David Ardia of Citizen Media Law has more details on this disturbing case (earlier).
Archive for April, 2009
Disposable coffee cups
Toronto considers a ban (via Fountain).
Citizen-suit provision in climate bill
The Washington Times reported on Friday on what it says is a little-noticed provision in draft cap-and-trade legislation (PDF) authored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.): new authorization for “citizen suits” to challenge government inaction on climate change. The bill would confer such standing, according to the article, on anyone “who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part,” to such inaction. However — in an apparent concession made some time ago to Republican lawmakers — the article also says that total payouts by the government would be limited to the comparatively minor amount of $1.5 million per year. Attorneys’ fees payable to prevailing plaintiffs, however, will presumably be subject to no such limit. More: Carter Wood also discovers new litigation powers for state AGs tucked into the bill; Marlo Lewis, CEI “Open Market”; Deputy Headmistress.
“Maybe Litigation Isn’t Always the Best Solution for a Gripe Site Target”
William Pecau of Steptoe & Johnson has advice for businesses (PDF) thinking of suing over their reputation (reprint courtesy Paul Alan Levy)
Grimes v. Raves Motion Pictures FACTA decision reversed
Last year, Overlawyered was the first to report that Judge William Acker in the Northern District of Alabama had held the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), which provides unlimited damages of $100-$1000 per violation for trivial technical violations of printing too many numbers on a credit card receipt, unconstitutional. Other judges have refused to follow his lead, and last week the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision, rejecting the facial challenge to the statute, but leaving open the possibility that the statute would be unconstitutional as applied in a particular case. (Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, No. 08-13510; h/t R.M.)
Apparel makers and CPSIA: deer in the headlights
Many are taking no action to save themselves from the law, but — as Kathleen Fasanella explains — act as if paralyzed by the February “stay” with its illusion of hope.
ADACrisis.com
Okay, it’s not going to win any graphics awards. But it’s got lots of information about abusive disabled-access suits in California.
Notable and quotable
This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve
mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is
foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to
do.
— from the court’s opinion in Hollister v. Soetoro, an “Obama citizenship” case.
“Architects now more sue-able than ever”
So says Edificial (via Above the Law).
CPSIA: what retailers need to do
“There is an underlying belief that retailers are out of the loop on this law or that it doesn’t affect them. That couldn’t be any further from the truth.”