« December 2009 | Main | February 2010 »
Here's another quality personal-injury-lawyer ad. If you've been trying to come up with good marketing ideas for your firm and have been wondering how many explosions you could get into a 30-second TV spot, the answer is "at least eleven":
Injured by a reckless stunt-car driver? Hurt in a zeppelin accident? Call Berger and Green today.
Link: Boing Boing
| | |
|
Now with ample time on his hands, having not been reappointed to another term as a D.C. administrative-law judge, Roy L. Pearson, Jr., continues on his quest for justice. As you may recall, that quest began years ago when, according to Pearson, his dry cleaners lost a pair of his pants and did not remedy the situation to his full and complete satisfaction. This resulted in a lawsuit in which Pearson sought $54 million but fell short of that goal (by exactly $54 million). Appeals failed. Pearson then filed another lawsuit going after the people who had refused to reappoint him, claiming they had unfairly retaliated. That case was dismissed, and now another appeal is in the process of failing.
In his opening brief (posted by the BLT - see link below), which is long (65 pages), rambling, difficult to follow, and not remotely compelling, Pearson argues that the ruling should be reversed and the judge removed from the case for alleged bias. Most of this is too dull to repeat, but there is some comedy in the section on Pearson's second cause of action, alleging First Amendment violations. Pearson claimed that defendants violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for pursuing what he repeatedly calls "a public interest lawsuit" that was a matter of "public concern":
[T]he public interest lawsuit sought injunctive relief that would benefit thousands of consumers, as well as the imposition of punitive damages to deter a group of merchants from persisting in the fraudulent and unfair trade practice of displaying deceptive advertisements.
Emphasis added. Again, Pearson was demanding $54 million from dry cleaners who allegedly lost one pair of his pants on the grounds that they had not acted to his complete satisfaction despite having posted a sign reading "Satisfaction Guaranteed." (This sign-related argument is why Pearson would likely tell you that the case was not about his pants.) The brief does not really mention any of that. Pearson goes on to argue that the issue was clearly one of great public concern because everybody was talking about his case:
Count II alleges that plaintiff's public interest lawsuit was of such public concern that it received newspaper, magazine, television, cable and Internet coverage all over the world, and that the coverage continued every day, for months.
Indeed it did. But being widely mocked for wasting one's life on a pants-related dispute does not necessarily mean the case is a matter of public concern. At least, Pearson doesn't make the case in this brief. Maybe in the reply, he will do more to explain how his quest benefits those downtrodden members of our society, the underclass of pantsless Americans. Or are they the "unpantsed"? The "underpantsed"? No, that's not right either. Well, there are still a few weeks left until the reply brief. I'm sure he'll come up with something.
| | |
|
Palm Harbor, Florida. Nicholas Hammond gets up to use the bathroom and finds someone burglarizing his home. Burglar flees, with Hammond in pursuit. Burglar leaps on getaway bike he has hidden a block away, but is unable to pedal fast enough to keep Hammond from catching him on foot. Burglar draws pocket knife, causing Hammond to back off and call police. Burglar flees down the street. Street turns out to be a dead end bordering on a lake. With deputies closing in, burglar leaps into boat and tries to escape across lake. Unfortunately, boat, like bicycle, is foot-powered, bringing pedaling deficiency back into play.
As burglar slowly thrashes out into lake, police helicopter is summoned. Helicopter crew reports that "there [is] a lone male pedaling the boat dressed only in boxer shorts, and the boat appear[s] to be taking on water." Deputies enlist a local pontoon-boat owner to pursue the man attempting to flee in a sinking pedal boat, who is captured after what was likely one of the slowest and least-exciting police pursuits since authorities in New Jersey pulled over that drunken Zamboni driver.
"We've had suspects try to jump in the water before," said a police spokesman, "but never before have I seen a pedal boat used as a means of [attempted] escape."
Link: St. Petersburg Times(at tampabay.com)
| | |
|
From today's ruling in Becnel v. Northrup Grumman Ship Systems, a case pending in Orleans Parish, Louisiana:
Considering the historic victory of the New Orleans Saints, the Court finds that the trial will not be able to proceed as originally scheduled. The Court takes judicial notice that Saintsmania permeates the City of New Orleans. Many prospective jurors for the Parish of Orleans, several attorneys involved in this litigation and Court personnel plan on traveling to the promised land - the Super Bowl in Miami, Florida. The Court recognizes that this pilgrimage enhances the chances of the Who Dat Nation to acquire the long sought after Holy Grail -- the Vince Lombardi trophy.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the jury trial scheduled for Monday, February 1, 2010 is continued to Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 8:30 a.m.
