That’s the view of Tennessee trial lawyer John Rice (InjuryBoard.com, Feb. 20). Some readers wonder whether Rice has thought the matter through (via Kevin Pho, who also comments).
Stores for selling banned products
Paternalists aren’t going to like this idea: “let anything the government would have banned be sold only at special ‘would have banned’ stores, whose customers pass a test showing they understand that regulators disapprove. The reason we don’t allow such stores seems obvious: we expect people would shop there.” (Robin Hanson, Overcoming Bias, Mar. 2)(via Cowen at Rev. Marge).
Paul Minor retrial, cont’d
In recent developments at the Mississippi judicial-bribery retrial, Richard (“Dickie”) Scruggs, a longstanding associate of attorney Paul Minor’s, “testified without accepting the U.S. Justice Department’s offer of immunity from prosecution”. Scruggs had not taken the stand during the first trial. (Anita Lee, “Scruggs takes stand”, Biloxi Sun-Herald, Mar. 14). Earlier, attorney Leonard Radlauer testified that he’d served as a go-between in a scheme in which Minor furnished $118,000 to pay off a debt owed by Judge John Whitfield of Gulfport. (“Scruggs likely to testify today”, Mar. 13). According to the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, summarizing his testimony,
Radlauer said he later came to the realization after receiving what he considered a fraudulent promissory note from Whitfield that Minor’s reason for wanting him to make the payment wasn’t above-board.
“It wasn’t to keep it out of the paper,” Radlauer said. “I thought it was a pretty shady thing. … It was backdating.”
(Jimmie E. Gates, “Witness: Loan antics ‘shady'”, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Mar. 13; also Gates, Clarion-Ledger, Mar. 9, Mar. 10, Mar. 12; Lee, Sun-Herald, Mar. 12). As prosecutors wrapped up their case, U.S. District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate on Thursday refused a defense motion to dismiss the charges. (Lee, Sun-Herald, Mar. 15 first and second story). Prosecutors have said that Minor, one of the state’s most prominent plaintiff’s lawyers, slipped the money to judges in exchange for favorable rulings. Earlier: Feb. 26, Mar. 8, Mar. 9, etc.
Imams sue USAir
A sad case of post-9/11 discrimination, or “performance art” designed to elicit a fearful reaction among fellow passengers? And what are we to think of the suit’s naming, as “John Doe” defendants responsible for damages, an “older couple” who reacted with alarm and the gentleman of which “kept talking into his cellular phone”, possibly alerting authorities? (John McWhorter (Manhattan Institute), “Drama Queens on U.S. Airways”, New York Sun, Mar. 15; Katherine Kersten, “The real target of the 6 imams’ ‘discrimination’ suit”, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Mar. 14; Kersten blog, Mar. 14; Power Line, Mar. 15; Dystopian Philosopher (Dennis Miller video), Mar. 14; Bruce McQuain, QandO, Mar. 15). Earlier coverage: Dec. 6.
More: Audrey Hudson’s coverage of the issue in the Washington Times is kind enough to quote me (“Imams’ suit risks ‘chill’ on security”, Mar. 16).
Spreading the joy of American discovery
The United States legal system has traditionally permitted significantly more extensive pretrial discovery than other countries’ legal systems have. So what do you do if you’re engaged in litigation in a foreign country, and you want information you couldn’t obtain under their laws? Why, you simply get the U.S. courts to order those who have the information to provide it via American discovery rules, as this China Law Blog post by Dan Harris explains:
“In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court issued the seminal decision interpreting §1782, construing the language liberally in favor of allowing discovery. Among other things, it rejected the notion that §1782 was limited to the discovery of evidence that could be discovered in a foreign jurisdiction if the evidence was located there. Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004).
Ponder this for just a moment: The Supreme Court ruled that one could engage in U.S. discovery to gather information for a foreign litigation that one would not be allowed to gather in that foreign litigation.
And as everyone knows, if discovery is good, then more discovery is better, so, as Harris explains, the U.S. courts “tend to ‘interpret §1782 liberally in favor of permitting discovery in aid of foreign litigation.'” He gives examples, including this recent case:
In a further example of this trend, a district court in New York ordered McKinsey Company, the global consulting firm, to produce documents requested by a German litigant in aid of a lawsuit in Munich. In re Gemeinschaftspraxis Dr. Med. Schottforf, 2006 WL 3844464 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2006). McKinsey argued §1782 did not apply because the documents were located outside of the United States. The district court disagreed, holding “Section 1782 requires only that the party from whom discovery is sought be ‘found’ here; not that the documents be found here.” Id. at 5. The court also rejected the argument that the production would be unduly burdensome because the documents would have to be translated from German into English so they could be reviewed by McKinsey’s non-German-speaking U.S. counsel.
