Ye Gads. Where will it end? Minding my own business, surfing the web while doing the laundry and halfway watching a Mentalist rerun, and what do I find?
A breaking news story that Casey Anthony and her attorney, Jose Baez, are threatening to sue because her video diary has been hacked.
You can read about it here at the LA Times.
Oh, yeah, and how was this scoop released to the world? Jose Baez appeared on his buddy Geraldo Rivera's show over on Fox TV.
Look, without a big word count here, a big fat plaintiff's lawsuit is a dream come true for Casey Anthony. Dream. Come. True.
Key will be if there's a deep pocket anywhere to be found to pay for damages based upon copyright infringement, etc. -- and whether or not there will be arguments advanced for indirect liability.
Showing posts with label Personal Injury Cases. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Personal Injury Cases. Show all posts
1/12/2012
3/10/2011
Charlie Sheen Lawsuit - Following the Paper
One thing's for sure: all the media hoopla surrounding Charlie Sheen is bringing with it lots of legal lessons for those who want (or need) to know something about the American legal system and how it works - there's lots to follow for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.
First, there's all the postering and rumor.
That started a couple of months back for Sheen: I'd guess around Christmas-time, really. Same thing for lots of lawsuits: each side starts getting the word out, putting the best light on the situation from its own perspective. This is true for family law cases as well as big business disputes. And if you think that lawyers aren't involved in the spin this early in the program, not true. If they've been hired on at that point, the attorneys will have a say in what's going on here.
Second, there are those nasty, long, and formal letters from lawyers. Notice. Demand. Sometimes, they are required by law. Here in Texas, for example, there are several kinds of lawsuits that cannot legally proceed until a notice letter has been sent out, giving an attempt to resolve the dispute before any lawsuit is filed down at the courthouse.
Did we see them in the Charlie Sheen coverage? Why, yes, we did.
Here's the notice letter from Sheen's people.
Here's the response letter from CBS/Warner's lawyers.
Having read both, I have to admit that while both are well-written, I liked the response letter better. More short sentences. Less Big Bad Wolf stuff. And, nice how they listed all those links at the end, without cross-referencing them to specifics within the correspondence. I liked that.
After you've had attorneys throwing punches on paper like this, you know there's two ways to go: negotiate a settlement or go to war. We don't know that there were any real negotation attempts here. It's been my experience that attorneys will call each other up here, as unlikely as it may be that anyone's willing to resolve things.
Lawyers know their opposing counsel: they've had them on cases before, and they will again. You call up, you tip your hat at the minimum, it's just common courtesy before you strap on the guns. "Hey, bud, how's the wife and kids?" "Fine, yours?" "Fine." "Okey dokey, then."
If you aren't talking, then you're walking. As in, down to the courthouse to file your pleadings. Sometimes, there's a race on who's first - because there's an advantage to being plaintiff. You get to talk first. You get to talk last. Big deal.
Back to the Sheen Example of Civil Litigation.
Sheen's lawsuit has been filed. No race here -- well, sorta. CBS technically filed first with the arbitration forum according to their letter; looks like Sheen's gonna fight that arbitration clause.
Here's the pleading if you want to read it, thanks to TMZ.
As for the pleading, well done. Pretty. Lots of causes of action, lots of great adjectives. Well-written. Well played.
Charlie Sheen may be addicted to something or not. He may suffer mental health issues or not. But Charlie Sheen and his lawyers are doing a stellar job so far of positioning him in this controversy, and using trial by media to their advantage. (Potential jurors will remember those negative drug tests, for example, as well as the "I'm ready to go to work" interviews, and the "I'm fighting for the crew, too" statements.)
Sheen's looking like a good team player on this legal team and that's a good client to have. (#winning.)
First, there's all the postering and rumor.
