|
|
|
Wal-Mart Uses Class Action Against Netflix
Legal News |
2011/09/09 00:35
|
Wal-Mart is using its failed class action lawsuit with Netflix to attract new users to its video streaming service, Vudu.
A federal court in California agreed late last week to allow Wal-Mart to pay $27.5 million to 40 million Netflix subscribers. The kicker? They can make the payment in the form of gift cards for Walmart.com. As a result, this also gives Wal-Mart access to Netflix's customer database.
The class action suit came in response to a dinner meeting in 2005, where the CEOs of Netflix and Wal-Mart allegedly agreed to share the DVD market. According to consumer advocates, under the pact, Wal-Mart agreed not to rent DVDs if Netflix promised not to sell them. Class action suits were filed against both companies in 2009, claiming that this agreement violated antitrust laws.
While Wal-Mart decided to settle the case, Netflix is still fighting the allegations, claiming the suit has no merit.
Wal-Mart's settlement, which still has to be finalized in February 2012, comes as the discount giant is in the process of aggressively promoting its Vudu service, which it acquired in February 2010. At the same time, Netflix is in dire need of an image cleanup, following several unfriendly consumer moves, including a recent price hike and the falling out of its Liberty Starz deal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court upholds conviction in Iowa coach's death
Legal News |
2011/09/07 00:34
|
An appeals court has upheld the first-degree murder conviction of a mentally ill man who shot his former football coach in the school's weight room.
Mark Becker had argued that he was legally insane when he shot Aplington-Parkersburg High School Coach Ed Thomas in June 2009. A jury found Becker guilty and rejected his insanity defense.
Doctors testified at the trial that Becker is a paranoid schizophrenic but they disagreed over whether he knew right from wrong when he shot Thomas.
Becker's lawyers argued that jurors were given incorrect instructions about the legal definition of insanity.
The Iowa Court of Appeals on Thursday agreed one instruction was incorrect but said jurors were given another instruction that correctly defined insanity. Taken together, the court says jurors were properly instructed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Group seeks appellate action on gays in military
Legal News |
2011/09/01 09:48
|
The military's ban on openly gay troops will be lifted within weeks, but the policy can still be re-enacted in the future.
That's why a Republican gay rights organization that sued the Obama administration to stop enforcement of the policy says it will ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday to declare the nearly 18-year-old law unconstitutional, affirming a lower court's ruling last year.
With several Republican presidential candidates, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, indicating they would favor reinstating the ban if elected, such a ruling is needed, said Dan Woods, the attorney for the Log Cabin Republicans. Declaring the law unconstitutional would also provide a legal path for thousands discharged under the policy to seek reinstatement, back pay or other compensation for having their careers cut short, Woods said.
The repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' doesn't say anything about the future, Woods said. It doesn't (explicitly) say homosexuals can serve. A new Congress or new president could come back and reinstitute it. We need our case to survive so there is a constraint on the government to prevent it from doing this again.
During her campaign stop in Iowa in August, Bachmann told interviewer Candy Crowley on CNN's State of The Union when asked whether she would reinstitute the law: It worked very well and I would be in consultation with our commanders, but I think, yes, I probably would.
Justice Department attorneys have filed a motion asking the appeals court to dismiss the case, arguing that the repeal process that will lift the ban Sept. 20 makes the lawsuit irrelevant.
The Log Cabin Republicans successfully won an injunction by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips last year that halted enforcement of don't ask, don't tell briefly, before the 9th Circuit reinstated it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Court Cannot Exclude Evidence Because It Is Self-Serving
Legal News |
2011/08/31 08:47
|
In Reed v. City of Evansville, _ N.E.2d _ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 82A05-1012-PL-768, Evansville sought to have some of the evidence the Reeds submitted in opposition to the City's motion for summary judgment because it was self-serving. Today, the Court of Appeals clearly stated that parties should not make this same objection in the future.
The Reeds filed a claim against Evansville and Evansville moved for summary judgment, arguing that the notice was not timely under the Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted that motion and the Reeds appealed.
On appeal, the Court held that the trial court erred when granting summary judgment to the City, because there were genuine issues of material fact. The court then addressed the City's cross-appeal, which challenged the trial court's denial of the City's motion to strike some of the Reeds' evidence. The City moved to strike some of that evidence because it was self-serving. The Court had none of it.
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/A-Court-Cannot-Exclude-Evidence-Because-It-Is-Self-Serving |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
