The website invites women to post negative “reviews” warning others against men who are poor dating material. Now it’s being sued by Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer Todd Hollis, who says false and defamatory material about himself appeared on the site. (Moustafa Ayad, “City lawyer sues ‘don’t date him’ Web site”, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jun. 30; Carl Jones, “Scorned Attorney Sues Kiss-and-Tell Web Site”, Miami Daily Business Review, Jul. 5; Robert Ambrogi, Legal Blog Watch, Jun. 30; Lattman, Jul. 3; Evan Brown, Jul. 1.
Heads I win, tails is your fault
Peter Nordberg points us to an unpublished Fourth Circuit opinion upholding an expert’s testimony as to damages. Mary Lafontaine Parmenter’s investment advisor moved her $730,000 account into stock mutual funds in late 1999, increasing its value to $1.1 million at the height of the stock market bubble in 2000 (even as she was withdrawing $6000/month), whereupon it declined in value to $342 thousand. The expert argued that the most serious breach of the investment advisor’s duties came when he failed to consolidate the gains, and that losses should be counted from the peak of the account’s value. I don’t doubt that the investment advisor could have been found to be inappropriately aggressively investing Parmenter’s money; but if he was doing so inappropriately in April 2000, he was doing so inappropriately in 1999, when he made her half a million dollars; there’s something unseemly about the calculation of loss. Hindsight is nice: if the expert, F. John Hermann, could accurately forecast account value peaks, he’d be a billionaire rather than an expert-for-hire.
The opinion also reveals that the plaintiff’s attorney successfully tricked the defendant into conceding that an accurate SEC disclosure form that he had filed was inaccurate; the appeals court offered no relief because of lack of evidence that the tactic was intentional.
Airport wouldn’t land his personal jet
From “Decision of the Day: A daily summary of the best (and worst) of federal appellate decisions” (Jul. 3):
Money Can’t Buy Love, Or Permission to Land Your Personal Jet
Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. Hailey, 04-34524 [PDF](9th Cir., July 3, 2006)Poor Ron Tutor. All he wanted to do is land his personal jet at an airport in Hailey, Idaho. The airport wouldn’t let him due to weight restrictions, so he was forced to fly in a less comfortable private jet. As a result, Tutor’s vacation at his Sun Valley home got off to a very bad start. Tutor sued the airport and the City of Hailey on various grounds, including under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly violating his rights to due process, equal protection, and interstate travel. The district court predictably found these claims were frivolous and awarded partial fees to the defendants, totaling $88,000 (in addition to costs of around $70,000). On appeal, the Ninth affirms the decision to award fees but remands to the district court for recalculation. Am I the only one who hopes the district court finds a way to increase the fee award on remand?
“Decision of the Day”, incidentally, was launched by “Robert Loblaw” in October, and can be found here.
P.S.: In email, Prof. Childs advises that site author “Robert Loblaw” quite possibly may have borrowed that screen name from a similarly named lawyer-character on “Arrested Development”, who can be viewed here.
ATLA: Defensive medicine a “hoax”
Kevin M.D. takes ATLA president Ken Suggs to task for the aggressive claim that defensive medicine doesn’t exist. Speaking of hoaxes, Suggs also repeats the long-refuted myth that insurance companies are to blame for higher malpractice premiums. At this rate, ATLA needs more than a name change.
$183 million for a meritless claim
That’s what plaintiffs’ lawyers will receive for a federal class action that was dismissed on summary judgment for lack of evidence. The Eleventh Circuit had previously pooh-poohed defendants’ claims that the potentially bankrupting scope of the class action would force them into extortionate settlements. For refusing to pay protection money, United Healthcare and Coventry avoided paying millions of dollars in settlement money, but still had to pay their own attorneys and experts millions—and faced substantial risk that a court and a jury would get the decision wrong. Details at today’s Point of Law.
Sued for expressing “glee” over lawyer’s indictment
“A prominent civil rights attorney who was indicted this month on tax charges has sued a retired police detective for writing a letter that expressed ‘glee’ at the news. Stephen Yagman claims in the suit filed Wednesday that the three-paragraph letter he received from Jerry Le Frois caused him ‘extreme emotional distress.’ Le Frois’ June 23 letter says he felt ‘glee and profound satisfaction’ when he learned that Yagman had been charged earlier this month in a 19-count federal indictment. Le Frois identified himself as a former member of the Los Angeles Police Department’s Special Investigations Section, which was a frequent target of Yagman’s civil rights suits.” (“Attorney sues former L.A. cop who expressed ‘glee’ he was indicted”, AP/Sacramento Bee, Jun. 29). More watch-what-you-say-about-lawyers posts: Apr. 18 and links from there.
“Intermittent explosive disorder”
When workers exhibit this malady — roughly definable as losing their temper or blowing their stack to a pathological degree — are employers obliged to accommodate them under the Americans with Disabilities Act? (Jon Coppelman, Workers Comp Insider, Jun. 14).
Never trust content from “U.S. Surgeon General”
The Surgeon General of the United States last week claimed that “breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time” can “potentially increas[e] the risk of heart attack”. How much evidence is there for that proposition? Michael Siegel inquires (Jun. 28; Jacob Sullum, Reason “Hit and Run”, Jun. 28 and Jun. 29). According to Brooke Oberwetter of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the same new report from the Surgeon General uncritically passes along the much-ballyhooed “miracle of Helena” study purporting to find a correlation between a ban on smoking in bars and an immediate 40 percent drop in heart attacks in that Montana community — really more like a miracle of small sample sizes (Jun. 27; see Oct. 6, 2003). Finally, a spokeswoman for the bossyboots American Heart Association is quoted praising a new Colorado law that forbids smoking in most restaurants and bars statewide no matter what the owners and patrons happen to prefer:
“We know from research that we’ve done that over 80 percent of Colorado residents don’t smoke,” said Erin Bertoli with the American Heart Association.
“The majority of them really look forward to going out to new restaurants and new bars and taking their families and experiencing new venues that have technically been closed to 80 percent of Colorado residents up until this point.”
thus demonstrating a Pickwickian understanding of such words as “technically” and “closed”. (Jeffrey Wolf, “Effort to stop statewide smoking ban underway “, KUSA-TV, Jun. 15). Plus: Radley Balko weighs in.
Gifted and talented
Some parents on the Upper West Side of Manhattan are considering suing the New York education department because their kids didn’t get into that coveted program. The kids are in pre-K and 4 years old or thereabouts. (Melena Ryzik, “Intelligencer: Can You Sue a Kid Smart?”, New York, May 22).
Update: Tex. jury rejects flasher’s-remorse suit
In the latest development regarding suits by young women who come to regret being filmed in compromising states of undress during Spring Break, Mardi Gras, etc., a Denton County, Tex. jury has decided to award no damages to Brittany Lowry and Lezlie Fuller, who “accused Mantra Films of misappropriation and fraud after the two were videotaped in March 2002 flashing their breasts during a vacation at Panama City Beach, Fla.” (Domingo Ramirez Jr., “Women lose Girls Gone Wild lawsuit”, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Jun. 29)(via Lattman). Earlier: Sept. 28-30, 2001; Mar. 6-7, 2002; May 1, 2006; May 2, 2006.