A class-action law firm, Gardy & Notis, is suing ESPN, Viacom, Disney, CBS, Hearst, and The Sporting News, among others, alleging that their participation in the thriving field of fantasy sports leagues violates the anti-gambling laws of New Jersey. DeadSpin notes (Jul. 31) that named plaintiff Charles Humphrey “is a resident of Colorado, not New Jersey, and he points out in the suit that he, in fact, has never played any of these fantasy games, unlike you, you heathens.” Humphrey’s press release is here and the complaint (PDF) is here (via Bill Childs and Kevin Heller). The complaint asserts a right to recovery under qui tam (bounty-hunting) laws of Illinois, Georgia and the District of Columbia which allow random outsiders to file lawsuits to recover moneys reaped by way of unlawful gambling.
Duly noted
Threats against federal judges are on a record-setting pace this year, nearly 18 months after the family of a federal judge was killed in Chicago….
The rise in civil lawsuits, especially those filed by people who do not have lawyers, and a change in criminal cases in federal courts help explain the increase, the marshals say.
Donald Donovan, chief deputy marshal in Baltimore, said people who file and lose multiple lawsuits account for the largest percentage of threats.
Federal courts now handle many more violent crime prosecutions, cases that were once the province of state and local courts….
(Mark Sherman, “An angry trend: Threats against federal judges set record pace”, AP/Boston Globe, Jul. 28).
Dead man suing
Madison County, Illinois, inimitable as ever: “For two-and-a-half years the Lakin Law Firm has carried on a Madison County class action lawsuit with a dead plaintiff,” reports the Madison Record, which says Lakin lawyer Jeffrey Millar did not inform Circuit Judge Daniel Stack about his client’s having assumed room temperature. The defendant, American Family Insurance, eventually twigged to it, and now the Lakin firm plans to switch to a live plaintiff from Ohio so as to keep the suit going. “Millar has confirmed the death of [client Manuel Hernandez of Granite City], but he has not answered questions that American Family Insurance submitted about his knowledge of it. Millar objected to the questions, arguing to Stack that American Family Insurance should submit them not to Hernandez’s attorney but to Hernandez himself.” (Steve Korris, “Dead plaintiff should answer questions, class counsel argues”, Jul. 20)(via Insurance Coverage Blog).
Great moments in lawyer discipline
Way back in 2000, a Texas trial judge dismissed a $2 billion products liability suit against DaimlerChrysler and imposed sanctions of $865,000 on San Antonio attorney Robert Kugle and two associates at his firm, Andrew Toscano and Robert “Trey” Wilson III, also referring the matter to the State Bar of Texas for possible disciplinary action. As we summarized the episode in our post of Jul. 20, 2003, the judge found “that the steering decoupler of the sued-over Dodge Neon had been altered to simulate mechanical failure and that Mexican policemen had been asked to change their accounts of the accident giving rise to the suit. An appeals court called the firm’s conduct ‘an egregious example of the worst kind of abuse of the judicial system.'” Now, six years later, the leisurely process of state bar discipline still hasn’t run its course in Toscano’s case, Wilson drew a two-year probated suspension, and both men are practicing law in San Antonio. The American Tort Reform Association doesn’t think that’s a suitable outcome. (Mary Alice Robbins, “‘Texas Justice Massacre’ Billboard Targets Attorney’s Alleged Misconduct”, Texas Lawyer, Jul. 5; David Shepardson, “Chrysler takes fight to lawyers”, Detroit News, Mar. 21).
“N.M. Legislators: Bar Owners Need ESP”
Under the terms of a bill proposed in the New Mexico legislature, if a “drinker is caught with a blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeding 0.14, the bar owner will be deemed legally responsible and may lose his license” if the bar had served the drinker within the previous two hours. According to Nobody’s Business, this implies that bar owners in New Mexico who don’t want to break the law may be well advised to develop “paranormal gifts. …they must know if a customer who leaves their establishment intends to drink more over the next two hours — perhaps at a friend’s home.” (Jul. 10; “Proposed liquor law changes draw comments”, AP/Los Alamos Monitor, Jul. 6).