The judge ruled on the matter sua sponte. He later told a reporter that he would not be holding any jury trials during the entire week following the Super Bowl because, he said, after the Saints win, "everyone will be in a really good mood."
I am informed that the "Who Dat Nation" is a loosely affiliated organization of individuals, including but not limited to Louisiana residents, who are wont to express a general skepticism as to the chances of any football team opposing the New Orleans Saints, typically expressing said skepticism in a chant that was roughly translated for me as, "Who is that saying that they may be able to defeat the Saints in a game of football? Whoever it may be, to us this seems quite unlikely."
The Colts are a great team, but I have to root for the Saints if only because Who Dat Nation has been through so much over the last few years. Whatever happens, it is probably best not to schedule anything in New Orleans during the following week.
| | |
|
A valiant legal effort came to nothing this week after an administrative-law judge in Iowa ruled that a "Jell-O shot" containing vodka does indeed qualify as an "alcoholic beverage" and so cannot be legally sold to minors. Owners of the Union Bar in Iowa City made the argument at a hearing last November after being caught selling alcohol to two 20-year-olds who were working with police.
The bar owners seem to have argued that even though their Jell-O shots contained alcohol, because Jell-O is gelatinous it is not "a drinkable liquid" (as Webster's defines "beverage"), and therefore they could not be guilty of selling "alcoholic beverages" to minors. Nice try, ruled Judge Laura Lockard:
There is no evidence in the record to support the licensee's argument that -- simply because vodka was mixed with Jell-O mix -- it lost its character as an alcoholic beverage. While there might be some debate in another context as to whether Jell-O is a food item or beverage, in this context ... the Jell-O shots served by the licensee were alcoholic beverages.The failure of this creative argument leaves the bar stuck with the $500 civil penalty imposed by the Alcoholic Beverages Division. The owners have 30 days to appeal, and I think it's important that they do appeal so that we can finally get some guidance on this important issue.
According to Wikipedia, the "gelatin shot" was invented during the Civil War, or at least the earliest known recipe for one appears in How to Mix Drinks, a book published in 1862.
Link: Iowa City Press Citizen
| | |
|
Here's the complaint in Berland v. Peninou French Laundry, the previously mentioned lawsuit seeking compensation for ruined Prada attire.
The facts alleged are as simple as they are disturbing:
7. On or about October 1, 2009, Plaintiff delivered to Defendants, and each of them, for dry cleaning a red Prada suit (a matching blouse and skirt) that was in perfect condition.8. Plaintiff had purchased the Prada suit at a cost of $1,305. In addition, Plaintiff had purchased to go with the red Prada suit matching red Prada shoes at a cost of approximately $400 and a matching red Prada purse at a cost of approximately $400.
9. On or about October 10, 2009, Plaintiff returned to pick up her Prada suit. The suit, while in the exclusive possession and control of defendants, and each of them, had been damaged beyond repair.
10. Plaintiff made a demand on defendants, and each of them, for damages, but no part has been paid.
The complaint further alleges that the "red Prada purse and red Prada shoes were purchased solely to go with and be worn with the red Prada suit." Though not specifically alleged, the implication is that said purse and shoes, and each of them, are now also worthless.
Now, this may well be a valid claim, although (according to "experts" around the office) there might be an issue whether the accessories are really useless. But it clearly belongs in small-claims court (here, claims of up to $7,500), and doesn't belong even in the superior court's "limited division" (up to $24,999). Nay, only the "unlimited division" could contain this matter, it appears, else Justice could not be done. (I expected maybe a claim for emotional distress - I mean, we are talking about Prada here - but there doesn't seem to be one.)
Interestingly, the State Bar FAQ on small-claims court says the following:
1. What kinds of disputes can I take to small claims court?[Y]ou might want to "file a claim" in small claims court if:
- Someone dents your fender and refuses to pay for repairs.
- Your new sofa comes apart at the seams, and the store will not fix it or give back your money.
