As New Jersey Law Blog summarizes the case (May 19): “Cynthia Idleman claims that after her husband [Douglas] lost his job and suffered a disabling medical condition his parents have supported their family for the last two years by giving them about $20,000 per month. She claims that by having done so, ‘they have stepped into the shoes of their son’ and, thereby, assumed a continuing obligation to support not only their grandchildren, but also her.” See “Divorce Case Focused On In-Law Support”, WINS, May 17; Lisa Brennan, “Lawyers Wince at Grandparental Alimony Claim”, New Jersey Law Journal, May 26. Among those commenting: Enlighten-NJ, Michael Capanzzi, and the Michigan Medical Malpractice blogger.
Posts Tagged ‘Michigan’
New York Times and thimerosal
Creationists apparently have no monopoly on unscientific nonsense. There’s an excellent article in the New York Times on the thimerosal controversy (Jun. 20 and links therein), though it fails to follow the money from the plaintiffs’ bar behind the pseudoscience. (Gardiner Harris and Anahad O’Connor, “On Autism’s Cause, It’s Parents vs. Research”, NY Times, Jun. 25). Meanwhile, the Huffington Post spouts irresponsible conspiracy theories for why ABC refused to endorse Robert Kennedy Jr.’s attack on the vaccine industry. The excellent Skeptico blog follows up its earlier post on the subject. And you just knew Michael Fumento would weigh in, and he shows the real costs of the plaintiffs’ bar scaremongering:
The conspiracy-mongers have scared parents into not protecting their children. “Sadly, as exemptions proliferate, disease ‘hot spots’ are cropping up across the United States,” observed an article in the Winter 2004 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. “Outbreaks of measles, whooping cough, mumps, rubella and diphtheria are reoccurring, costing hundreds of lives and hospitalizing thousands more.”
Remember that next time you hear the plaintiffs’ bar taking credit for safety innovations that have saved lives.
Update: Gender equity and staggered sports schedules
The U.S. Supreme Court, sending a case back to the Sixth Circuit, has kept alive Michigan school athletic directors’ hopes of proving that they have a rational basis for scheduling some girls’ sports in different seasons than the equivalent boys’ sports (see Dec. 24-27, 2001; Jul. 10, 2004). (“Supreme Court ruling delays decision”, Saginaw News, May 3; Hope Yen, “High Court Asks 6th Circuit to Reconsider Girls Sports Seasons Ruling”, AP/Law.com, May 3). Mick McCabe of the Detroit Free Press says that based on actual results, the schools deserve to prevail; Michigan has one of the nation’s highest rates of participation by girls in sports and disproportionately graduates girls who win athletic scholarships in the relevant sports of volleyball and basketball. (“Gender equity no-brainer as Title IX case”, May 6).
More on District of Columbia v. Beretta, U.S.A.
We get mail:
You mention in your “District of Columbia v. Beretta, U.S.A.” post that other commentators, such as Mr. Healy and Mr. Levy, have argued that individual states, not the federal government, should be initiating legislation preventing lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The idea is that businesses can “withdraw from doing business in a state that has an oppressive tort regime.” Your counter-argument, however, is that the latter idea “doesn’t help gun manufacturers who don’t do business in the District of Columbia to begin with.”
But, in fact, can’t businesses withdraw from states to the point where these businesses no longer have the “minimum contacts” necessary for the state courts to assert personal jurisdiction over the businesses? Then the businesses would be avoiding the oppressive tort laws of those states, but the states would not have personal jurisdiction for any lawsuits against these businesses.
Chris Schmitthenner
It is correct that gun manufacturers will, in litigation, attempt to get themselves out of the case by arguing lack of personal jurisdiction via such precedents as Asahi Metal Industry Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court of California. However, there are two separate issues that prevent Asahi from providing complete relief.
First, plaintiffs will argue that there are minimum contacts that suffice for personal jurisdiction. They’ll argue that the manufacturers placed ads in magazines that would be seen by residents of the state. They’ll argue purposeful availment under the same factual theories that underlie the “nuisance” claims in the Weinstein litigation. Cf. GTE New Media Services v. BellSouth Corp. (D.C. 2000) (plaintiff entitled to discovery whether defendant, while not physically present in District, intended for District residents to do business with it and caused injury within District); LaMarca v. Pak-Mor Mfg. Co. (N.Y. 2000) (distinguishing Asahi to find personal jurisdiction). In the case of the D.C. city council law, the manufacturers may even have problems to the extent they have lobbyists in the area. A particular judge may well decide that it’s a jury issue, and many manufacturers won’t want to take that risk.