London’s (and Belfast’s) libel-shoppers
Britney Spears has resorted to the courts of justice in Belfast, Northern Ireland, to slap down the National Enquirer, while singers Paula Abdul and Whitney Houston are reported to be contemplating similar trips in search of the plaintiff-friendly libel laws of the United Kingdom. Aren’t they just a little bit ashamed of themselves? The “speedy results and whopping damages” of defamation suits in the U.K. “might be nice for the celebrity claimants. But it’s bad for those of us who live in Britain permanently. These libel tourists are helping to prop up our illiberal, antidemocratic, and ‘repugnant’ libel laws, which are an offense to free speech and open debate.” (Brendan O’Neill, “Throwing our judicial junk in Britain’s backyard (or courts)”, Christian Science Monitor, Jul. 24). But actually, reports Mark Stephens in The Times (London) Online, it is global business magnates rather than entertainment figures who are nowadays the busiest libel tourists in the British courts. They come from America, Russia and the Middle East to squelch the naughty insinuations of the financial press that not everything about their business dealings is on the up and up (“New celebrities of the libel courts”, Jul. 18).
“While I know some lawyers who are happy, most aren’t.”
Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit), Jul. 30:
It’s possible, of course, that they’re the kind of people who weren’t really happy before they became lawyers — not surprisingly, the field has an attraction to people who like to complain. But it’s also true that older lawyers seem to enjoy it more — and to have enjoyed it more when they were new at it — than today’s lawyers. I think the practice of law is substantially less enjoyable than it used to be, even if it’s sometimes more lucrative.
Small claims collections
Boston Globe has a big investigative package on questionable methods used by debt collectors pursuing consumers in small claims court. Among recurring problems: default judgments against debtors who never were alerted to proceedings because notice was mailed to the wrong address, or who were told by creditors that they “might not” have to attend the court date because they had volunteered a payment schedule. Also in the spotlight: a now-disbarred lawyer named Daniel Goldstone who buys up low-quality debt to collect by way of hardball methods, and who appears to be no gem; his conduct provoked liberal U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner into applying Rule 11 sanctions, something she told the Globe she had never felt compelled to do in any other case in her twelve years on the bench (“Debtors’ Hell”, series home; Francie Latour, “For bare-knuckled collector, some harsh judicial reviews”, Jul. 29).
“Rumpelstiltskin, LLP”
[Bumped to make it the top post Monday morning; originally posted Saturday. Also check out the comments section on this post, which includes comments from readers who’ve been on both sides of junk-fax lawsuits.] I’ve got a contribution in the “Rule of Law” section of Saturday’s Wall Street Journal (Jul. 29, sub-only) on the ongoing litigation (especially class action litigation) over junk faxes, a topic often addressed in this space. It concludes:
No doubt you can make a case that getting at the most heinous wrongdoers through bounty-hunting is preferable to never getting at them at all. But note that where crimes are indisputably serious, the rewards for informing are fixed and often modest. The typical reward for helping solve a bank robbery is $5,000. At rewardsforjustice.net, the U.S. government offers bounties for information leading to the capture of leading terrorists: Even notorious masterminds tend to be worth at most $5 million, while turning in Osama bin Laden will win you $25 million.
If Osama had sent 100,000 junk faxes, there’d be a bigger price on his head.
Click here for fees: Google ad settlement
A county judge in Texarkana, Ark., where the action happens to have been filed, has approved Google’s settlement of a nationwide lawsuit over advertisers’ losses allegedly attributable to “click fraud”, that is to say, non-bona fide clicks on their ads. “By settling claims made in the plaintiffs’ class-action lawsuit, Google will give advertising credits that are the equivalent of a $3.80 refund on every $1,000 spent in its advertising network during the past 4 1/2 years. No one will receive cash except the lawyers, who will split $30 million.” (“Judge approves $90 million settlement in Google click fraud case”, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, Jul. 28). Numerous class members had objected, calling the proposed settlement unfair and inadequate “because it includes poor calculations, excessive attorney fees and e-mailed class notices that look like spam.” Similar lawsuits “still are pending against other defendants, including Yahoo Inc.; Time Warner Inc.’s America Online; and Ask Jeeves”. (Amanda Bronstad, “Google ‘Click Fraud’ Settlement Criticized”, National Law Journal, Jul. 19).