That started a couple of months back for Sheen: I'd guess around Christmas-time, really. Same thing for lots of lawsuits: each side starts getting the word out, putting the best light on the situation from its own perspective. This is true for family law cases as well as big business disputes. And if you think that lawyers aren't involved in the spin this early in the program, not true. If they've been hired on at that point, the attorneys will have a say in what's going on here.
Second, there are those nasty, long, and formal letters from lawyers. Notice. Demand. Sometimes, they are required by law. Here in Texas, for example, there are several kinds of lawsuits that cannot legally proceed until a notice letter has been sent out, giving an attempt to resolve the dispute before any lawsuit is filed down at the courthouse.
Did we see them in the Charlie Sheen coverage? Why, yes, we did.
Here's the notice letter from Sheen's people.
Here's the response letter from CBS/Warner's lawyers.
Having read both, I have to admit that while both are well-written, I liked the response letter better. More short sentences. Less Big Bad Wolf stuff. And, nice how they listed all those links at the end, without cross-referencing them to specifics within the correspondence. I liked that.
After you've had attorneys throwing punches on paper like this, you know there's two ways to go: negotiate a settlement or go to war. We don't know that there were any real negotation attempts here. It's been my experience that attorneys will call each other up here, as unlikely as it may be that anyone's willing to resolve things.
Lawyers know their opposing counsel: they've had them on cases before, and they will again. You call up, you tip your hat at the minimum, it's just common courtesy before you strap on the guns. "Hey, bud, how's the wife and kids?" "Fine, yours?" "Fine." "Okey dokey, then."
If you aren't talking, then you're walking. As in, down to the courthouse to file your pleadings. Sometimes, there's a race on who's first - because there's an advantage to being plaintiff. You get to talk first. You get to talk last. Big deal.
Back to the Sheen Example of Civil Litigation.
Sheen's lawsuit has been filed. No race here -- well, sorta. CBS technically filed first with the arbitration forum according to their letter; looks like Sheen's gonna fight that arbitration clause.
Here's the pleading if you want to read it, thanks to TMZ.
As for the pleading, well done. Pretty. Lots of causes of action, lots of great adjectives. Well-written. Well played.
Charlie Sheen may be addicted to something or not. He may suffer mental health issues or not. But Charlie Sheen and his lawyers are doing a stellar job so far of positioning him in this controversy, and using trial by media to their advantage. (Potential jurors will remember those negative drug tests, for example, as well as the "I'm ready to go to work" interviews, and the "I'm fighting for the crew, too" statements.)
Sheen's looking like a good team player on this legal team and that's a good client to have. (#winning.)
6/04/2010
Third Party Litigation Funding: Outside Investors Fund Litigation for a Piece of the Pie
Companies opening their checkbooks to pay for lawsuits? Yepper, looks like Third Party Litigation Funding has crossed over the pond. Attorneys in the United States appear to be following the trend set by litigators in Great Britain and Australia with Third-Party Litigation Funding. Seems there are a couple of companies already offering to finance American business lawsuits in exchange for a cut in the settlement proceeds or judicial award. (They also share the risk of loss if their side loses the case.)
It's reasonable to think that there will be other financiers entering the fray. After all, Great Britian has been testing the waters on this lawsuit funding investment option for several years now (albeit not without controversy).
Two Front Runners: Juridica Investments Ltd and Burford Capital
Juridica Investments Limited explains that its goal is to "make the legal system better for business claims." And its risk analysis is simple: Juridica has funding for business claims only -- it's not interested in personal injury matters, toxic torts, or the like. Ewww.
Burford Capital is a British company that is also ready to invest in business litigation, both in the United States and across the globe. Burford is traded on the London stock exchange as BUR, in case you'd like to check the company out. These aren't fly by night organizations by a long shot.
What are they looking for? In one interview with Juridica CEO Richard Fields, it was suggested that the British third party financier (TPF) was interesting in disputes ranging between $15 and $25 million involving business causes of action.
Can torts be far behind? Just think of the Toyota class action litigation, ponder the inevitable Oil Spill claims .... I'm thinking that the question of when Third Party Litigation Funding enters into the American Tort arena is sooner rather than later.