In other words, Germans engaged in a lawsuit in Germany can obtain an order from a U.S. court to require an American company to turn over documents that aren’t even located in the United States, and that they couldn’t obtain from the German courts in which they’re actually litigating. That seems perfectly reasonable.
(Hat Tip: Ron Coleman, my co-blogger from Likelihood of Success.)
To protect, serve, and litigate
In 2001, Harry Ruiz, a municipal police officer in New Jersey, was called to a disturbance at a local ballroom, which had been rented by a nearby sports bar to televise some World Cup matches. By the time he responded, the altercation had moved onto the street outside the building. When he responded, he was assaulted by one of the patrons, and he received head and neck injuries which left him permanently disabled.
This, obviously, was the fault of the bar, as well as the owner of the ballroom. The claim? They failed to provide adequate security. To recap: a trained police officer responds to reports of violence, gets injured, and sues the owner of the premises on the theory that they should have had security guards at the site to protect him from the people he had come to arrest!
Traditionally, the Firefighters Rule meant that police and firefighters were not allowed to sue for injuries they incurred while doing their job, in part based on the theory that this was the risk they were paid to take. But this week, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that Ruiz could proceed with his lawsuit. Although the state Supreme Court here is generally considered the most activist in the country, it’s the state legislature at fault in this case. The court was simply straightforwardly interpreting the words of the 1994 statute which abolished the Firefighters Rule in New Jersey; a copy of the court opinion is here.
So, be careful when you call the police or fire department for help; you might find yourself being sued by the people who were supposed to be assisting you.
Walter previously covered an even more outrageous case involving this law: Nov. 2006.
She gets an A+ in Litigation
Reader and huge fan Richard Nieporent passes along a story of a West Virginia High School student with a 4.5 GPA suing her teacher and the school board because she didn’t like the grade she received in biology. She was on a school trip on the date a big project was due, and failed to turn it in on time; the teacher failed her on the project because it was late. Naturally, litigation has followed:
“It was the intent of the defendant, Jane Schultz, to punish the minor plaintiff for being in student council by intentionally ruining her ‘A’ average,” the lawsuit says.
The student’s parents are seeking an injunction, punitive damages, and damages for “emotional stress, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of scholarship potential.”
If causing emotional stress to high school students by giving them bad grades is actionable, I think an awful lot of teachers will be in trouble.
Bill McGinley, legal counsel for the West Virginia Education Association, said the union would be watching the lawsuit closely.
“We’re very interested in this,” he said. “Especially in the notion of protecting the integrity of teacher’s grading, as well as student responsibility.
“It’s a terrible thing that people want to clog up the courts with students and their leaf projects,” he said. “The court has so much more important stuff to deal with.”
McGinley said he agrees with Withrow, the county school board’s attorney, that students need to learn responsibility.
“When they fail to meet a deadline and they start suing over leaf collections, it’s not really teaching them important life lessons,” McGinley said.
Maybe it’s teaching them the important life lesson that every disappointment in life is grounds for a lawsuit.
“That’s why docs have insurance…It won’t hurt him at all”
Selling an item on eBay…
…is not enough contact with the buyer’s state to subject you to the jurisdiction of its courts, according to a judge on Staten Island who ruled that even New York’s “long arm” law has its limits. (Mark Fass, “Contact Held Insufficient to Sue eBay Seller”, New York Law Journal, Mar. 7). I discussed the rise of long-arm jurisdiction, and the powerful impetus it can provide to litigation in many situations, in Chapter 4 (PDF) of my book The Litigation Explosion.
P.S. As commenter Elliot points out, “even” was not the mot juste in this circumstance; New York’s long-arm statute has never been interpreted as liberally as, say, California’s.
Another Brockovich Medicare suit dismissed
This time it’s the federal court for the Eastern District of Tennessee that’s sent the glamourpuss bounty-hunter packing:
Plaintiff and his associate Erin Brockovich have filed 49 nearly identical complaints in jurisdictions across the country. Kris Hundley, Brockovich Teams Up With Local Firm, St. Petersburg Times, Dec. 21, 2006. Many of these complaints have already been dismissed . . .
Roy F. Harmon III at Health Plan Law explains why this one failed too (Mar. 13). For more, see Jun. 22 and Nov. 18, 2006 as well as, on the general Brockovich phenomenon, my October 2000 treatment in Reason.