For good reasons, most large companies have been reluctant to launch ambitious offensive litigation programs as plaintiffs: doing so can distract from productive missions, destroy valued business relationships, and harm a company’s public image. But lawyers (who of course may have a stake in the matter) are urging them to turn affirmative suit-filing into a profit center, including not only such relatively common grounds for legal dispute as intellectual property and insurance recovery, but also contractual and other claims against suppliers, tenants, and venture partners. [Vishneski/Souza, Corporate Counsel]
Archive for September, 2013
Lawyers can’t scrub hotel epithet
“A federal appeals court has tossed a $10 million defamation suit by a resort in Pigeon Forge, Tenn., that was ranked No. 1 on a 2011 ‘dirtiest hotels’ list by TripAdvisor.” The Sixth Circuit “said the list is opinion protected by the First Amendment.” [ABA Journal, Digital Media Law]
“Every landlord’s worst nightmare” video
A video from the humor site The Chive has been making the rounds with a landlord’s narration of the ghastly extent of damage to a family home done by a single really bad tenant participating in the federal Section 8 housing-voucher program (and not responsible for most of the rent). Some landlords might react to such an experience by becoming more wary of Section 8 tenants and subjecting them to extra screening or interviewing, while others might be more convinced by assurances (from various quarters supportive of the Section 8 program) that horror stories are in no way typical and that tenants using the vouchers are no more likely to trash a property than any other tenants.
Such a difference of opinion might be of relatively limited interest — some landlords could follow one strategy, others the opposite, and experience would tell which was the more successful — except that the Obama administration and its allies are taking the position that “discrimination” against Section 8 tenants, whether in the form of extra scrutiny of their applications, turning them away as applicants, or anything else, should be illegal. That is one of the major demands of HUD’s lawsuit against Westchester County, N.Y., and it is the substance of laws passed in Cook County, Ill. and elsewhere lately, at the urging of “fair housing” groups, banning so-called source-of-income discrimination. [Chicago Reporter, Courier News, Tenants Union of Washington State] The message of these laws to hapless landlords like the one who narrates the Chive video is: sorry about your house getting trashed, but tough luck, see you in court if you try to protect yourself. (& welcome Above the Law readers).
“EU plans to fit all cars with speed limiters”
An idea destined to come here as well? “Under the [European Commission] proposals new cars would be fitted with cameras that could read road speed limit signs and automatically apply the brakes when this is exceeded. Patrick McLoughlin, the [British] Transport Secretary, is said to be opposed to the plans, which could also mean existing cars are sent to garages to be fitted with the speed limiters, preventing them from going over 70mph.” [Telegraph]
More: EU denies having such plans (see comments). And in the U.S., federal regulators (NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) have considered speed governors on heavy trucks, drawing objections on safety and other grounds from independent truckers (2007), while the idea of speed limiters on ordinary passenger cars has drawn regulatory interest in both Canada and the U.S., as well as favorable note from such commentators as Matthew Yglesias and Ryan Avent.
Service animal scams now “epidemic … across the country”
Marcie Davis, founder of International Assistance Dog Awareness Week, noted that ordinary pets passed off as service dogs — often with fake badges, vest, or papers bought off the internet — disrupt public places and eat food at restaurants, bring suspicion on genuine service dogs, and even on occasion get into fights with real service dogs like hers. Davis “said the fakers are also taking advantage of laws that limit the interaction a business owner can have with a disabled person. The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits requiring identification documents for a service animal and does not allow any questioning about specifics of a person’s disability.” [CBS Baltimore]
Mom ate poppy seed dressing, state holds baby for 75 days
Some folks think that by posting so many stories of public agencies doing horrible things, I’m improperly undermining confidence in the government we must all depend on. Every time I try to taper off, however, I seem to run into a story like this. [Eugene Volokh]
Wage-and-hour law firm sued in wage-and-hour case
“In a federal lawsuit filed Aug. 29, Christopher Hranek contends Morgan & Morgan – one of the most active Florida law firms in filing wage and hour cases – misclassified him as a salaried employee when he was instead working as an hourly employee.” Morgan & Morgan, whose advertising slogan is “For the People,” said it does not owe Hranek overtime and expects to show documentation that it was in compliance with labor law. [Jane Meinhardt, Tampa Bay Business Journal]
Free speech roundup
- “It’s Not Illegal to Sell Anti-NSA Shirts Bearing the NSA Logo”
[Volokh] - Can an American national be sued in American courts for working to persuade a foreign government to pass an oppressive law? [BTB on Scott Lively Uganda case]
- “Court Rejects Religious Discrimination Claim Based on Associated Press’s Rejection of Plaintiff’s Religiously Themed Article” [Volokh]
- Workings of British hate speech law: police visit clergyman who emailed pair of unwelcome religious tracts [Spectator]
- “HIV Denialist’s Trademark and Defamation Claims Against Critical Blogger” [Paul Alan Levy]
- Revisiting the practice of suing publishers of drug information in pharmaceutical liability cases [Beck]
- “Australia’s Press Regulators Look To Enforce Ideological Conformity” [Tuccille, Reason]
…and the right to collect legal fees
The Washington Post splashes an investigative story about the tax lien business, in which outsiders buy up delinquent municipal property tax liens sometimes amounting to mere hundreds of dollars, then roll in lawyers’ fees and costs that can push up the bill into many thousands, eventuating in the foreclosure of family homes. The narrative is less than clear about exactly how the process works, and even leaves the impression that a tax lien purchaser owed, say, $6,000 can walk away with all the proceeds from the foreclosure of a $197,000 house without having to hand any of it over to mortgage holders, let alone the original owner. And some of the solutions offered (let’s not allow lien foreclosures on elderly people!) would have unintended consequences that are also, to be polite, underexplained. Still, enough of the story is there that an important general principle comes through: it’s dangerous for the law to put opportunistic actors in a position to run up $450/hour legal fees pursuing adversarial process that might not actually have been needed to vindicate their interests.
Oklahoma lawmakers roll reform stone uphill
They’ve reconvened, trying to enact a set of litigation reforms the state’s high court won’t just strike down [The Oklahoman, Tulsa World, earlier]