…providing for sanctions against attorneys in federal cases who do not make reasonable inquiries into fact or law before submitting pleadings, motions, or other papers. No surprise to anyone there.
Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure are you? (via Michelle Boardman, Volokh Conspiracy).
74-year-old Irving Rosenberg forgot that movies at the Tamarac discount movie theater were $3 on Friday nights rather than $2. Behind him in line, Yvonne Schuss impatiently kibitzed, words were exchanged, and Yvonne’s 68-year-old (and legally blind) husband Seymour interceded. In the resulting one-punch brawl, Mr. Rosenberg was knocked to the ground, lapsed into a coma, and died sixteen days later. (Mr. Schuss’s manslaughter trial ended in a mistrial this month.)
Naturally, the party to sue is the West Broward County theater, for failing to provide adequate security in the event of a retiree riot–Mr. Rosenberg’s lawyer, Michael Sobel, feels the omission is so egregious that he is seeking punitive damages. Mr. Sobel also blames the theater for failing to open the box office for 7 pm movies until 6:30, which he believes led to the frayed tempers. (Jon Burstein, “Tamarac movie theater sued for not hiring security to control unruly retirees”, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Feb. 23; “Mistrial declared in senior’s ticket-line manslaughter trial”, CourtTV, Feb. 7).
The Mississippi Supreme Court has reformed its joinder and venue rules to make both forum shopping and unfair mass tort litigation more difficult. The changes stem from a recent case where 56 plaintiffs sued 42 doctors and a drug manufacturer in Jones County, where only one of the plaintiffs resided. Mississippi state law has no provision for class actions, and judges had attempted to get around this by broad application of joinder rules. (AP, Feb. 21; Davis Brister, “Ruling Could Have Major Impact on Tort Reform”, WLBT, Feb. 20; Janssen Pharmaceutica v. Armond; rule and comment changes).
Aside from the forum shopping, such overly permissive joinder is often fundamentally unfair to defendants, who may be forced to try cases where their issues are entirely different from the central issues in the case. Pending before the Mississippi Supreme Court now is the case of 3M Company v. Johnson, where six plaintiffs with a minor lung impairment that did not restrict their activities won a $150 million judgment in rural Holmes County against 3M for allegedly defective face masks in the middle of a much larger proceeding involving many other defendants and asbestos manufacturing–even though 3M’s masks were never designed for asbestos protection, and some of the plaintiffs had no evidence that they had ever used a 3M mask. The plaintiffs did not work together; the defendants were being sued under different theories and different sets of facts, permitting the plaintiffs to introduce large amounts of evidence about manufacturers’ supposed careless marketing of asbestos-containing products that had nothing to do with 3M. (Washington Legal Foundation press release and amicus brief). Update Jan. 22, 2005: Mississippi high court throws out verdict against 3M.
The Brennan Center at NYU Law School would typically be found on the opposite side of many or most of the views aired on this page. Which makes it all the more broad-minded of them to have invited me in as the speaker tomorrow (Tuesday) at their periodic lunch series at their Manhattan offices (161 Ave. of the Americas, 12th floor, (212) 998 6730.) I’ll be speaking to the question: “Should Progressives Favor Curbing Litigation?” and arguing the affirmative, naturally. Reservations: 212-992-8647 or email ab145 – at – nyu – dot – edu with a subject line of RSVP: Conversations.
A British primary school cancelled its traditional Shrove Tuesday “pancake race”–where children run while flipping a pancake in a frying pan–when its liability insurer quadrupled its premium and demanded 25 marshals to line a 50-yard race route. Publicity about the plight caused another insurer to step in with a more reasonable premium, so long as the school limits the number of entrants and spectators. “A spokesman for the British Insurance Broker’s Association said the UK was an increasingly litigious society, and people wanted to cover their backs should an accident occur.” (“Pancake race beats policy problem”, BBC, Feb. 21) (via Jacobs). A Press Association reporter notes that the “growing compensation culture” in the UK has forced the cancellation of St. Patrick’s Day and Remembrance Day parades, as well as a Guy Fawkes bonfire. (Karen Attwood, “Cancellation Leaves Pancake Racers ‘Flipping’ Bemused”, PA News, Feb. 20).
