Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘New Jersey’

Update: “Lawyer Sanctioned for Suing Over Adversary’s Deposition Questions”

Updating our Jul. 25, 2007 post:

A plaintiffs lawyer who alleged in court that his adversary’s questions at a deposition caused his client emotional distress has been sanctioned for filing a frivolous suit.

New Jersey Superior Court Judge Alfonse Cifelli entered an order March 26, assessing $2,500 in sanctions against Bruce Nagel, of Roseland, N.J.’s Nagel Rice. He must also pay his adversary’s legal fees of $11,630.

However, Cifelli stayed both payments until the Appellate Division rules on a pending appeal of his ruling last October that dismissed Nagel’s suit.

Cifelli, who sits in Newark, had found Nagel failed to state a claim, holding the litigation privilege allowed the adversary, Judith Wahrenberger, to pursue questions she considered relevant without fear of being sued and that the questions were not “extreme or outrageous.”

Nagel says he has received much encouragement from fellow plaintiff’s lawyers for his action; however, any suspension of the usual litigation privilege in favor of personal liability for attorneys would have been very much a double-edged sword, since the asking of emotionally distressing questions during depositions is not exactly a rarity on either side. (Maria Vogel-Short, New Jersey Law Journal, Apr. 9)(link fixed now).

Filed under: , ,

State AGs vs. JuicyCampus.com

As an online phenomenon, JuicyCampus.com sounds more than a little familiar to those who followed the AutoAdmit/XOXOXTH controversy: message boards open to bathroom-graffiti anonymous posts about named fellow students. The difference this time is that the attorneys general of New Jersey and Connecticut have jumped in with legal action apparently premised on the unusual, and expansible, legal theory that the site violates consumer fraud statutes by not enforcing its own announced ground rules on posting, or at least principles that it “suggests” it will follow. (ABA Journal and again; Volokh).

Filed under: , , , ,

Deep Pockets File: Bauer v. Nesbitt

On September 3, 2003, 19-year-old Frederick Nesbitt was underaged at “Wing Night” at the C View Inn in Cape May, New Jersey, so the waitress at the bar only served him soda while his companions drank pitchers of beer. (His 21-year-old companion James Hamby had a suspended license for drunk driving.) But Nesbitt had been drinking rum and drinking beer with the others before they got to the bar; and Hamby spiked Nesbitt’s drinks with rum under the table at the bar, which was presumably busy serving sixty other people and didn’t notice. So Nesbitt had a 0.199 blood-alcohol level when, speeding, he “lost control [of his car], careening back and forth across the road before striking a guard rail and landing on the driver’s side. He was thrown out the rear window while Hamby, who was found in the car, was pronounced dead at the scene.” Nesbitt is serving a five-year prison term for vehicular homicide, but Hamby’s estate is suing the bar. (It settled with Nesbitt for his $50,000 insurance coverage.)

The lower court threw out the case since the bar didn’t serve Nesbitt any alcohol, but a New Jersey appellate court ruled that the bar has a duty to arrange transportation for anyone who walks in who appears to be drunk “regardless of whether Nesbitt’s intoxication resulted from the service of alcohol by the inn or from other causes” (notwithstanding the absence of such a cause of action under the dramshop statute) so the bar will now have to hope the jury credits the witnesses who say that Nesbitt didn’t appear drunk. (Mary Pat Gallagher, “N.J. Court: Bar May Be Liable for Fatal Crash Even if It Didn’t Serve Patron Alcohol”, NJ Law J, Mar. 24; Tom Hester & Abby Green, “Court adds to taverns’ duty toward safe driving”, Newark Star-Ledger, Mar. 21; Insurance Journal, Mar. 21; AP, Mar. 20; NJLawman.com message board).

If your drinks appear more expensive in New Jersey, it’s because you’re paying for insurance for drunk drivers who might stop at the bar to use the restroom. Of course, why stop at bars? Why not convenience stores?

Filed under: , , , , ,

Eliot Smurfer

The Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 was meant to criminalize the practice of “smurfing”, or evading reporting requirements on the transfer of large sums of cash by breaking the sums down into transactions below the threshold. (“Smurfs” were low-level operatives who agreed to go into banks repeatedly making deposits slightly below the trigger amount.) Who’d’ve imagined the law would trip up the best-known white collar crime prosecutor of our era? Newsday has the story, which has a Long Island angle:

Spitzer last year had wanted to wire transfer more than $10,000 from his branch to what turned out to be the front for the prostitution ring, QAT Consulting Group, which also uses a number of other names, in New Jersey, the sources said.

