of Lerach Coughlin and Levin Papantonio have been representing him in a class action for the past four years, in a shareholder suit against Cisco. One problem he notices is that the opt-out notice arrives in his mailbox two weeks after the expiration of the period allowed for opting out. And he finds other reasons as well not to be overly impressed by the generosity of Messrs. Lerach Coughlin and Levin Papantonio, even if they are willing to contribute their valuable legal services for a mere $15 million in fees plus expenses. (Doctor Hébert’s Medical Gumbo, Nov. 16).
Update: cosmetics class action settlement
We’re tardy in noticing this, but it’s too colorful to omit: in the settlement of what we called the “no-blush, high-gloss, invisible-foundation antitrust class action” against cosmetics makers over pricing (see Jan. 14 and Mar. 14, 2005, and earlier links) the fee phase continued to generate showy highlights:
A bitter legal brawl over attorneys’ fees has erupted in a national cosmetics pricing class action lawsuit, with feuding camps of plaintiffs’ lawyers slinging allegations of flagrant billing abuses and extortion.
Among the alleged abuses were bills of $195 an hour for work by paralegals who were paid just $30, claims that attorneys and paralegals worked 24-hour or even 72-hour days, and charges of $90 an hour or more for cleaning desks and filing….
Welcome O’Reilly Radio Factor listeners
I was a guest just now on the radio O’Reilly Factor, guest-hosted by KABC’s Doug McIntyre, to discuss the L.A. firefighter dog food hazing suit. A couple more background links on the story, to go with those collected by Ted above: Christine Pelisek, “Dog food caper”, L.A. Weekly, Nov. 21 (“for nearly a week after the original story hit the papers — a tale of racist America making a black man eat dog food — the print media all but squelched the ensuing developments. The only hint of a brewing debacle was an almost invisible, 2-inch-long “brief” in the Los Angeles Times on November 15.”) and Eric Berlin, Nov. 21 (discussing several stories on this site, and disputing the notion that dog food somehow historically evokes slavery) and Nov. 22.