It does not violate the law for shift supervisors to share in the tip jar, ruled a California court of appeal [Central California Business Times; earlier at Point of Law]
Archive for June, 2009
FERPA and university secrecy
The Columbus Dispatch (national, local angles; via WSJ Law Blog) claims universities are using the federal student-privacy law, FERPA, to evade disclosure of information about league violations and other embarrassments in college sports programs. Others say given the law’s incentives it’s natural for administrators to err on the side of not sharing information of possible benefit to the public, as notoriously happened in the case of student/mass murderer Seung-Hui Cho.
A CPSIA future?
“My fear is that the offerings of toys will finally be whittled down to the top 40 manufacturers, and everyone from Wal-Mart to FAO Schwarz will have to source the same things from the same places, manufactured as cheaply as possible.” [Linda Hays (Hopscotch Toys, McMinnville, Ore.), ToyDirectory.com] More views from toyland: Handmade Toy Alliance and Cecilia Leibovitz; Rick Woldenberg in Roll Call and at Lenore Skenazy’s Free Range Kids.
Bluetooth Headset Settlement Update
Readers may recall our discussion of the Bluetooth Headset class action settlement, which remarkably granted zero to the class while asking for substantial attorneys’ fees. I asked if anyone was interested in objecting, and the response was overwhelming. Today I’ve filed an objection on behalf of seven clients.
There were more objectors out there than I could feasibly represent. If you wanted to object, but I was unable to represent you, you can still join this objection. Follow the instructions for notifying the court and attorneys of your objection, and simply state, in addition to your name and address and phone number, that you join the objection of William J. Brennan et al., docket number 107. I won’t be your attorney, but you can have the pleasure of “voting” for the objection I wrote.
And anyone in Los Angeles July 6 who wants to watch the hearing, please join in the fun. I’ve got my plane ticket.
Amphibious-tour operators in S.F. battle over “quacking devices”
Ride the Ducks says it has been inviting customers to toot on kazoos for a decade as part of its water-land tours in various cities. Now it is suing competitor Bay Quackers, which pioneered the duck tour concept in San Francisco (and was more recently joined there as a competitor by Ride the Ducks) for infringing its “sound mark”, an “auditory equivalent of a trademark”. [New York Times] [Corrected 2:30 p.m. after reader Kim S. pointed out that I hadn’t correctly conveyed the details of which company operated where and when.]
“It’s always a good time to invest in litigation”
So says Richard W. Fields, chief of Juridica Capital Management, which is earning over 20%/year on their portfolio of investments in litigation. (Jonathan D. Glater, “Investing in Lawsuits, for a Share of the Awards”, New York Times, Jun. 3).
Walter is critical at Point of Law; Larry Ribstein warns against overregulation at Ideoblog.
The rise and fall of Gene Cauley
Who would have dreamed that a protege of Bill Lerach would wind up later copping to a felony rap resulting from ethical infractions? (Wait, don’t answer.)
At a barbershop in 1994, [Cauley] says, he picked up Forbes magazine and saw a profile of Lerach; it was the famous article, where the attorney was quoted as saying, “I have the greatest practice . . . I have no clients.”
Cauley approached Lerach and was soon launched in a thriving class action practice (“His usual way to deal with things was to yell and bang things and threaten,” said a fellow plaintiffs lawyer, Glen DeValerio of Boston.) It came crashing down under revelations that the Little Rock, Ark.-based lawyer took $9 million from clients’ settlements to spend on firm overhead and unrelated investments. [Koppel/WSJ, ABA Journal, interview-based WSJ Law Blog story first, second]
Blogging his own malpractice trial
White Coat’s trial is in fact concluded, so he’s not liveblogging it, but recounting it after the fact; posting while the trial was in progress was what got Boston pediatrician “Flea” into so much trouble a couple of years ago after the posts came to the attention of opposing lawyers. [first, second posts] Some reactions: Eric Turkewitz, MedicineThink.
Disappointed consumer: Cap’n Crunch “Crunchberries” not real fruit
A judge has tossed a California woman’s would-be class action lawsuit, however, finding that a reasonable consumer would not expect the brightly colored balls to be or contain actual berries or fruit. Per Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar: “Plaintiff did not explain why she could not reasonably have figured this out at any point during the four years she alleged she bought Cap’n Crunch with Crunchberries in reliance on defendant’s fraud.” More: California Civil Justice (same law firm sued over Froot Loops); update from Lowering the Bar.
And: Hal Hewell of Hewell Law Firm, which filed the suit, writes in comments that neither the plaintiff
nor her first amended complaint stated that she believed “crunchberries” was a real fruit (check it out on Pacer, along with our motion for reconsideration to get the full story). Your contention that she did is simply false and has exposed her to widespread (and unwarranted) ridicule.
Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story…. You owe her an apology.
My response: Okay, let’s try to phrase things in a way highly favorable to Hewell and his client. The suit sought recovery against the cereal maker on the grounds a reasonable consumer would understand “Crunchberries” to contain actual fruit, whereas they apparently in fact contain only a little strawberry juice concentrate. (I’ve slightly expanded the first sentence above accordingly). In reaching his conclusion that the only course consistent with “personal responsibility and common sense” was to dismiss the case, the judge found it significant that it is common knowledge that no fruit known as a “crunchberry” grows wild or occurs naturally in any part of the world. Any reasonable consumer would therefore understand that the brightly colored balls must be a composite of ingredients not including that fictional berry, and (the judge found) could not reasonably claim to have been deceived by the monicker “CrunchBerries” into expecting something with more actual fruit content. Perhaps Mr. Hewell’s motion for reconsideration (PDF) will persuade the judge otherwise, and if so, I look forward to reporting that. (Update Jun. 15: judge denies reconsideration).