Second, even if D.C. courts do not have personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer, little stops a D.C. plaintiff from suing a gun manufacturer in a state where there is personal jurisdiction. For example, in Peterson v. BASF, Minnesota state courts applied the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act to a nationwide class; in Ysbrand v. DaimlerChrysler, Oklahoma state courts applied Michigan law. One can easily imagine a D.C. plaintiff and a well-funded attorney filing suit in Los Angeles County against a California manufacturer asking for application of D.C. law. I think, in such a circumstance, gun manufacturers have strong arguments under the principles behind Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts that, if D.C. has no personal jurisdiction over a defendant, choice-of-law principles cannot be used to apply D.C. law to the defendant in a manner consistent with due process. But the question, to my knowledge, has not yet been resolved definitively; the defendants in Peterson and Ysbrand certainly were within the personal jurisdiction of the forum whose law was applied. Cf. also the different case of Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., where a New York plaintiff was allowed to sue an Ohio/California defendant using New Hampshire courts and laws, solely for the purpose of taking advantage of a favorable statute of limitations.
In short, gun manufacturers have strong arguments for application of the Healy/Levy federalism theory should such a suit actually happen. But plaintiffs get to choose their forum, and a large part of forum-shopping is finding a forum where the courts are less likely to resolve issues of law in favor of the defendant. The advantage of an immunity law is that it removes that uncertainty.
I’ve opened comments on the narrow question of the interrelationship between personal jurisdiction and choice of law. Please keep discussion civil and limited to this issue.
Childhood bully loses appeal against Eminem
“A man who bullied Eminem at school has been told he cannot sue the superstar over lyrics in which the rapper claimed he was almost killed by his schoolmate. A Michigan appeals court dismissed DeAngelo Bailey’s legal action because most fans would not take Eminem’s story of a vicious attack seriously.” (“Eminem safe from bully’s lawsuit”, BBC, Apr. 16; Ben Schmitt, “Eminem’s bully loses court appeal”, Detroit Free Press, Apr. 16). More: opinion (PDF) courtesy ALP.
Fieger Update: Gilbert v. Ferry
You may recall the $21 million verdict thrown out by the Michigan Supreme Court last year (Jul. 24) because of misconduct by Geoffrey Fieger at trial. (Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler (Mich. 2004); parties’ briefs; Brian Dickerson, “Judges use Fieger tactics to rebuke him”, Detroit Free Press, Jul. 26; yclipse blog). Fieger had had a buddy “expert” social worker testify that the alleged harassment caused Gilbert’s pancreatitis, and told the jury that Gilbert was like a “Holocaust victim.”
After losing, Fieger responded by filing ethics complaints against the four justices who ruled against him, and, when that didn’t work, filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court against the justices. This tactic, far more often seen performed by unstable pro se litigants than by prominent trial attorneys, was, as could have been expected, rejected by the trial court and then by the federal court of appeals. (Gilbert v. Ferry (6th Cir. Mar. 10, 2005), affirming 298 F. Supp. 2d 606 (E.D. Mich. 2004)) (via yclipse).
Update: Virginia not-so-primitive, and state mini-FMAs
The Virginia legislature has voted to repeal the state’s law, the only one of its kind in the nation, prohibiting insurance companies from offering coverage of domestic partners as part of employer-provided health plans (see May 31, 2004, next-to-last paragraph). Gov. Mark Warner (D) has announced his intent to sign the bill. The Virginia Chamber of Commerce backed the repeal, citing principles of economic liberty: “If you believe in a free market, then restrictions like this don’t make any sense,” said Chamber vice president for public policy Stephen D. Haner. The repeal was strenuously opposed, however, by Religious Right figures such as Del. Robert Marshall (R-Manassas), and passed the House of Delegates by only a 49-48 margin (Pamela Stallsmith, “House backs letting firms extend health benefits”, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Feb. 25; Lou Chibbaro, Jr., “Va. DP ban repealed by 1 vote”, Washington Blade, Mar. 4; Tim Hulsey, Feb. 25).
