|
|
|
Illegal Imimrants Sue Employer, Employer Sues Back
Legal Line News |
2008/05/02 07:43
|
A business that two employees sued for $35,000 in back wages has countersued the workers and the California Labor Commissioner in a federal class action, claiming undocumented workers should not be able to file such claims, and the Labor Commissioner lacks authority to award them back pay, as such awards violate the Immigration Reform and Control Act.
Kaji Enterprise dba Sushi Sharin and Masayoshi Kaji sued California Labor Commissioner Angela Bradstreet, and Tranquilino Cruz Garcia - who claims he is owed $5,797 in pay, plus penalties of $84 a day - and Rutilino Cruz Garcia - who claims he is owed $29,978 plus daily penalties.
The Cruzes sued Kaji on Feb. 5, alleging wages owed and Labor Code violations. The case is scheduled for trial before the Labor Commission on May 22.
Kaji claims he cannot get a fair trial because the Labor Commissioner is biased in favor of illegal immigrants, and that the Commissions policies are calculated to undermine the enforcement of Federal Immigration Law.
Kaji is represented by Ernest Franceschi Jr. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal judge dismisses Katrina fraud claim
Legal Line News |
2008/04/22 08:01
|
A federal judge on Monday dismissed claims of fraud against State Farm Insurance by a Mississippi couple who claimed that the company denied their insurance claim for damage from Hurricane Katrina based on bad faith and fraud. US District Judge L.T. Senter, Jr. rejected the claim, writing:
Plaintiffs allege that State Farm committed actionable fraud in the handling of the plaintiffs' claim. Plaintiffs primarily rely on their contention that State Farm ordered two engineering reports from Forensic in an effort to dishonestly minimize its liability to the plaintiffs rather than for any legitimate reason. ...
Plaintiffs contend that State Farm, acting through Renfroe and Forensic, deliberately underestimated the amount of wind damage the insured property sustained in order to minimize its liability under the plaintiffs' homeowners policy. While this allegation, if sustained, would support a finding of bad faith, it is not sufficient to support an allegation of fraud. Fraud requires reasonable reliance on a misrepresentation, and the plaintiffs have not relied upon State Farm's evaluation of their claim. Indeed plaintiffs have brought this lawsuit in an effort to establish that State Farm has underestimated the wind damage to the insured property. Although plaintiffs may prevail on the merits of their claims for additional policy benefits and other extracontractual damages, including punitive damages if they establish bad faith on the part of State Farm or its agents, in the absence of any evidence that the plaintiffs relied upon State Farm's damage assessment I can see no basis for a claim of fraud.
Thomas and Pamela McIntosh filed the lawsuit against State Farm after the company refused to pay for most of the damage to their home, which State Farm concluded was caused mostly by flood damage from the storm surge.
State Farm used E.A. Renfroe amp; Co. to inspect the McIntosh's home, and the couple also alleged that Renfroe aided and abetted State Farm's fraudulent misconduct and that the company breached its duty of loyalty to the plaintiffs. Senter dismissed the aiding and abetting claim as he concluded there was no underlying fraud, and also dismissed the breach of duty claim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Says Blockbuster Invades Privacy
Legal Line News |
2008/04/10 08:06
|
nbsp; nbsp;nbsp; Blockbuster invaded customers' privacy by sending information about their movie rentals to the Facebook Web site, according to a federal class action. Plaintiffs say Blockbuster's cooperation with Facebook's Beacon system violates the Videotape Privacy Protection Act, which Congress passed after a newspaper obtained a list of 146 movies Robert Bork or his family had rented, and publicized it during Bork's failed nomination to the Supreme Court.
nbsp; nbsp; Facebook launched Beacon in November 2007, in cooperation with 44 other Web sites, that automatically fed information to Facebook, plaintiffs say. This was not just for social purposes, but was a core element in the Facebook Ads system for connecting businesses with users, plaintiffs say.
nbsp; nbsp; Blockbuster sent information about movie rentals to Facebook, which added it to members' Facebook profile, something like this: 'Preston added Lord of the Rings to his queue on Blockbuster.com,' the complaint states.
nbsp; nbsp; This was an opt-out system, in which users had to check a box to prevent the information from being distributed, plaintiffs say.
nbsp; nbsp; Faced with furious criticism about privacy invasion, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was forced to issue an apology, in December, which is quoted, apparently in full, in this filing. To this day, however, Facebook still receives personal identifiable information from participating Web site with the Beacon javascript, whether the Facebook member has chosen to distribute their information or not, it claims.
nbsp; nbsp; Plaintiffs say that if users did not check the opt-out box quickly enough, their information would be sent to Facebook, and that along with a picture of the individual who purchased the movie and a Blockbuster ad. They say that Blockbuster did not notify online customers that this information was being sent to Facebook until sometime in December 2007. However, the summary is immediately sent to a user's Facebook profile even before the user has a chance to decline the distribution of he/her personal identifiable information - as long as you have not marked the privacy feature telling Blockbuster never to send summaries. To this day, Blockbuster online victims remain unsuspecting victims, the complaint states.
nbsp; nbsp; Blockbuster, which has 64 million active users, is the 7th most popular site on the Web, the complaint states.
nbsp; nbsp; Represented by lead counsel Jeremy Wilson with The Corea Firm of Dallas, plaintiffs demand $2,500 for each violation of the Videotape Privacy Protection Act, and punitive damages. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
