One of the more notorious lawsuits in modern Australian history finally reaches a conclusion as rival opera troupes agree to split the bequest of the late Melva Thompson, who died four years ago at 95. Of her A$2 million benefaction, more than $800,000 has been eaten up on legal fees. (Corrie Perkin, The Australian, Sept. 6).
Demand: $114 million for cancelled Starbucks coupon
Five years on
For our coverage at the time, start here (scroll down a little, up a lot). Much of this site’s later coverage of 9/11 litigation is to be found (for reasons of association, if not exactly logic) on our aviation page.
Latest “nicotine-spiking” panic
Well debunked by Jack Shafer (“Press box: Nicotine madness”, Slate, Sept. 1).
Neglect your kid now, sue for $5 M later
Reader D.B. of Cincinnati writes, regarding “not about the money” lawsuits (Sept. 1, Sept. 7, etc.):
You may be interested in the tragic story from Cincinnati. Three year old Marcus Fiesel was taken from his mother. She had three children by three fathers and they lived in a flea infested place which was smeared with feces and lacked food. She told police that the children were “their problem” now. The children were put into foster care. Marcus was placed in a home where he should not have been, as the foster father had a police record that was not discovered. His foster mother pretended to faint at a local park, and when she awoke she said Marcus was missing. There was a huge community search, but Marcus was never found. Later police discovered that the foster parents had wrapped him in a blanket and left him in a hot closet for 2 days while they attended a family reunipn.Then the foster father burned his body. The birth mother is suing everyone she can for $5 million and saying it is “not about the money.” There is outrage in Cincinnati first over the circumstances of his death and now over this outrageous lawsuit. The Cincinnati press has covered the story for the last 2 weeks with almost daily updates. Here is a report on the lawsuit and a Cincinnati Enquirer editorial.
Update: Sept. 26.
Junk fax law trips up lawyer
Manhattan solo practitioner Andrew Lavoott Bluestone claimed to be sending out informational advisories on legal issues, but a judge ruled that he was promoting his practice and implicitly proposing a commercial transaction. (Anthony Lin, “Judge Rules Attorney’s Faxes Are Prohibited Advertising”, New York Law Journal, Sept. 6). More on junk fax law: Jul. 31, etc.
Airline sued over singer’s performance
“Passengers on a flight from France to Mauritius have filed suit against Air France after musician Bonnie Tyler performed a song at the request of the co-pilot. … The complaining passengers reportedly claimed they were traumatized by the experience and had feared for their safety during the celebration.” (“Passengers complain after Tyler sings”, UPI, Sept. 3). Flyertalk pages us (Sept. 5) and David Lat also notes the case (Sept. 6).
“Strippers fight for back pay”
The exotic dancers’ lawsuit against Anchorage strip clubs Fantasies on 5th Avenue and Crazy Horse cites the Alaska Wage and Hour Act and seeks class-action status. Key quote: “This isn’t about how much money I make in tips,” said dancer Jennifer Prater. “This is about wage and hour laws.” A 1987 Alaska Supreme Court ruling rejected clubs’ contention that the dancers were independent contractors as opposed to employees. (Megan Holland, Anchorage Daily News, Sept. 6).
Update: anti-milk suit dismissed
A federal judge in the District of Columbia has dismissed a lawsuit against dairy manufacturers filed by the animal-rights group that calls itself the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). The lawsuit claimed that it was legally wrongful for producers not to label dairy products to warn of the risk of lactose intolerance (“District Court Dismisses Anti-Dairy Lawsuit”, USAgNet/Wisconsin Ag Connection, Sept. 5). Ted covered the suit Jun. 21, 2005; see also May 28, 2004. Bill Childs comments on the dismissal (Aug. 23) and also has details of a ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court (over two dissents) that a hair oil manufacturer did not have to warn of the dangers of ingesting its product.
Think different—think litigious
Apple—usually the victim of plaintiffs’ attorneys (e.g., May 23; Feb. 2; Oct. 27; Aug. 9, 2005, etc.)—has decided to glorify one, Mark Lanier, with a three-page puff piece co-advertising Lanier and Mac computers. The story falsely portrays the multi-millionaire as a “David” going up against a Goliath, falsely claims he won two Vioxx cases (one of his “wins” was for fifteen dollars), and falsely claims he received a $250 million “judgment” in a Vioxx case (not so). For more on how Lanier really operates, see today’s Point of Law post and Point of Law’s Vioxx litigation coverage. (h/t W.F.)