Unfit mother — for not speaking English?

“One of DHS’s apparent fears is that an infant isn’t safe in a home where the mother can articulate a 911 call solely in a language spoken only by some 50,000 Oaxacan Indians.” The Pascagoula, Miss. child protection authorities deny that Cirila Baltazar Cruz’s inability to speak English or Spanish played a major role in the decision to take her baby away from her. [Time magazine via Stossel]

“Hot coffee is back!”

In an op-ed in the Examiner last week, I express curiosity why the trial bar continues to insist that the infamous McDonald’s coffee case came out correctly decided, to the point that trial lawyer blogs express excitement that a documentary is going to be made about the subject. Of course, if the movie just parrots the urban legends trial lawyers have spread about the case, that would be something else—the fact that the filmmaker was fundraising at the AAJ convention but hasn’t shown her face around any of the tort reform conventions suggests a certain direction about the film.

Speaking of McDonald’s, I’ll be in the Bay Area next week at a couple of law schools giving a presentation called “The Law of McDonald’s: Hot Coffee, Obesity, and Prank Phone Calls” : Golden Gate University Law School on September 10, and UC-Davis on September 11. I’ll also be at UC-Berkeley Law on September 8, and Santa Clara University Law on September 9 talking more generally about tort reform and patent reform specifically.

“In $2.9 M ‘Blast Fax’ Settlement, Plaintiffs Get Coupons and Lawyers Get Cash”

Pitney Bowes, the office supply giant, will pay some Georgia lawyers $950,000 and make available discount coupons to class members to settle charges that it improperly sent faxes to customers of a toner business it bought in 2007. [Fulton County Daily Report] I’ve written and blogged about the junk-fax law here as well as on this site.

Bad journalism department: Grand Theft Auto settlement

As its press release says, Take Two Software settled a securities class action, yet multiple sources–including Dave Itzkoff’s story in the New York Times and Bloomberg–incorrectly report that it settled the consumer class action, complete with incorrect docket number. The consumer class action settlement was made in 2007 and, as Overlawyered readers might remember, rejected by the court, with the court’s decision to decertify the class still on appeal.

It’s unclear to me why either of those got it wrong, given that I contacted both Glovin and Itzkoff to let them know their error; Bloomberg issued two updates after my email, and Itzkoff had a chance to rewrite his incorrect blog post before it appeared in today’s Times, but neither has the story straight.

Saudi lawyers demand Mohammed cartoon apology

mohammed_cartoon_bombNot for the first time, the lawyers are getting involved: “Faizal A.Z. Yamani of the Jeddah-based legal firm A.Z. Yamani sent a letter to about a dozen newspaper editors, insisting that they print apologies in Danish, English, Arabic and French, and to undertake never to print the cartoon again. He also ordered all the cartoons to be removed from the internet in perpetuity.” [MWW]

“A Lawyer Who Tries to Block Settlements”

The Sep. 21 issue of Forbes magazine, now on newsstands, has a lengthy profile by Dan Fisher of my founding of the Center for Class Action Fairness, complete with a photo of my ugly mug gracing the story.

Of interest is a new revelation in the infamous Toshiba class action:

After few consumers availed themselves of a $2 billion settlement over supposedly defective laptop computers in 2000, for example, Toshiba America handed $353 million to a Beaumont charity whose chairman was plaintiff attorney Wayne Reaud, the lawyer on the case. Six years later the charity was still sitting on $250 million and the Texas attorney general sued for breach of fiduciary duty, including paying its president, W. Frank Newton, $560,000 in 2004. Newton is the former president of the State Bar of Texas.

The beginning of the end for speech control in Canada?

A human rights tribunal has found Canada’s hate-speech law, or at least some applications of it, to be an unconstitutional infringement of free expression. [National Post] Mark Steyn hopes this portends an end to a dark chapter in the nation’s history, but the Western Standard’s Shotgun Blog cautions that the ruling is narrower than one might assume. More: Blazing Cat Fur.