It's reasonable to think that there will be other financiers entering the fray. After all, Great Britian has been testing the waters on this lawsuit funding investment option for several years now (albeit not without controversy).
Two Front Runners: Juridica Investments Ltd and Burford Capital
Juridica Investments Limited explains that its goal is to "make the legal system better for business claims." And its risk analysis is simple: Juridica has funding for business claims only -- it's not interested in personal injury matters, toxic torts, or the like. Ewww.
Burford Capital is a British company that is also ready to invest in business litigation, both in the United States and across the globe. Burford is traded on the London stock exchange as BUR, in case you'd like to check the company out. These aren't fly by night organizations by a long shot.
What are they looking for? In one interview with Juridica CEO Richard Fields, it was suggested that the British third party financier (TPF) was interesting in disputes ranging between $15 and $25 million involving business causes of action.
Can torts be far behind? Just think of the Toyota class action litigation, ponder the inevitable Oil Spill claims .... I'm thinking that the question of when Third Party Litigation Funding enters into the American Tort arena is sooner rather than later.
4/10/2009
US Supreme Court's April 1st Dismissal in Philip Morris v Williams Is No Joke
There's been a lot of discussion and commentary on the US Supreme Court's knee jerk dismissal of the Oregon case involving tobacco giant Philip Morris and the huge punitive damage award granted to plaintiff Mayola Williams, which had already been approved by Oregon's high court.
In case you haven't heard, Mayola Williams filed and won a wrongful death suit based upon the untimely demise of her cigarette-smoking husband, Jesse Williams, due to lung cancer. Actual damages totalled around $800,000 and the punitives were assessed at $79.5 million -- at the juncture, what with interest, the widow Williams is looking at receiving over $175,000,000.00.
Of course, the defense bar had its fingers crossed that the US Supreme Court would take this opportunity to cap punitive damages. What they got, on April 1st, was a one sentence opinion from the highest court in the land, that it had "improvidently granted" writ in the case and had now changed its mind. Wo Nellie.
Which leaves the Oregon Supreme Court's decision intact, the Widow Williams ready to receive her final award, and the plaintiff's bar a very happy group of folk today.
Because despite all the defense talk that this case is limited to its four corners, it isn't. And, that argument that what happens in Oregon stays in Oregon won't fly either.
We all already know that other big damage cases in other states are going to use this case as a strong argument that the US Supreme Court has sent the message: in the right case, big punitives are totally acceptable.
And, you know what: I think they're right to do this. Punitive damages serve a purpose, and I think we can all agree in today's climate that money is the only language that some corporations understand.
In case you haven't heard, Mayola Williams filed and won a wrongful death suit based upon the untimely demise of her cigarette-smoking husband, Jesse Williams, due to lung cancer. Actual damages totalled around $800,000 and the punitives were assessed at $79.5 million -- at the juncture, what with interest, the widow Williams is looking at receiving over $175,000,000.00.
Of course, the defense bar had its fingers crossed that the US Supreme Court would take this opportunity to cap punitive damages. What they got, on April 1st, was a one sentence opinion from the highest court in the land, that it had "improvidently granted" writ in the case and had now changed its mind. Wo Nellie.
Which leaves the Oregon Supreme Court's decision intact, the Widow Williams ready to receive her final award, and the plaintiff's bar a very happy group of folk today.
Because despite all the defense talk that this case is limited to its four corners, it isn't. And, that argument that what happens in Oregon stays in Oregon won't fly either.
We all already know that other big damage cases in other states are going to use this case as a strong argument that the US Supreme Court has sent the message: in the right case, big punitives are totally acceptable.
And, you know what: I think they're right to do this. Punitive damages serve a purpose, and I think we can all agree in today's climate that money is the only language that some corporations understand.
3/04/2009
US Supreme Court approves drug lawsuits in state court -- FDA approval isn't synonimous with immunity. Good.