But Spitzer had the money broken down into several smaller amounts of less than $10,000 each, apparently to avoid federal regulations requiring the reporting of the transfer of $10,000 or more, the sources said. …

Apparently, having second thoughts about even sending the total amount in this manner, Spitzer then asked that the bank take his name off the wires, the sources said.

Bank officials declined, however, saying that it was improper to do so and in any event, it was too late to do so, because the money already had been sent, the sources said.

The bank, as is required by law, filed an SAR, or Suspicious Activity Report, with the Internal Revenue Service….

Millions of SARs are generated each week and flow into the Internal Revenue Service nationwide, but an analyst at the regional IRS office in Hauppauge [L.I.] noted Spitzer’s particular SAR and singled it out for attention to criminal investigators, the sources said.

The assumption, the sources said, was that Spitzer was being victimized either by a blackmailer or an impostor. The agents also speculated that perhaps the governor was involved in some sort of political corruption, the sources said.

Beldar (writing a day or two ago; note his update and caveats in an excellent post today):

If there were no other organized crime connections, that’s the kind of crime that might well result in a no-prison time recommendation and sentencing calculation for a first offender pleading guilty and cooperating.

AP also covers the smurfing charges, while Scott Greenfield has thoughts on the gradual erosion of financial privacy; I opined on some related matters in Reason a while back. WSJ law blog and Andrew McCarthy @ NRO discuss other charges that prosecutors might conceivably deploy against the governor. McCarthy, incidentally, contends that “innocent people in legitimate cash businesses have no concern” from the reporting requirements, which is not what I’ve heard.

More details from Wednesday’s NYT: It appears bank Suspicious Activities Reports separately directed investigators’ interest to Spitzer’s transactions and to the escort service front, QAT Consulting, and then the two investigations converged. “When he was New York State’s attorney general, Mr. Spitzer himself used the reports [SARs] to make his cases.”

Earlier here.

Filed under: , , , , ,

Blogs I wish I read more frequently: Patent Troll Tracker

Just as I was about to say I needed to revise my top-ten blog list to include the excellent anony-blogger Patent Troll-Tracker, I learned from today’s Recorder and WSJ that he has revealed himself as Rick Frenkel, Cisco IP attorney.

When I started the blog, I did so mainly out of frustration. I was shocked to learn that a huge portion of the tech industry’s patent disputes were with companies that were shells, with little cash and assets other than patents and a desire to litigate, and did not make and had never made any products. Yet when I would search the Internet for information about these putative licensors, I could find nothing. I was frustrated by the lack of information, and also by the vast array of anti-patent-reform bloggers out there, without a voice supporting what I did believe and still believe is meaningful reform.

(For the record, I liked the blog even before they praised me.) Plaintiffs’ attorney Ray Niro had put a bounty on the identity of the Troll Tracker, who had been critical of Niro’s tactics (as have Walter and I). Frenkel is considering shutting down his blog now that he is out of the closet; one hopes someone else picks up the torch, because he was performing a valuable service, to the extent that I had limited my blogging about it because he had the subject-area covered so well.

I missed the debate in November among Dennis Crouch, Michael Smith, and Frenkel on whether the Eastern District of Texas is “waning” as a magnet jurisdiction for patent plaintiffs (May 2006, Dec. 2005, Jan. 2005), or I might have made reference to it in my latest Liability Outlook on patent reform. Frenkel seems to have the best of that debate, and follows up:

Let’s highlight one really outstanding statistic from November: The number of defendants sued in the Eastern District of Texas in November 2007: 244. The number of defendants sued in Los Angeles, San Francisco/Silicon Valley, New York City, Chicago, Delaware, and New Jersey combined in November 2007: 162.

Patent lawyers often seem to be of a different stripe than other lawyers, and there is a similar patent-law-blogging community largely separate from the other law-bloggers. The commenters go mad at Crouch’s blog over the Frenkel revelation because Cisco is a strong patent reform supporter. Elsewhere: IPBiz; TechDailyDose; NetworkWorld; 271Blog; Mises Blog; and the anti-reform Patent Prospector.

Filed under: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lawyer liable when client pursues illegitimate claim?

