Larry Ribstein has some advice for Times business columnist and not always intentional comedian Ben Stein (Sept. 3).
McDonald’s coffee lawsuit and 1Ls
I suppose Evan Schaeffer pointed to this post by a USD 1L who is being incorrectly taught that the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit isn’t frivolous to get my goat, but I just find it very, very sad that a generation of law students is being taught to twist the tort system improperly. Of course, if someone googles “McDonald’s coffee lawsuit”, nine out of the top ten links will be happy to share with them the ATLA fictions about the lawsuit; it’s only a matter of time that the trial lawyer wikiality replaces the truth.
“Helping Christians who’ve been injured”
Thus reads the advertising tagline of Colorado Springs law firm McCormack & Murphy P.C. Shrewd marketing? Disturbingly exclusionary? A manifestation of sincere religious conviction? All of these? (David Lat, Above the Law, Aug. 31, who got it from Parenthetical Statement).
Oops
Posted on a case Ted had already covered last month. This is the replacement post. My mistake. Sorry!
Chutzpah files: Madison County judge-shopping
Illinois, like some other states, allows parties to request a single change of judge as of right. That statute is questionable enough public policy as it is, but Madison County judges had interpreted the rule to permit class action plaintiffs to obtain automatic changes for each plaintiff in the case—thus effectively permitting a class action attorney to pick his judge. Madison County Chief Judge Ann Callis has changed the rule so that it limits substitution of judge to only one time as a right, and the Korein Tillery law firm is now challenging that rule’s constitutionality, which could delay its implementation for a couple of years if they get the right judges to hear the case. (Steve Gonzalez, “‘Judge shopping’ rule challenged by Tillery firm”, Madison County Record, Aug. 31; Brian Brueggeman, “Law firm set to challenge court ban on automatic judge change”, Belleville News-Democrat, Sep. 1). (Cross-posted at Point of Law.)
Suit: plaintiff was too stupid to be admitted into law school
Thomas Joseph Bentey flunked out of St. Thomas University School of Law of Miami, and claims it was a conspiracy of the school to admit students it knew would flunk out, and wants his tuition and room and board back (as well as damages for lost wages and “embarrassment”). (The complaint also complains that Bentey’s mother called the law school, but that it refused to review his C grade in Contracts II, and seeks an injunction for a review of the grade.) The attorneys seek class action status, which is frivolous on its face, because the individualized issue of whether a St. Thomas student flunked out because of their own underachieving would clearly predominate any group inquiry even if the conspiracy theory had any basis in rationality. One might also make some adverse inferences about Bentey’s attorney, Michael Lombardi of Lombardi & Lombardi, for coming up with such a cockamamie theory of recovery that will only result in more embarrassment for his client, but he is a “Super Lawyer.” Other defendants in the shotgun complaint include the ABA and the Department of Education, suggesting hopes for a number of nuisance settlements. (Bentey v. St. Thomas University School of Law, No. 2:06-cv-03463-PGS-RJH (D.N.J.); Leigh Jones, “Law School Sued for Expelling Students”, National Law Journal, Sep. 1).
Update: Orin Kerr comments at the VC blog.
Motley Rice and its 9/11 cases
September 11 litigation as an industry, courtesy of the asbestos/tobacco zillionaires from South Carolina:
While other lawyers have resolved most or all of their cases — at least 32 of the roughly 90 total lawsuits have settled — Motley Rice has settled only three. …According to several lawyers and plaintiffs in the case, Motley Rice has made unusually high settlement demands, often 5 to 10 times higher than similar plane crash cases. The higher demands stem from Motley’s calculations for what it calls “terror damages” — compensation for the amount of time frightened victims knew they were fated to die — of between $750,000 and $1 million a minute, according to those lawyers and clients, who requested that their names not be used because the settlement process is confidential.
The story deserves a place in the “Not About The Money” files because client after client informs the Boston Globe that their litigation stance is entirely unrelated to that disdained cash nexus; presumably it’s just happenstance that they have wound up represented by lawyers who are making monetary recovery a very high priority indeed. Somehow one is reminded of the character in Flannery O’Connor: “Mrs. Hopewell had no bad qualities of her own but she was able to use other people’s in such a constructive way that she never felt the lack.” (via Lattman)(cross-posted from Point of Law).
American Hunters and Shooters Association
The New Republic, like the Washington Monthly before it, is hyping this newly hatched groupuscule which aims to woo gun owners into an anti-NRA coalition. Trouble is, it’s a bit of an uphill slog convincing people you’re all for private gun ownership when your executive director played an active role on the plaintiff’s side in the lawsuit campaign against the firearms industry (see Jun. 29). (Michael Blanding, “Gun crazy”, The New Republic, Sept. 4). Cam Edwards has the details (Aug. 30).
Dissent on global warming? See ya in court
“For no apparent reason, the state of California, Environmental Defense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council have dragged [MIT’s Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard] Lindzen and about 15 other global- warming skeptics into a lawsuit over auto- emissions standards. California et al. have asked the auto companies to cough up any and all communications they have had with Lindzen and his colleagues, whose research has been cited in court documents.” (Alex Beam, “MIT’s inconvenient scientist”, Boston Globe, Aug. 30).
Second Circuit nixes teacher-competence test
In a case entitled Gulino v. New York State Education Department, the federal appeals court earlier this month “reinstated a race discrimination suit against the New York State Education Department based on the theory that a test of ‘basic college-level content’ that asks applicants to get just two-thirds of the questions right is racially discriminatory because it has a ‘disparate impact’ on African-American and Latino teachers.” Dan McLaughlin at Baseball Crank acknowledges that the court relied on existing Supreme Court precedent, but is still rubbed the wrong way by its assumptions (Aug. 31).