Gregg Easterbrook (Feb. 6) takes a dim view of U.S. District Judge Shira Schindlin’s ruling that it’s an antitrust violation for the National Football League to place limits on the age at which players can be drafted. See Andrew Bagnato, “NFL teams may alter way they do business”, Arizona Republic, Feb. 6.
Eenie meanie minie moe
The Southwest Airlines case (see Feb. 11, 2003, Jan. 22 of this year) turns out not to be the first time that the childhood counting-out rhyme has been cited as inflicting a hostile environment, with far-reaching repercussions. David Bernstein at Volokh Conspiracy (Feb. 5) prints a letter from a woman who lost her job over it in University City, Mo., near St. Louis. See Jeff Starck, “Can’t wait for end of P.C. age”, Webster Journal (Webster University), Dec. 5, 2002.
Update: Family can’t sue over priest’s funeral remarks
Updating our July 17 story: a New Mexico family’s lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Santa Fe and Rev. Scott Mansfield alleging that he gave a eulogy that suggested the deceased Ben Martinez was hell-bound has been dismissed; the court ruled that it could not mediate the underlying theological claim behind the complaint. (AP, Jan. 27; Christine Haughney, “Coast to Coast”, Washington Post, Jul. 20, 2003).
Yoga postures copyrightable?
Beverly Hills yoga master Bikram Choudhury copyrighted a series of 26 yoga postures, exercises, breathing techniques and dialogues and is now seeking to enforce his intellectual property in them. His series of legal actions has roused controversy among yoga buffs, some of whom “say that yoga is a 5,000-year- old tradition that cannot be owned” and are fighting back in court. (Julian Guthrie, “Yogis go to court over poses”, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 5; “Yoga master’s lawsuit? Bad karma”, Reuters/CNN, Feb. 9; Martin Hodgson and agencies, “New twist to yoga positions as guru sues”, The Guardian (UK), Feb. 9). For efforts to enforce intellectual property in quilt designs, see Dec. 18-19, 2000. Update Apr. 17, 2005: judge rules Choudhury’s claims not necessarily barred under copyright law.
Citibank class action: another two cents
St. Petersburg Times has an article quoting this site’s letters comment section at some length, and also quoting yours truly. (Stephen Nohlgren, “Jingly justice or puny payoff?”, Feb. 9). The case has also been examined recently in Forbes (William Baldwin, “Lawyers 1, Consumers 0”, Feb. 16); Chuck Shepherd’s News of the Weird; and the Salt Lake Tribune (Paul Rolly and JoAnn Jacobsen-Wells, Jan. 14: Salt Lake City resident Bob Cole got a check for two cents)(more on class actions).
Runaway Alabama jury
For about five years, insurance agent James Richard Perry kept collecting $50 monthly premiums from Carolyn Whittaker for a $25000 life insurance policy that had lapsed. She sued Mr. Parry, of course, after she learned of the deception, but also sued the insurance company, Southwestern Life, for failing to investigate the agent’s past before hiring him. The jury awarded twenty million dollars in compensatory damages–and then topped that off with $1.6 billion in punitives. Alabama state law will reduce the punitive damages award to “only” sixty million, but the underlying “compensatory” damages award is beyond unreasonable–as is the idea of punitive damages against the life insurance company for what is, at worst, negligence that cost Ms. Whittaker a few thousand dollars. (AP, Feb. 6; “Macon County Woman Wins Billions [sic] In Insurance Case”, WSFA, Feb. 6).
Tribe: that Crayola factory is ours
The latest land claim assertion, by the Delaware Nation, is openly meant to be traded off for casino rights. The law firm of Cozen & O’Connor is representing the tribe in the action, which targets not only crayon-maker Binney & Smith but 19 hapless homeowners as well as a couple of small businesses and several layers of Pennsylvania government. We wrote about Indian land claim litigation a year and a half ago. (Shannon P. Duffy, “Indian Tribe Sues Over Pennsylvania Land”, The Legal Intelligencer, Jan. 20). Update: court dismissed case in late 2004 (PDF).
Super Bowl Kerfuffle II
Erstwhile defender of Madison County legal practice Evan Schaeffer attacks the recent lawsuit over Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl halftime show. (“Notes from the (Legal) Underground” blog, Feb. 8). Mr. Schaeffer’s legal analysis is this instance is impeccable — and ironic.
Radio Shack receipt suit
A customer from the Long Island suburb Wyandanch had her address entered into a Radio Shack computer by a prankster under her town’s nickname “Crimedanch.” Tanisha Torres, who acknowledges that she’s heard other people use the nickname, was so “embarrassed, flustered and shamed” that, after having that address printed out on a Radio Shack receipt on several occasions, she ran to a lawyer, Andrew Siben, who has sued the retail chain. (Robin Topping, “No Writing Off This Receipt”, Newsday, Feb. 4) (via Obscure Store). We think Mr. Siben is suffering from a failure of imagination: if Radio Shack has such potency that it can force a customer to shop there again and again even as it was repeatedly causing her such emotional distress, then it must have a degree of market power that potentially violates the antitrust laws.
Siben was previously quoted by Newsday lamenting that a spate of good weather had reduced his office’s workload of slip-and-fall cases. (A.J. Carter, “A Weather-Related Slowdown”, Jul. 29, 2002). Siben made his first mark in this space for an $80,000 settlement in a $4 million suit against the Upper Room Tabernacle Church, explaining to the New York Post that the plaintiff “was caused to fall by the Holy Spirit but unfortunately there was no-one there to catch her when she fell.” (Feb. 11-12, 2002; “Worshipper’s Holy Spirit Fall Nets Her $80,000 From Church”, New York Post, Feb. 2, 2002). Siben also represented Edwin Devito in his $5 million suit against American Airlines; Devito claims he was “knocked to the floor” (but not hospitalized) and suffered nightmares when a jet engine from Flight 587 crashed near where he was working. (AP, Sep. 9, 2002).
Answering machine suit dismissed
A gentleman who left a message on rap star Snoop Dogg’s answering machine sued when the message ended up as part of a “song.” A Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled that the plaintiff had no expectation of privacy when he left the message. (“LA judge dismisses suit against rapper over phone message”, AP, Jan. 31) (via SoCalLawBlog).
(Full disclosure: I briefly represented a co-defendant of Death Row Records in a civil lawsuit. Don’t ask.)