On August 25, a San Mateo County court will hold a fairness hearing over a nationwide class action settlement over iPod batteries that will provide $50 coupons for class members and $2,768,000 in fees for the attorneys. Because the lawsuit was filed before the Class Action Fairness Act took effect, the state court does not have to comply with the new federal requirement that attorneys’ fees reflect the actual redeemed value of the coupons, rather than the face value, one of many sensible provisions of the Act that trial lawyers, the New York Times, and dozens of prominent Democrats (including leading 2008 presidential contenders Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards) opposed. In honor of this fairness hearing (as well as in honor of a pending lawsuit alleging that Apple is monopolizing the music market by selling music in a proprietary format), Overlawyered presents the Overlawyered iMix:
Posts Tagged ‘libel slander and defamation’
Talk Show Host Don Imus sued for Slander by Doctor
Dr. Howard Allen Pearson has sued talk show host Don Imus, NBC, MSNBC and Westwood One Inc. for slander. The lawsuit stems from Imus’ on-air comments about the quality of services rendered by Dr. Pearson in July 2004 for a child staying at Imus’ ranch. Imus reportedly said that Dr. Pearson: “was one of the worst doctors in the world and did not care if children suffered.” (Fox News, “Doctor Sues Don Imus for Slander,” Jul. 11.)
Update: Suing a “recovered memory” critic
The L.A. Times has a lengthy account of the continuing litigation against famed psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, who after publishing an article in Skeptical Inquirer casting doubt on the “recovered memory” claims of a claimed abuse victim described as Jane Doe, was sued for defamation and invasion of privacy by the real-life woman behind the pseudonym. We originally posted on the case Aug. 26, 2004. (Maura Dolan, “Memory, Pain and the Truth”, Los Angeles Times, Jun. 21)(via Nordberg). More: LawLimits (Jun. 23) has more, including the latest procedural status of the case (Calif. Supreme Court agrees to review Loftus’s attempt to get the case thrown out under the state’s “anti-SLAPP” law, which a lower court declined to do).
Legal hazards of rating air safety
From a Forbes article on safety problems in charter aviation:
Businesses pay [Joseph Moeggenberg’s] company, Aviation Research Group/U.S., or “Argus” in the trade, as much as $20,000 per month for full access to ratings reports on 848 charters, or $249 for a single report. Argus provides specifics about a flight, the jet’s history, the owner, whether the plane is double-booked from another charter, the pilot’s record and so on. It assigns a red, yellow or green light on safety (36% receive reds or yellows).
One charter outfit got a prescient “Does Not Qualify” rating from Argus: Aviation Charter of Eden Prairie, Minn., which flew U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota in a Beechcraft King Air A100 as he campaigned for reelection in October 2002. When a newspaper later reported that Aviation Charter got a bad rating, the company sued Argus for defamation but lost the case on summary judgment; the case is pending on appeal. The flight crashed at the Eveleth, Minn. airport in October 2002, killing all eight people aboard, including the senator, his wife and their adult daughter. Says Argus attorney Eric Heiberg of Minneapolis: “I can’t imagine we’re going to lose.”
(Seth Lubove, “Flight of Fear”, Forbes, May 9). An online summary of the case (Aug. 2004, courtesy Cousineau McGuire & Anderson; scroll to “Federal Courts — Defamation”) indicates that the court agreed that the rating contained inaccuracies which harmed Aviation Charter’s reputation, but found no proof that Argus had acted with malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Update Mar. 15, 2006: Eighth Circuit (in summer 2005) dismissed suit, ruling ratings subjective.
Morgan Spurlock sued
Attorney Samuel Hirsch, who filed the first lawsuits blaming fast-food chains for his clients’ obesity, apparently isn’t happy over his unflattering portrayal in the documentary Super Size Me (see last Aug. 9). According to the New York Observer, Hirsch is suing filmmaker Morgan Spurlock and Samuel Goldwyn Films charging “Negligence, Unauthorized Use of Likeness, Disparagement to Reputation, and Defamation of Character, Fraudulent Inducement, False Misrepresentation, Damage to Business Reputation”; he’s seeking compensatory and punitive damages and “disgorgement of profits.” (Jake Brooks, “Spurlock’s Super Size Lawsuit”, New York Observer, Mar. 7)(likely to rotate off free site soon).
No way to spend your old age
Quotable: “Being involved in a lawsuit is a lousy way to spend your old age” — author Dominick Dunne, 79, commenting on his agreement to settle, on terms which include an apology and an undisclosed sum of money, a defamation suit filed by former Rep. Gary Condit. (Michael Doyle, “Condit, Dunne sidestep big battle”, Modesto (Calif.) Bee, Mar. 17).
Update: Schenectady BBS defamation
Following up on our entry of last Aug. 31: Acting Supreme Court Judge Felix Catena has dismissed attorney Romolo Versaci’s defamation suit against Diane Richie, who called Versaci a “so-called lawyer” on a local online message board, saying the expression was by its nature rhetorical opinion and not actionable. Versaci has said he plans appeal. David Giacalone (Mar. 15) has the details.
Nastygram in Luskin’s inbox
Economics columnist and blogger Don Luskin, subject to criticism in this space and many others in 2003 when he threatened legal action against another blogger, is now himself being threatened with legal action by Worth Publishers, a company that publishes a textbook by frequent Luskin target Paul Krugman. Worth is alleging defamation and copyright violations arising from one of Luskin’s blog posts last December. Just One Minute has the details (Mar. 8).
Free speech prevails in “trash terrorists” case
In a case closely watched by free-speech advocates, a Missouri appeals court has dismissed as meritless a defamation suit brought by a trash company against a man who had successfully fought its plan to site a transfer station in his suburban St. Louis neighborhood. Leaflets opposing the facility had referred to the company, Fred Weber Inc., as “trash terrorists”, but the court found that “rhetorical hyperbole” of that sort, even if overheated, would not suggest to a reasonable audience that company officials engage in actual bombings or murders. Concern over the case has led to efforts in the Missouri legislature to broaden protections against being sued for taking part in public discussions. (Leisa Zigman, “County Resident Wins ‘SLAPP’ Suit Ruling Against Fred Weber, Inc.”, KSDK.com, Mar. 8; “Slapping down Weber” (editorial), St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Mar. 9; Tim Jones, “Lawsuit trashed as threat to speech”, Chicago Tribune, Mar. 9). More: opinion is here.
Forum-shopping your defamation case?
Consider scenic New Mexico, which runs an extra-long statute of limitations and thus will welcome claims extinct elsewhere. The tactic didn’t work, however, for ex-Congressional wife Carolyn Condit, who went there to sue USA Today to escape other states’ limits on stale claims. Unfortunately for her case, she could offer no evidence that the allegedly libelous article had circulated in N.M., “since only the first edition of USA Today was distributed in the state and the story appeared only in the second edition,” as AP noted; a federal judge accordingly threw out her suit last August for lack of jurisdiction (“Judge dismisses libel suit by wife of Gary Condit”, AP/North County Times, Aug. 5, via CalBlog, Jan. 14 and Jan. 26). For New Mexico forum-shopping by the plaintiffs in the “Dazed and Confused” case, see Ted’s Oct. 12 post (also Dec. 8). For more details on the lack of connection of that case to New Mexico, see the memorandum of defendants in support of motion to dismiss (courtesy Courthouse News (PDF)).