“Corporate law’s version of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce — Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc. (a.k.a., Cinerama, Inc. v. Technicolor, Inc.) — has dragged on for over two decades” and has now reached (perhaps) final completion in the Delaware chancery court. Professor Bainbridge has details (Mar. 11).
Posts Tagged ‘class actions’
Update: court OKs “ghost blurber” case, Sony likely to settle
After a California court of appeals ruled that a class action could go forward against Sony Pictures over its use of quotes from “ghost blurber” David Manning, the company said it was preparing to settle the case. (see Jun. 12, 2001). Judge Reuben Ortega, dissenting from his colleagues’ decision to let the suit proceed, wrote: “This is the most frivolous case with which I have ever had to deal. Imagine the great contribution this case will make to our quality of life and to justice in America. … A new day will dawn from which time no one will ever again be fooled by a promotion touting a movie as the greatest artistic accomplishment of the ages. From that day on, all persons will be able to absolutely rely on the truth and accuracy of movie ads. No longer will people be seen lurching like mindless zombies toward the movie theatre, compelled by a puff piece. … I cannot see breathing life into this farce. We should be occupying ourselves with resolving legitimate disputes instead of laughable cases designed not to gain anything for the plaintiffs, but rather to generate fees for the only true beneficiaries of this disgrace, the attorneys.” (opinion in PDF format).
Last year, Sony agreed to pay the state of Connecticut $325,000 following an investigation by grandstanding state AG Richard Blumenthal. The Connecticut connection that Blumenthal seized on? Well, it was that the (fictitious) Manning had been said to work for a (real) newspaper in Connecticut, the Ridgefield Press. “When the scandal was revealed, the Ridgefield Press demanded only an apology from Sony, which it got. ‘We’re not interested in grubbing money,’ [executive editor Jack] Sanders said. ‘A lot of people suggested we sue, but we’re not that kind of people. We just hope they don’t subpoena us to fly out and testify, unless they’re going to pay for transportation.'” (Emanuella Grinberg, “Moviegoers to settle with studio after being lured by phony critic”, CourtTV, Mar. 8). Update Aug. 3, 2005: Sony settles for $1.5 million.
Chocolates, roses, and s. 17200
Tim Sandefur has collected more examples of unsuccessful, but inevitably expensive, lawsuits invoking California’s abuse-fraught s. 17200 private-attorney-general “unfair competition” law (see Dec. 8 and links from there). All three were rejected by the Court of Appeal. In one case, Consumer Cause, Inc., associated with veteran s. 17200 impresario Morse Mehrban, had demanded damages from an auto show producer that had provided female visitors to its shows with complimentary chocolates and roses, but had made similar gifts available to men only after an affirmative request. In a second case, an attorney had sought to employ s. 17200 as a surrogate obscenity statute by suing AT&T cable services demanding a refund of all fees collected for showings of pay-per-view adult film fare. The attorney’s suit had also sought forfeiture of AT&T’s profits from the films, revocation of its cable franchise (useful as a negotiating point, that one), and of course attorneys’ fees. (Feb. 20). Yet a third s. 17200 suit was filed against abortion clinics arguing, to quote Sandefur, “that providing abortion without disclosing alleged health threats to the mother, was unfair competition under Business and Professions Code 17200”. It was dismissed under the state’s anti-SLAPP (use of litigation for harassment) statute (Feb. 24).
QFC mad cow class action
In other grocery lawsuit news: you may remember back in December that a single Canadian cow was found to have mad cow disease, and as a safety precaution, tens of thousands of pounds of beef were voluntarily recalled in addition to the 10,510 pounds the USDA ordered recalled. Well, it seems that a Seattle-area woman, Jill Crowson, is bringing a class action against supermarket chain QFC. Says the suit, it wasn’t enough for QFC to merely pull the meat from its shelves, post signs, and make public announcements; even though coverage of the lone mad cow dominated headlines for a week, QFC should also have taken the individual step of contacting customers who purchased beef to warn them–and presumably have managed to accomplish this instantaneously on Christmas Eve, since QFC learned about the beef on December 24 and Ms. Crowson ate it on December 25.