In suburban Chicago, Geneva resident Dave Peterson has for some time been dragging a homemade snowplow behind a mountain bike to clear the Fox River Trail, both for his own use and as a matter of public-spiritedness. No longer: “The county has asked him to stop because if there’s an expectation that the trail will be plowed, there’s a greater chance for litigation, said Kane County Forest Preserve District operations supervisor Pat McQuilkin. ‘If a person falls, you are more liable than if you had never plowed at all. Crazy world,’ wrote AnnMarie Fauske, the district’s community affairs director, in response to a letter to Peterson. ‘Unfortunately, the times we are in allow for a much more litigious environment than common sense would dictate.'” When Peterson pointed out that plowing the trail was important to commuters who use bicycles to get to work, the “forest preserve quickly replied that, while a ‘wonderful gesture … your act of kindness may also be open to legal issues should someone fall after your care.'” (Garrett Ordower, “County tells bicyclist thanks, but stop plowing trail”, Daily Herald, Feb. 21).
Our least favorite litigation advocate is running for President again. Here’s what we said about him four years ago, and on occasions since then. More: Michael DeBow (Southern Appeal) takes note of a curiously worded reaction from a Green Party official. And: Mark Kleiman has more (“One of the bitterest lessons I learned as a young and naive liberal staffer on Capitol Hill was that the ‘public interest research’ produced by the Nader groups was systematically fraudulent.”), as do Megan McArdle and Jacob Levy.
Columnist Roddy Stinson reports that, notwithstanding a recent Texas law criminalizing the practice, “services” are collecting personal information from San Antonio accident reports to solicit clients. (“Ambulance-chasing vultures continue to plague San Antonio”, San Antonio Express-News, Feb. 3) (via CALA Houston).
Mississippi Supreme Court scandal, cont’d: “A federal grand jury added extortion and attempted bribery charges Friday against Justice Oliver Diaz Jr. and trial lawyer Paul Minor, postponing their March 1 trial. … The new charges allege Minor in 2001 tried to extort $20,000 for Diaz from trial lawyers representing Dawn Bradshaw, who was awarded $9 million after poor hospital care led to pneumonia and brain damage.
“The high court upheld the $9 million verdict Oct. 11, 2001. According to the indictment, 14 days later, Minor told two unnamed lawyers that Diaz ‘helped swing the vote … in favor of their client, Dawn Bradshaw, and that the vote could have gone either way but for … Diaz’s influence,’ pointing out the justice would soon be voting on the motion for rehearing their case. Minor asked the pair for at least $20,000, which would pay for a function at the bed and breakfast operated by Jennifer Diaz [ex-wife of the justice], the indictment says. The lawyers refused, the indictment says.” Minor called the new charges “false” while his attorney, Abbe Lowell of Washington, D.C., called them “outrageous” and said his client would plead not guilty to them. An attorney for Diaz said his client neither spoke to the lawyers from whom the indictment says he attempted to extort money nor “authorized anyone to speak to them on his behalf.” (Jerry Mitchell, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Feb. 21). See Dec. 19, Aug. 19, Jul. 27 and links from there. Update Apr. 30, 2005: Diaz’s ex-wife reaches plea agreement with prosecutors.
Updating our reports of last Dec. 14 and Jul. 30: a judge in Alaska has approved a plan to divide $40 million in settlement proceeds from a lawsuit charging price-fixing in purchases of Alaskan sockeye salmon. Plaintiff’s lawyers will get $16.4 million in fees and expenses, defendants who prevailed in court will get $13.8 million to pay their lawyers and legal costs, and plaintiff fisherman will share less than $10 million. (“Court approves salmon lawsuit settlement”, AP/Anchorage Daily News, Feb. 6)