The self-described “bounty hunter” lawyer, whose exploits around L.A. have been previously detailed in this space Nov. 4-5, 2002 and Mar. 12 of this year, has turned his talents to disabled-rights enforcement and swooped down on the city of Fresno, filing more than 130 lawsuits against local businesses over such alleged infractions as a too-high bathroom mirror and a hard-to-reach soda dispenser. Businesses usually pay between $5,000 and $12,000 to settle, says San Diego defense attorney James Reynolds. (Robert Rodriguez, “Fresno Businesses Are Sued Over Act”, Fresno Bee, Jul. 4) (via Southern California Law Blog). For more on ADA filing mills, see Mar. 9 and links from there and my City Journal article, “The ADA Shakedown Racket“.
Microsoft’s Minnesota settlement
The software company will pay as much as $59 million in attorneys’ fees and a face value of $174.5 million in vouchers for purchasers, although many or most will apparently never get redeemed. A Microsoft spokesman said the company believed it had a solid defense but “settled to avoid the potential of a jury verdict that favored the plaintiffs, and to avoid disruption at the company. ‘How much is a week’s worth of Bill Gates’ time to shareholders? A lot,’ he said,” referring to the expected appearance of the company chief at trial. (Gregg Aamot, “Microsoft to Pay Up to $241 Million in Minnesota Class Action”, AP/Law.com, Jul. 2). More on MS settlements: Mar. 31 and links from there.
The incomparable James Lileks (Jul. 7) describes the settlement much more entertainingly than we have done above (“Microsoft once again promised to hand over its wallet if the kicking stopped, and agreed to remain rolled in a fetal position until the money is counted. …. When it came to distribute the organs of the corpse the lawyers got the liver, spleen, lungs and most of the brain; the consumers got some regulatory glands, some teeth and a selection of minor toes.”). Then he goes on to notice that it contains a remarkable provision:
they need higher participation rates, since it looks bad when you advocate on behalf of an Inflamed Public that turns out to be utterly indifferent to the supposed offense. So the state has come up with a novel means of informing citizens that Microsoft owes them money. It was buried at the end of the story in the local paper last week.
The state will subpoena local computer resellers to learn who bought PCs.
Maybe it?s just me, but: imagine the outcry if the Justice Department decided it wanted a database of computer ownership in America. Who had what. Oh no you don?t would be the general reaction, even if people couldn?t quite explain why they didn’t like the idea. It smacks of typewriter-registration laws in totalitarian states, even though we all know no one will kick down the door and demand to know where you put that 386 you bought in ’92. But this is the mindset of the well-intentioned government lawyer: gee, people might not claim their rebates. How about we use the power of the state to force private businesses to turn over customer lists so we can mail informational material to computer owners? It?s for their own good.
Call it a settlement practice
Glimpses of the world of shareholder litigation: “Shareholder suits are a big part of the practice at [Colchester, Ct.-based] Scott & Scott, but in the firm’s seven years of existence, none has gone to trial, [firm attorney Neil R.] Rothstein said.” (“Commerce Bancorp sued over indictments”, Philadelphia Inquirer, Jul. 7).
Welcome National Review readers
David Frum says very kind things about me and this site (and interesting things about lawyers, politics, and Sen. Edwards) in his column today for National Review (Jun. 8). Last night on NRO’s “The Corner” NR contributor John Derbyshire was generous about my latest literary production, The Rule of Lawyers (“Walter Olson’s book is a great source on the social harm done by the trial lawyer culture”, Jun. 7). And Jim Copland of the Manhattan Institute, managing editor of our related site Point of Law, has an NRO commentary on the Edwards affair, with a link to us (“Kerry-Edwards & Co.”, Jul. 8).
“Injured While Drunk, Man Wants Cruise Line Suit Reinstated”
Tipple your way to court, latest: “A drunken passenger who fell two decks from a staircase while aboard Royal Caribbean’s Monarch of the Seas asked Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal on Monday to reinstate his personal injury lawsuit against the cruise line.” In oral argument, the appellate court’s chief judge appeared inclined to reinstate the suit, rejecting the cruise line’s argument that it is covered by a state law protecting sellers of liquor from being sued. (Kelly Cramer, Miami Daily Business Review, Jun. 29). More tipple-your-way-to-court cases: Apr. 19, Apr. 7, Apr. 3, 2004; Dec. 21, Dec. 17, Oct. 13, Aug. 16, Aug. 8, Jul. 21, 2003, and earlier cases.
TV this afternoon and tonight
I’m scheduled to appear tonight on two shows to discuss John Edwards’ selection for the Democratic ticket: Catherine Crier Live on Court TV at 5 pm, and News Night with Aaron Brown on CNN at 10 pm.
On Edwards
Senate takes up class action reform
OJR on web defamation
In an article in USC Annenberg’s Online Journalism Review, writer Mark Thompson examines some recent instances in which webloggers have been threatened with defamation actions on questionable grounds, such targets including Justene Adamec (Calblog) (see Jan. 22) and the pseudonymous “Atrios”. One source of jeopardy is courts’ penchant for narrowly construing statutes intended to protect press freedom: for example, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals refused to extend to the Internet a state law providing that newspapers and magazines cannot be sued for defamation until they’ve been given a chance to retract an item. Also mentions our commentary on the Luskin/Atrios case (see Oct. 30). (“Law Offers Internet Publishers Scant Guidance on Libel”, Jun. 16).
Exporting s. 17200
Have you been skipping past items about California’s abuse-ridden s. 17200 business practices act (see Jun. 30, Apr. 22, Mar. 12, Feb. 16 and links from there) just because you don’t happen to live or do business in California? Then read on. Under a case currently on appeal to the state’s supreme court, a business located anywhere else in the country, perhaps even the world, can be sued under s. 17200 if it advertises for customers in California — and such advertising may take the form of maintaining a website accessible to California customers. In the case at issue, a Los Angeles appeals court ruled this March that several Nevada casino hotels “could be sued by a man seeking class action status on behalf of all California residents hit with a $3-per-night energy surcharge while staying in Las Vegas, Reno or other gambling towns.” The court held “that hotel advertisements, toll-free numbers and interactive Web sites provided sufficient contact to give Los Angeles-area resident Frank Snowney jurisdiction to sue in California” under the ultra-liberal state law. According to a Fulbright & Jaworski lawyer who is representing the casinos on appeal, the ruling “may affect any hotel, cruise ship, club, theater, museum, sporting venue, rental car company, restaurant, etc., operating exclusively outside of California, but accepting online reservations.” (Mike McKee, “Businesses Quake Over California Case”, The Recorder, Jul. 2). More: There turns out to be a whole blog dedicated to s. 17200, and it takes exception to the Recorder article’s slant, interpreting the pending case as primarily about the scope of state jurisdiction generally and only incidentally about s. 17200 (via Legal Reader).