Now, it’s exceedingly unlikely that Ms. Crowson or her family has suffered any injury from her Christmas-day tacos. First, it’s unlikely that Ms. Crowson had any meat from the infected cow; second, it’s extremely unlikely (and there is no evidence) that one will contract variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease from the muscle meat of a cow (the real danger is the relatively unpopular brain and spinal cord); third, even those who do eat infected brain and spinal tissue are unlikely to contract vCJD, which has stricken 150 people out of the millions exposed worldwide. Ms. Crowson probably suffered more risk driving to and from the grocery store or her lawyer’s office. Nevertheless, she wishes damages for the ”stress and fear” of vCJD–though if such longshot risks cause her such anxiety, one would think she would do more due diligence in life. (Lewis Kamb, “QFC says it acted appropriately in beef recall”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Mar. 6; “Seattle family sues grocery chain over mad cow claim”, AP, Mar. 6; Kyung M. Song, “Clyde Hill woman sues QFC over suspect meat”, Seattle Times, Mar. 6; complaint; QFC statement).
Milberg Weiss client likened to frog
After a client of the prominent class action firm (see Feb. 4, Jan. 11, Jul. 1, earlier posts) said that it no longer wanted to take the lead role in the case of In re Copper Mountain Securities Litigation, Judge Vaughn Walker, of the federal district court in San Francisco, wrote: “A class representative suing to rescue distressed plaintiffs may sometimes appear to be a prince. But, in reality, the heroic prince, perhaps, is actually a frog.” Earlier, the Ninth Circuit had used the case to strike down Judge Walker’s attempt to employ an auction method to select the lead counsel for plaintiffs. (Brenda Sandburg, “Judge: Class Action Prince Was Really a Frog”, The Recorder, Feb. 19). More: Lyle Roberts at 10b-5 Daily has more details.
Update: Eisenberg/Miller study
The Class Action Coalition releases a refutation of the much-hyped Eisenberg/Miller study (Jan. 16) to be published in the forthcoming Journal of Empirical Legal Studies purporting to analyze trends in attorneys’ fees in federal and state class actions. In an analysis of published opinions, Eisenberg and Miller claim that attorneys’ fees in class actions have been stable over time, and that state courts have not been more generous than federal courts in such cases.
But, say the Class Action Coalition, the methodology of the study biases the result; by relying solely on published opinions, the study omits the numerous unpublished settlements. Moreover, as the authors acknowledge, the mix of federal settlements (where securities cases tend to be litigated) is different than state settlements under current law. By averaging all state courts, the paper ignores the fundamental problem of magnet jurisdictions. Finally, the study makes no effort to distinguish between announced and actual relief to the class: a $20 coupon is treated as equivalent to a $20 check. “In short, in state court cases, the relief actually recovered by class members is often far less than what was ‘advertised’ in the settlement proposal. The authors essentially assume away this problem — the key problem with state court class action settlements.”
The paper was debated at an AEI event today.
Update: “Woman drops lawsuit over Jackson peep show”
Just in case anyone missed this while we were away: only a few days after filing her class-action lawsuit (Feb. 5, Feb. 8) demanding billions from MTV and other defendants over Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl stunt, Terri Carlin of Knoxville, Tenn. “believes she’s made her point” and is withdrawing the suit. (AP/CNN, Feb. 10; see Blog 702). The attorney who represented Carlin in the action, Wayne A. Ritchie II, would appear to be (per his website) a figure of some dignity in the Knoxville legal community: a former state legislator, he “has served on the Board of Governors of the Knoxville Bar Association and on the Board of Governors and Executive Committee of the Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association.” (See also May 28.)
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).
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.
Lerach to Forbes: just go away
Cover story in Forbes examines fissiparous but still pre-eminent class-action firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, with details about the investigations of the firm under way for the past two years before federal grand juries in Los Angeles and Philadelphia. Among topics explored in the article: the firm’s relationships with repeat plaintiffs, with unions and with short sellers. Name partner Melvyn Weiss gets the cover photo; meanwhile, his West Coast counterpart William Lerach, “after initially responding to some questions from FORBES, refused to be interviewed and instructed in a terse e-mail: ‘Please don’t call, write or stop by ever again.'” (Robert Lenzner and Emily Lambert, “Mr. Class Action”, Forbes, Feb. 16)