On a related topic, last November Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment providing that “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose” (see Nov. 2). At the time, opponents argued that the measure might well be interpreted to forbid cities, state universities and other public entities from offering domestic partnership benefits to their employees, but proponents of the measure dismissed that notion: a spokeswoman for Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, a group heavily backed by Michigan’s seven Catholic dioceses, told the Detroit News “nothing that’s on the books is going to change. We continue to confuse this issue by bringing in speculation.” However, with the amendment now in effect, the state’s attorney general — to cheers from most of the amendment’s organized backers — has issued an advisory opinion stating that it does indeed prohibit the city of Kalamazoo from providing DP benefits to its employees after the expiration of their current union contract. (Ed Finnerty, “City under fire over same-sex benefits plan”, Kalamazoo Gazette, Mar. 17; Claire Cummings and Melissa Domsic, “Cox: No future same-sex employee benefits”, State News (Michigan State U.), Mar. 17). Don Herzog of Left2Right, who has assembled plenty of links on the story, aptly labels the sequence of events “Bait and Switch” (Feb. 11 and Mar. 18). Update: Feb. 17, 2007 (Mich. appeals court rules benefits illegal under amendment).
HIPAA and small towns
What were once thought of as neighborly acts of kindness now pose too great a risk of medical privacy violations under federal law (Joe Ruff, “Communities Adjust To Medical Privacy Laws”, AP/ABC News, Mar. 12; via KevinMD). For more on the Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act, see Feb. 5, 2004 and links from there. More: the Michigan Medical Malpractice blogger says the hospitals are overreacting and a little gathering of permissions from patients/families should fix most of the problems (Mar. 17).
Drypen v. Oakland County, Michigan
On June 22, 2003, the Drypen family asked their sixteen-year-old son, Christopher, to turn his rap music down; instead, he pulled a nine-inch serrated steak knife. They called 911, and asked for assistance subduing him. They told dispatchers that he had psychiatric problems and was not taking his medication, and told arriving police that he was “violent,” having a “psychotic episode,” and armed with a serrated steak knife. Moreover, the Drypens said, last time Christopher was like this, it took four people to subdue him.
For over an hour, several deputies tried to talk Christopher out of the basement, surrounding him at the stairs to the basement and at the outside walk-out doors. At one point, Drypen came towards deputies with the knife raised; they responded by retreating, and holding the door closed until the inside door-handle broke off in Christopher’s hand. Christopher was yelling “Die” with an obscenity. Deputies say (and the family disputes that) Drypen charged deputies up the stairs with the knife raised; he was shot from a mere twelve feet away in self-defense, and killed. Prosecutors called the killing justified self-defense and did not press charges after a three-month investigation, but the Drypen family sued–and now Oakland County taxpayers are out $4 million ($1.42 million to attorney Jules Olsman) because the County settled without admitting wrongdoing. (Mike Martindale, “$4 million won’t end grief for family”, Detroit News, Feb. 18; Marsha Low, “Family struggles to move on after son killed by deputies”, Detroit Free Press, Feb. 19; Korie Wilkins, “County to pay $4M in death of 16-year-old”, Daily Oakland Press, Feb. 18; Kate Phillips, “Drypen suit settled”, Milford Times, Feb. 17; Oakland County press release, Sep. 12, 2003; Marsha Low, “Grieving family blames police”, Detroit Free Press, Sep. 13, 2003; Bill Laitner, “Family sues over police shooting of ill teenager”, Detroit Free Press, Oct. 16, 2003; Drypen v. Oakland County, Case No. 2:03-cv-74151-AC (E.D. Mich.)).
Update, Feb. 27: The press finally gets around to reporting the defense side of the story. Often the press repeats the fact that officers fired many times as evidence that excessive force was used, when, in fact, officers are trained to keep firing until a threat is stopped. (Korie Wilkins, “Son’s death remains mystery”, Daily Oakland Press, Feb. 27; Kate Phillips, “Sides still dispute shooting details”, Milford Times, Feb. 24).
Sugar industry vs. Splenda
Alarmed by the sweetener Splenda’s steady rise in consumer popularity and market share, organized sugar producers in December filed a California false-advertising suit against distributor McNeil Nutritionals, a unit of Johnson & Johnson. The lawsuit challenges the artificial sweetener’s slogan “made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar”, on the grounds that sucralose, the active ingredient in Splenda, is produced using chemical processes, even if sugar does happen to go into it. A number of private lawyers are pursuing similar theories in consumer lawsuits pursuing class-action status. In turn, J&J has struck back with a lawsuit against the Sugar Association and other defendants alleging a “malicious smear campaign” aimed at undercutting consumer confidence in the sweetener’s safety. (Patrick Walters, “Splenda’s maker sues sugar producers”, AP/Detroit Free Press, Feb. 9; Laura Petrecca and Holly M. Sanders, “Sweet and Low”, New York Post, Feb. 13; Claire Cummings, “Splenda sugar substitute receives praise, lawsuits from consumers”, State News (Michigan State U.), Feb. 16). Update: National Law Journal coverage of controversy (Apr. 8).