Galila Huff, who says she regrets her chain-smoking habit, has been hauled to court and asked to pay punitive damages: “Her neighbors, Jonathan Selbin, a class-action lawyer who has honed his skills suing major corporations, and his wife, Jenny Selbin, also a lawyer, are irate over the cigarette smoke that they say seeps from Ms. Huff’s apartment into the common hallway of their building, the elegant Beaux-Arts Ansonia, on Broadway between 73rd and 74th Streets.” (Anemona Hartocollis, New York Times, Feb. 9). More: Bainbridge.
How is the Class Action Fairness Act working?
The Washington Legal Foundation announces a new paper by Brian Anderson and Mel Schwing: “Two leading class action defense
attorneys utilize a federal court judge’s recent rejection of a settlement as a case study of how CAFA can deter defendants’ ability to ‘buy peace’ through settlements” in cases where the claim is so meritless that it is only worth a small amount of money for the defendant to settle:
While CAFA surely benefited class action defendants more than plaintiffs by transferring more cases to federal courts that offer more fairness and predictability in the adjudication of class actions, it is not a “free-pass” for targets of class action lawsuits.
The quid pro quo of giving class action defendants greater access to federal courts is that CAFA expects defendants to vigorously litigate, not settle via coupon settlements, frivolous class actions. The message of Figueroa is that class action defendants in federal court who try to escape all litigation risk by proposing low-value coupon benefits in exchange for global releases of claims (especially where competing lawyers and attorneys’ general are involved in the controversy) will have a difficult time persuading the federal courts to approve such settlements.
Figueroa was the first time in the three-year history of CAFA that state attorneys general used their CAFA right to intervene in a settlement hearing. Last year, I also took a look at CAFA.
Did redlining accusations lead to the subprime mortgage mess?
Stan Liebowitz writes in the New York Post:
Perhaps the greatest scandal of the mortgage crisis is that it is a direct result of an intentional loosening of underwriting standards – done in the name of ending discrimination, despite warnings that it could lead to wide-scale defaults. …
In an earlier newspaper story extolling the virtues of relaxed underwriting standards, Countrywide’s chief executive bragged that, to approve minority applications that would otherwise be rejected “lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit.” He’s not bragging now.
I’m not sure I entirely agree, but it’s an element we should be considering as we look at the new complaints of “racial discrimination” through excessive sub-prime loans.
“Overlawyeredlanche”
Dr. RW is glad about all the extra visitors, as is Greg May at Cal Blog of Appeal.
Palimony without cohabitation?
Through the rise of palimony law, courts in New Jersey have laid out a bright line against its being awarded in cases where a couple did not live together. Now, however, the state’s high court is being urged to overturn that rule and open the door to claims for compensation by a broader class of romantic partners (Michael Booth, “N.J. High Court Hears Pitch for Palimony Sans Cohabitation”, New Jersey Law Journal, Jan. 23). Two years ago an appellate judge upheld the bar to recovery:
“Without such a bright-line requirement, the concept of ‘marital-type’ relationship is unacceptably vulnerable to duplicitous manipulation,” Judge Jose Fuentes wrote in Levine v. Konvitz. “Requiring cohabitation also provides a measure of advance notice and warning, to both parties to a relationship, and to their respective family members, that legal and financial consequences may result.”
(Michael Booth, “Despite 70-Year Romance, Palimony Is Denied for Lack of Cohabitation”, NJLJ, Feb. 17, 2006).
“Plaintiffs’ bar wish list”
Vioxx settlement: February 8 update
(Updating and bumping Feb. 4 post about to roll off bottom of page because of new comment activity)
- Judge Fallon denied the motion of Florida plaintiffs to expedite a hearing on their inclusion into a settlement when they did not even bring suit (Jan. 30). Merck and the PSC are required to respond Feb. 15, and the hearing will be Feb. 21, where one can expect the motion to be denied.
- At Point of Law, I comment on the recent grand jury investigation into Merck marketing of Vioxx.
Update, Feb. 8: separately, Merck yesterday settles for $650 million different Medicaid fraud allegations over the marketing of Vioxx and other drugs. The qui tam relator will get a jackpot award of $68 million. [WaPo; DOJ; Merck] The pricing theories at the center of these lawsuits—which hold Merck liable for purportedly charging too little—definitely deserve longer discussion another time.
Suit against mower manufacturer: It’s your fault my grandfather ran over my foot
The Simplicity Manufacturing riding mower, manufactured in 1994, includes the following warning, almost so obvious and over-the-top as to be wacky:
(I) DO NOT MOW WHEN CHILDREN OR OTHERS ARE AROUND; (ii) NEVER CARRY CHILDREN; (iii) LOOK DOWN AND BEHIND BEFORE AND WHILE BACKING.
Moreover, the manual includes the following warnings:
(I) Tragic accidents can occur if the operator is not alert to the presence of children. Children are often attracted to the unit and the mowing activity. Never assume that children will remain where you last saw them.
(ii) Keep children out of the mowing area and under the watchful care of another responsible adult.
(iii) Be alert and turn unit off if children enter the area.
(iv) Before and when backing, look behind and down for small children.
Nevertheless, on May 7, 2003, in Honeybrook, Pennsylvania, Melvin Shoff backed up his riding mower and managed to run over the foot of four-year-old Ashley Berrier, resulting in its amputation. This is, Ashley’s parents complain in a lawsuit, the fault of Simplicity Manufacturing for not doing more to idiot-proof the mower. The federal district court threw out the suit based on a 2003 Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent (involving a two-year-old and a lighter), but the Third Circuit, twelve months after the case was argued, has certified the question to the Supreme Court whether they’ve changed their mind in the last five years. The Court appears to have been swayed by the American Law Institute’s “Restatement” proposal to expand product-liability law in this area. (Berrier v. Simplicity Manufacturing (3d Cir. Jan. 17, 2008) via Steenson; Legal Intelligencer).
Bacon-wrapped hot dog
Exclusive: Grand Theft Auto deposition
Back in 2005, when the first lawsuits were filed over the Grand Theft Auto hot coffee mod, I wrote:
Me, I’m just amused by the thought of class action attorneys trolling for a named plaintiff parent who will testify that, while she was okay for her little Johnny to buy a game involving drug dealing, gambling, carjacking, cop-shooting, prostitution, throat-slashing, baseball-bat beatings, drive-by shootings, street-racing, gang wars, profanity-laced rap music, violent homosexual lovers’ quarrels, blood and gore, and “Strong Sexual Content,” she is shocked, shocked to learn that the game also includes an animation at about the level of a Ken doll rubbing up against an unclothed Barbie doll with X-rated sound effects…
Alas, Take Two games has given in to the blackmail and settled the case, but a sense of how frivolous it was can be seen from the following deposition excerpt of lead plaintiff Brenda Stanhouse, a schoolteacher in Belleville, Illinois, who will receive $5000 for her role in the litigation. Recall that Mrs. Stanhouse is alleging she was defrauded because she would not have bought a game that could be modified to include “pornography,” but take a look at pp. 67 ff. of the deposition, where she makes clear she didn’t have the faintest idea what was in the game that she did buy. Readers: type your favorite Stanhouse deposition excerpts in the comments.