Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘San Francisco’

July 6 roundup

Filed under: , , , , , , ,

Mandatory composting in San Francisco

“Throwing orange peels, coffee grounds and grease-stained pizza boxes in the trash will be against the law in San Francisco, and could even lead to a fine.” [San Francisco Chronicle and “Thin Green Line” blog via Coyote] And a Coyote commenter reports from a Connecticut town where

they force us to separate everything. They pick up cans, glass, plastic and newspaper. However, all the other [mandatory recycling including catalogues] must be driven to the dump/recycling center – which conveniently closes by 3pm on weekdays and by noon on Saturday. We spend at least 1.5 hours every week sorting and delivering our recycling. EVERY week.

Filed under: , ,

Amphibious-tour operators in S.F. battle over “quacking devices”

Ride the Ducks says it has been inviting customers to toot on kazoos for a decade as part of its water-land tours in various cities. Now it is suing competitor Bay Quackers, which pioneered the duck tour concept in San Francisco (and was more recently joined there as a competitor by Ride the Ducks) for infringing its “sound mark”, an “auditory equivalent of a trademark”. [New York Times] [Corrected 2:30 p.m. after reader Kim S. pointed out that I hadn’t correctly conveyed the details of which company operated where and when.]

Filed under: , ,

Update: Waukeen McCoy fees denied, sanctioned $25K

The Recorder: “A federal judge turned down a request for more than $2 million in fees and sanctioned a San Francisco plaintiffs lawyer $25,000 for submitting false fee applications in civil rights litigation against FedEx.” Judge Susan Illston wrote that Waukeen McCoy’s “acts of misconduct with regard to the fee petitions are among the most egregious that this court has seen in almost 14 years on the bench.” More: California Civil Justice. Earlier: Nov. 14, 2007 (McCoy’s firm “billed [opponent] Federal Express for 23.5 hours of one of its attorneys’ time over a single day”), and, on the same lawyer, July 10, 2000.

Filed under: , ,

“I have never, ever seen an attorney more rude and disrespectful on so many levels.”

The California state bar has charged San Francisco attorney Philip Kay, famed for sexual harassment lawsuits, “with turning two cases before three San Diego judges into three-ring circuses by repeatedly impugning court orders and caustically accusing the judges of misconduct in front of jurors. Prosecutors also claim Kay entered into an illegal fee-splitting agreement in his most high-profile case — a sexual harassment suit against mega-law firm Baker & McKenzie that in 1994 resulted in a $6.9 million San Francisco jury award for his client, former legal secretary Rena Weeks. (The judgment was later reduced to $3.5 million.)” The title quote is from San Diego judge Joan Weber, and refers to Kay’s conduct in a sexual harassment suit against Ralphs Grocery. (Mike McKee, “Famed Plaintiffs Lawyer Faces Bar Charges Over Conduct”, The Recorder, Dec. 5).

Filed under: , , ,

ApartmentRatings.com commenters sued

ApartmentRatings.com is a site that invites users to post their opinions about good and bad experiences as renters with particular buildings, complexes and landlords. The owners of two Bay area apartment complexes, Parkmerced in San Francisco and Larkspur Shores in Larkspur, have now sued eighteen unnamed defendants over negative comments such as “Construction noise, poor management, tacky decor, and an indifferent staff”, “I do not think the new management is sincerely trying to improve anything”, “stay far away and never look back,”, “worst place I’ve ever lived”, and “a real dump”. The real estate firms, Parkmerced Investors Properties LLC and Stellar Larkspur Partners LLC, claim libel, tortious interference with contract, and perhaps most creatively violations of the federal Lanham Act (their basis for getting into federal court). The Lanham Act is more usually encountered in complaints of false advertising, but the plaintiffs say it applies here “because Defendants misrepresent the nature, characteristics and qualities of the Apartments”. (Sam Bayard, Citizen Media Law, Nov. 24). According to CalBizLit (Nov. 20):

The two plaintiffs allege that “on information and belief” the posting reviewers included persons who were not tenants, but were employees, agents, etc. of competing apartment house communities. “On information and belief.” That’s often lawyer language for “I got no idea whether it’s true or not, but let’s do some discovery and see what happens.”

Filed under: , , , ,

San Francisco zoo tiger mauling victims sue

The long-expected suit was filed in federal rather than state court, and one attorney speculates that the reason was to get more suburbanites on the jury panel, on the theory that they will be less hostile to the plaintiffs than San Francisco residents. Federal theory? Well, “Kulbir Dhaliwal contends his federal civil rights were violated because he was deprived the use of his BMW M3, the car the three took to the zoo.”

The suit also accuses Sam Singer, a well-known crisis management spokesman whose firm was retained by the zoo after the attack, of libel and slander.

The Dhaliwals contend Singer and city officials engaged in a smear campaign to suggest the young men were disreputable and had taunted the tiger before the escape.

“There’s no merit to the lawsuit whatsoever,” Singer said. “More importantly, I’d like to remind people that [plaintiff’s lawyer Mark] Geragos was the one who said his client, Michael Jackson, was a perfectly normal human being and Scott Peterson was an innocent man. I leave it up to the judgment of the public as to how accurate he is on any of his claims.”

Watch out getting into a fight with a crisis management specialist, they have sharp tongues. (John Coté, “Tiger attack victims file suit in federal court”, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 13; more Chronicle coverage; earlier).

Filed under: ,