Okay, first things first -- here's the link to the actual US Supreme Court slip opinion, issued today in Cause No. 06-1249, styled Wyeth v. Levine, certiorari to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
It's a pre-emption case. 6-3 decision.
The high court has ruled that federal law does not pre-empt the claims made by the plaintiff, Diana Levine, that the defendant, Wyeth Laboratories, did not provide adequate warnings concerning the use of the IV-push method of administering its drug Pherangan. In other words, FDA approval doesn't shield the drug manufacturer from responsibility for monetary damages as defined by state personal injury law.
As a result, Wyeth is facing paying big money liability under Vermont state law for the improper administration to Levine of its drug, which entered her artery and not her vein as it should have, causing immediate gangrene and the ultimate amputation of her arm. (In her initial trial, the Vermont jury awarded Diana Levine $6.7 million - and I don't know what she's going to get now, what with all that interest covering all these years.)
Her job? Professional musician (pianist and guitarist). Did I mention big money yet?
Today, there's lot of coverage (like this article in USA TODAY and this one in USNews & World Report) about the US Supreme Court's decision.
As well there should be.
First, the high court could have written this opinion narrowly. It didn't. If you take the time to read it, it's quite broad. Don't think this wasn't intentional.
Second, there are lots of personal injury attorneys out there who know the costs involved in pursuing these type of drug injury cases, and today's decision sure does give them a comfortable level when they're analyzing risk in taking future drug injury cases to trial in state court.
FDA approval, schmoval. You can just hear the plaintiffs' bar tee-heeing with glee.
Third, and best from my perspective, people who have been injured or killed by a lot of sloppy FDA decisions aren't going to have to worry about that FDA pre-emption issue now. Who really trusts FDA approval now, like say folk did in 1980?
There have been too many recalls -- and those "oops" were in a big way. Kids and pets and all sort of innocent folk got hurt and killed by products that initially got the FDA okey-dokey.
My vote? Levine v. Wyeth was a good decision, even if you can already hear the cries of "lawsuit abuse" in the wings.
It's a pre-emption case. 6-3 decision.
The high court has ruled that federal law does not pre-empt the claims made by the plaintiff, Diana Levine, that the defendant, Wyeth Laboratories, did not provide adequate warnings concerning the use of the IV-push method of administering its drug Pherangan. In other words, FDA approval doesn't shield the drug manufacturer from responsibility for monetary damages as defined by state personal injury law.
As a result, Wyeth is facing paying big money liability under Vermont state law for the improper administration to Levine of its drug, which entered her artery and not her vein as it should have, causing immediate gangrene and the ultimate amputation of her arm. (In her initial trial, the Vermont jury awarded Diana Levine $6.7 million - and I don't know what she's going to get now, what with all that interest covering all these years.)
Her job? Professional musician (pianist and guitarist). Did I mention big money yet?
Today, there's lot of coverage (like this article in USA TODAY and this one in USNews & World Report) about the US Supreme Court's decision.
As well there should be.
First, the high court could have written this opinion narrowly. It didn't. If you take the time to read it, it's quite broad. Don't think this wasn't intentional.
Second, there are lots of personal injury attorneys out there who know the costs involved in pursuing these type of drug injury cases, and today's decision sure does give them a comfortable level when they're analyzing risk in taking future drug injury cases to trial in state court.
FDA approval, schmoval. You can just hear the plaintiffs' bar tee-heeing with glee.
Third, and best from my perspective, people who have been injured or killed by a lot of sloppy FDA decisions aren't going to have to worry about that FDA pre-emption issue now. Who really trusts FDA approval now, like say folk did in 1980?
There have been too many recalls -- and those "oops" were in a big way. Kids and pets and all sort of innocent folk got hurt and killed by products that initially got the FDA okey-dokey.
My vote? Levine v. Wyeth was a good decision, even if you can already hear the cries of "lawsuit abuse" in the wings.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)