“The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to review a case that could determine whether a lawyer is liable for furthering a client’s illegitimate purpose in pursuing litigation.” A lower New Jersey court had ruled that even if a lawyer knew his client was moved by an improper purpose in filing a lawsuit, he could not be held liable unless he was pursuing an illegitimate purpose of his own (as opposed to furthering the client’s illegitimate purpose). On top of it all, the lawyer’s former client was defending an action for malicious process on the grounds that he’d relied on the lawyer’s advice in suing. Since this was the same lawyer who was disclaiming all responsibility for the results of the advice, the overall effect might be seen as that of a shell game in which responsibility for the wrongful lawsuit was to be found under whichever walnut shell — attorney or client — wasn’t being lifted for inspection. (Mary Pat Gallagher, “N.J. Supreme Court to Take Up Issue of Lawyer’s Liability for Client’s Baseless Claim”, New Jersey Law Journal, Jan. 31)(LoBiondo v. Schwartz).

Filed under: ,

Palimony without cohabitation?

Through the rise of palimony law, courts in New Jersey have laid out a bright line against its being awarded in cases where a couple did not live together. Now, however, the state’s high court is being urged to overturn that rule and open the door to claims for compensation by a broader class of romantic partners (Michael Booth, “N.J. High Court Hears Pitch for Palimony Sans Cohabitation”, New Jersey Law Journal, Jan. 23). Two years ago an appellate judge upheld the bar to recovery:

“Without such a bright-line requirement, the concept of ‘marital-type’ relationship is unacceptably vulnerable to duplicitous manipulation,” Judge Jose Fuentes wrote in Levine v. Konvitz. “Requiring cohabitation also provides a measure of advance notice and warning, to both parties to a relationship, and to their respective family members, that legal and financial consequences may result.”

(Michael Booth, “Despite 70-Year Romance, Palimony Is Denied for Lack of Cohabitation”, NJLJ, Feb. 17, 2006).

Filed under: , ,

Vioxx settlement: February 8 update

(Updating and bumping Feb. 4 post about to roll off bottom of page because of new comment activity)

  • Judge Fallon denied the motion of Florida plaintiffs to expedite a hearing on their inclusion into a settlement when they did not even bring suit (Jan. 30). Merck and the PSC are required to respond Feb. 15, and the hearing will be Feb. 21, where one can expect the motion to be denied.
  • At Point of Law, I comment on the recent grand jury investigation into Merck marketing of Vioxx.

    • Update, Feb. 8: separately, Merck yesterday settles for $650 million different Medicaid fraud allegations over the marketing of Vioxx and other drugs. The qui tam relator will get a jackpot award of $68 million. [WaPo; DOJ; Merck] The pricing theories at the center of these lawsuits—which hold Merck liable for purportedly charging too little—definitely deserve longer discussion another time.

Read On…

Filed under: , , , , , , , , , ,

Damages: $0 settlement; Attorneys’ fees: $9.5 million

The lead plaintiff had claimed losses of $25 million, but settled for zero plus some corporate-governance changes that, as a Rutgers professor notes, probably would have happened anyway. But a settlement approved by a New Jersey federal judge in a shareholder suit against Schering-Plough awarded $9.5 million in attorneys’ fees, even applying a multiplier to lodestar hourly rates. [New Jersey Law Journal/law.com; In re Schering-Plough Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:01cv829 (D.N.J.)] Paying for those fees: shareholders, who also paid for what were likely multi-million dollar defense costs of litigation. Judge Katharine Sweeney Hayden, when certifying a single class in 2003, rejected arguments that there was an inherent conflict between class members that had already sold their stock and class members who continued to hold stock; she was appointed by Clinton in 1997.

Filed under: , , , , , ,

Corzine vetoes unlimited noneconomic damages

Who says we never praise Democrats? Via Scheuerman, New Jersey’s Democratic governor Jon Corzine has vetoed a law that would have created unlimited noneconomic damages in wrongful death cases:

“[U]nlimited damages … could have a significant impact on state and local budgets, since government entities are not infrequently named as defendants in wrongful death suits, and there are similar concerns as the State undertakes efforts to attract and grow businesses here.”

“Unfortunately, I do not believe that this bill in its current form strikes a fair balance that would avoid using a strict monetary valuation of a person’s life while also addressing the adverse effect of allowing unlimited and unpredictable damages.”

He urged the Legislature to consider alternatives “granting more flexibility for courts to reduce excessive non-pecuniary damage awards and defining non-pecuniary damages less expansively.”

[NJ Law Journal/law.com; earlier: Jan. 9]

Filed under: , , , ,