- The dry cleaner ruins your favorite shirt and will not pay you anything.
- The landlord will not return your security deposit, even though you left the apartment in good condition.
(Emphasis added.) Plaintiff's counsel probably knows that, but I guess if a guy is representing his wife in a Prada-related matter, as this one seems to be, he might want to at least appear to be taking the case very, very seriously indeed.
Link: Berland v. Peninou French Laundry & Cleaners, Inc., CGC-10-49620 (S.F. Super. Ct. filed Jan. 22, 2010) (PDF) (also now listed in the Lowering the Bar Pleading Archive)
| | |
|
Filed on Friday in San Francisco, this new lawsuit is definitely one to watch:
Ann Gail Berland v. Peninou French Laundry & Cleaners Inc., CGC-10-496203 (S.F. Superior Court, filed Jan. 22, 2010).
Complaint for negligence and breach of contract. The defendants ruined the plaintiff's red Prada suit, which matched her red Prada shoes and red Prada purse.
Complaint to be posted shortly.
| | |
|
This dispute took place last year, but it seems like the complaint should be added to the archive as a public service. Another intellectual-property dispute between two makers of iPhone flatulence-simulation apps does not seem at all unlikely (as of last year, there were maybe 75 such apps), and if one does, this will provide somebody with a template.
Link: Infomedia, Inc. v. Air-O-Matic, Inc., No. 09-CV-00302 (D. Colo. filed Feb. 13, 2009) (PDF).
Link: Lowering the Bar Pleading Archive
| | |
|
Seems like there is always some humor in store anytime an animal shows up in court. I guess there was that one time it didn't go so well:
Even then, though, the chimpanzees were kind of funny. (It's those friggin orangutangs you gotta watch out for. Jerks.) So when I see a headline that includes the phrase "chimp in court today," I'm probably clicking on it, especially if the phrase "at center of custody battle" is in there too.
According to the report, which unsurprisingly involves Florida, Eli the chimp was in a Sarasota courtroom today because he is, yes, at the center of a custody battle between a man from Missouri who says Eli was born on his chimp farm and a Sarasota woman who claims he is really from California. (In other news, there is apparently a chimp farm somewhere in Missouri.) Today's hearing reportedly had to do with a DNA test that may settle the question.
The report includes this sentence: "Attorneys say there has not been another case in Florida involving the paternity of a chimpanzee," although somehow that seems unlikely to me.
Link: WTSP.com (Tampa Bay)
| | |
|
Apparently unhappy with his 15 percent approval rating in a recent poll I mentioned just the other day -- the lowest that polling firm had ever recorded -- former senator and candidate John Edwards dashed out on Thursday to make a statement that should drive it even lower.
Actually, the statement, an admission that Edwards is in fact the father of Rielle Hunter's baby, may not affect his numbers because it was surprising to no one. Sure, Edwards had previously denied it. But he also consistently denied the affair in the first place, then admitted it but denied he was the baby's father, then claimed his wife's cancer was in remission at the time of the affair, not that that would make it okay but that wasn't true either, and so really the only remarkable thing about the public announcement Thursday was Edwards' apparent belief that the public gives a crap about what he does or doesn't do any more.
Oh, wait -- there was another remarkable thing, and that was that Edwards also did not tell the truth about why he was making the announcement right now. A spokesperson gave three reasons for the timing: First, "Senator Edwards is very concerned about Elizabeth, how she felt about this subject, and he was concerned about her health." (Please.) "The second concern, of course, was the children. The third concern was that there was a child support agreement in place." That last one seems to refer to an agreement Edwards and Hunter signed on Wednesday, although why that would have delayed the announcement was not explained. All very interesting. Probably just a coincidence that a tell-all book is about to be released written by Andrew Young, a campaign aide who originally claimed to be the baby's father. Thursday's announcement seems much more likely to be about John Edwards' concern for his wife's feelings, don't you think? Yes, I do too.
Later on Thursday, Edwards apparently showed up in Haiti with "30 doctors and a load of supplies and the intention of helping in the relief effort for several days," again according to the spokesperson. I'm not sure even Haitians would be happy to see John Edwards at this point, no matter how many doctors he brought along, but maybe this will at least get his numbers into the mid-teens with the Haitian-earthquake-victim demographic. It's a start.
Link: NYT Caucus Blog
| | |
|
