USA Today editorial opposing creating enforceable rights of grandparent visitation. A supporter writes a counter-editorial. (Both via Bashman.) We explored the problems Aug. 30, 2004 and Oct. 21, 2002.
Archive for 2006
Lockyer flayed on autos-‘n’-global-warming suit
It’s “kooky” and “trivializes a serious problem”, editorializes the Los Angeles Times: “California shouldn’t be in the business of filing meritless suits to gain leverage in other cases“. “It’s not his job to make law through frivolous lawsuits,” opines the San Jose Mercury News (via Wilson). It’s “reprehensible… little more than a political stunt,” adds the Orange County Register. Veteran political columnist Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee terms the suit “Lockyer’s bid to become the champion of cheesiness“. One who does like the suit, curiously enough: an environmental adviser to Gov. Schwarzenegger named Terry Tamminen. And the San Francisco Chronicle investigates: what do state lawmakers drive? More here, here and here (cross-posted from Point of Law).
Coffee shop owner sues Starbucks
On antitrust grounds:
In her lawsuit, [Penny Stafford of Belvi Coffee & Tea Exchange] says that Starbucks employees would make frequent runs past the deli with free samples. She said that Starbucks also had non-competitive leases that blocked her from the most desirable locations in Bellevue and Seattle.
The suit claims that Starbucks, fueled by “insatiable and unchecked ambition,” wanted to squash all competition.
John Stott, who owns Johnika’s Deli, said that he advised Stafford not to open a business so near a Starbucks.
Representing Stafford in the suit is Overlawyered favorite Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro. (“Coffee shop owner sues Starbucks”, UPI/MonstersAndCritics, Sept. 27; Melissa Allison, “Starbucks sued over ‘unchecked ambition'”, Seattle Times, Sept. 26; Keith Sharfman, Truth on the Market, Sept. 25; Lattman, Sept. 27).
Neuborne fee fracas, cont’d
Round-up
Some quick links:
- Michael Krauss reviews a Mississippi Court of Appeals decision on a bogus fender-bender claim. [Point of Law; Gilbert v. Ireland]
- Yet another example of overbroad laws on sex offenders (see also Jul. 3, 2005). [Above the Law]
- “As far as the law is concerned, those individuals whose pacemakers fail are the lucky ones.” [TortsProf Blog]
- Emerson Electric sues NBC in St. Louis over a scene in an hourly drama where a cheerleader mangles her hand in a branded garbage disposal. [Hollywood Reporter, Esq.; Lattman; Defamer and Defamer update; St. Louis Post Dispatch]
- A case that’s really not about the money: Man stiffs restaurant over $46 check, defends himself against misdemeanor charge with $500/lawyer. [St. Petersburg Times; Obscure Store]
- Bill Childs catches yet another Justinian Lane misrepresentation. See also Sep. 26 and Sep. 17 (cf. related posts on Lane’s co-blogger Oct. 3 and Sep. 25), and we might just have to retire the category, since we can only hope to scratch the surface. Point of Law has the Gary Schwartz law review article discussed by Childs. [TortsProf Blog and ] Lane’s post also deliberately confuses non-economic damages caps with total damages caps: nothing stops someone with more than $250,000 in economic damages from recovering more than $250,000, even in a world with non-economic damages caps.
-
Update: Bill Childs in the comments-section to Lane:
“Of course, all of this gets pretty far afield from what I originally wrote and that you’ve conceded, which is that you (unintentionally but sloppily) misrepresented the facts of the Pinto memo, failed to research its background beyond what was apparently represented to you, and still haven’t (last time I checked, at 9:10 p.m.) updated your site to reflect your error. Nor have you approved the trackback I sent to the site. You’ve posted comments to that very entry and another entry has gone up on the site, but readers still see the plainly inaccurate statement that the memo excerpt you show was Ford evaluating tort liability for rearendings, when in fact it was Ford evaluating a regulatory proposal for rollovers using numbers from NHTSA.
Update: “11th Circuit Upholds Dismissal of McDonald’s From Strip-Search Suit”
Heads I win, tails don’t count files: Ohio HMO suit
The US Supreme Court denied certiorari on United HealthCare’s attempt to enforce an arbitration agreement in its contracts with doctors who filed an Ohio class action over reimbursements. The underlying class action is essentially identical to one that a federal court threw out as meritless in July, though this isn’t mentioned in the television coverage, much less that from Bizarro-Overlawyered. The Class Action Fairness Act effectively ends this sort of Russian-roulette game where plaintiffs get multiple chances to win a gigantic class action by filing in multiple jurisdictions, but does not apply to class actions (like this one) filed before 2004.
The AMA has supported these lawsuits, which is disappointing, to be sure; as I noted on Point of Law in July, “Next time the AMA complains about the costs of excessive meritless litigation, they can perhaps look in the mirror.”
The plaintiffs’ attorney is Overlawyered favorite Stanley Chesley: see Jul. 4, Mar. 6, Aug. 24, 2005, et cetera.
“The struggle to defend free expression is defining our age”
“Fanatiques sans frontières are on the march. …In the first decade of the 21st century, the spaces of free expression, even in old-established liberal democracies, have been eroded, are being eroded and — if we don’t summon ourselves to the fight — will continue to be eroded.” (Timothy Garton Ash, The Guardian, Oct. 5).
Tenure for auto dealers
Worsening Detroit’s agonies: special laws at both state and federal levels expose automakers to lawsuits from dealerships that they try to cut loose as superfluous. Does GM want to reduce the number of Chevy dealerships in, say, Buffalo, to reflect its declining market share there or falling population? Then it’ll have to come up with millions to induce dealers to accept buyouts. The laws don’t inflict a comparable burden on automakers whose fortunes are on the upswing, such as Toyota and Honda. (Joann Muller, “Dealer Surplus”, Forbes, Oct. 16).
Canada: deported Russian spy sues for readmittance
“A former Russian undercover agent who lived under a false name in Toronto and spied for the Russian government is suing Canada’s immigration department for refusing to allow her to return here as a landed immigrant.” Elena Miller, nee Yelena Olshanskaya, thinks Ottawa should let bygones be bygones about her spy past: “I have dealt with the Canadian government in a co-operative, respectful and low-key manner, despite inquiries from the Canadian media and offers for a book/film,” she said. (Marina Jimenez, “Russian spy sues Ottawa for being left out in cold”, Globe and Mail (Toronto), Oct. 4).