|
|
|
Appeals court orders new credit card case trial
Law Firm News |
2008/04/28 07:41
|
pA U.S. appeals court reinstated a class-action suit on Friday against a group of banks that force their credit card customers to use arbitration instead of the courts to settle disputes.
The credit cardholders alleged that the banks (with other co-conspirators, including American Express (AXP.N) and Wells Fargo (WFC.N)) illegally colluded to force the cardholders to accept mandatory arbitration clauses in their cardholder agreements, according to the ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals./ppThe cardholders argued that the banks had violated antitrust laws by refusing to issue cards to individuals who did not agree to arbitration, according to the decision./ppThe cardholders want the court to stop the banks from compelling arbitration, prevent them from continuing their alleged collusion and invalidate the existing mandatory arbitration clauses./ppA lower court judge sided with the banks, which include Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), Discover Financial Services (DFS.N), Capital One Bank (COF.N), JPMorgan Chase amp; Co (JPM.N) and Citigroup Inc (C.N), and dismissed the case, saying the cardholders lacked standing./ppThe panel of three appellate judges disagreed. The cardholders have adequately alleged antitrust injuries, it said in its ruling./ppBank of America, Capital One and Discover declined to comment. The other banks did not immediately return calls seeking comment./ppWe're quite happy with the decision, said Charles Goodwin, whose Philadelphia law firm represents the credit cardholders. The cardholders are a large class coming from Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and California, he added./ppOther banks named in the lawsuit include units of HSBC (HSBA.L) and Washington Mutual Inc (WM.N)./ppJoe Ridout of the nationwide nonprofit group Consumer Action hailed the ruling, saying: It's unfair for consumers to have to give up their legal and constitutional rights just to get a credit card.
/p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Makers of Paxil, Zoloft Win
Court News |
2008/04/25 07:48
|
pIn a significant victory for drug manufacturers, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the makers of Paxil and Zoloft cannot be sued for failing to warn of a risk of suicide because the Food amp; Drug Administration has explicitly refused to order such warnings.
Voting 2-1 in a pair of cases where the lower courts issued conflicting rulings, the 3rd Circuit found that such lawsuits must be pre-empted because they directly conflict with action already taken by the FDA. /ppWriting for the majority, 3rd Circuit Judge Dolores K. Sloviter said the FDA has actively monitored the possible risk of suicide from taking the class of antidepressant drugs known as selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, for two decades, and concluded that the suicide warnings demanded by plaintiffs are without scientific basis and would therefore be false and misleading. /ppBut Sloviter, who was joined by visiting Judge Jane A. Restani of the U.S. Court of International Trade, emphasized that the ruling was a narrow one. /ppOur holding is limited to circumstances in which the FDA has publicly rejected the need for a warning that plaintiffs argue state law requires, Sloviter wrote in Colacicco v. Apotex Inc. /ppIn dissent, 3rd Circuit Judge Thomas L. Ambro said he would have allowed both cases to go forward. /p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attorney Sues 'Washingtonienne' Author
Law Firm Press |
2008/04/24 08:09
|
Former Senate Judiciary Committee counsel Robert Steinbuch sued Jessica Cutler, author of the Washingtonienne blog and subsequent book, claiming she invaded his privacy by publishing in graphic detail the intimate amorous and sexual relationship between Cutler and the Plaintiff, including his alleged predilection for spanking.
Steinbuch also sued Hyperion Books, a division of Disney Publishing Worldwide, which allegedly paid Cutler a $300,000 advance for her book, after her blog became a sensation.
n his federal complaint, Steinbuch says, At the time of his relationship with Cutler, Plaintiff did not know that Cutler was simultaneously engaged in sexual relationships with another man, let alone with five other men, and let alone that she was prostituting herself to some of them; and Plaintiff did not know that Cutler was recording the details of her relationship with Plaintiff in her blog, and Defendant Cutler described Plaintiff as, among other things, a committee counsel who likes spanking. That blog is the subject of a separate and distinct litigaion.
Steinbuch also claims Cutler profited by capitalizing on the publicity generated by her blog and her relationship with Plaintiff by signing a deal with Playboy that included a nude photo spread of her, and the thinly disguised novel, of the roman a clef genre, in which her relationship with him is described in graphic detail.
His complaint adds: Hyperion specifically advertised the book as being in 'a witty, unapologetic voice, the novel's narrator Jackie tells the story of ... the staff counsel whose taste for spanking she accidentally leaks to the office.'
Steinbuch demands $10 million damages for invasion of privacy, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He is represented by Jonathan Rosen of Clearwater, Fla. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Officers Denied Immunity For Arresting Protester
Legal Line News |
2008/04/23 07:51
|
The 10th Circuit denied immunity to five police officers in Albuquerque, N.M., who allegedly arrested a University of New Mexico faculty member during an antiwar protest, simply because he was part of a large basket containing a few bad eggs.
The court ruled 2-1 that John Fogarty may proceed with a lawsuit accusing the officers of targeting him without probable cause and using excessive force to arrest him during a March 2003 demonstration against the U.S. war in Iraq.
The protest began on the UNM campus and spread to city sidewalks and streets, with between 500 and 1,000 demonstrators voicing their opposition to the war.
Fogarty and a friend joined a drum circle that was play(ing) a really nice samba, Fogarty claimed. But police accused the drummers of inciting the crowd and making it more difficult to clear the streets.
Capt. John Gonzales told officers to remove the drums, a statement some interpreted as a direct order to arrest the drummers, Fogarty included. The plaintiff said he was already off the street when officers pelted him with an unknown projectile and arrested him.
Officers allegedly took the handcuffed Fogarty near an area with lingering tear gas, causing Fogarty to suffer an acute asthma attack. He also claimed to have torn a tendon in his wrist during the ordeal.
The majority refused to dismiss Fogarty's claims, ruling that he had provided enough evidence to survive summary judgment at this stage.
The Fourth Amendment plainly requires probable cause to arrest Fogarty as an individual, not a member of a large basket containing a few bad eggs, Judge Lucero wrote. In other words, that Fogarty was a participant in an antiwar protest where some individuals may have broken the law is not enough to justify his arrest. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
