“A New York lawyer representing two clients in separate but related criminal matters faces a ‘likely unwaivable’ conflict of interest based on the facts presented, a recent state bar association opinion said,” reports Melissa Heelan Stanzione in Bloomberg Law’s The United States Law Week.

“A conflict of interest exists for a lawyer in this situation if it will involve the lawyer in representing opposing interests, or that there’s a ‘significant risk’ that the lawyer’s professional judgment will be adversely affected by the lawyer’s own interests, the April 22 opinion said.”

“The lawyer asked the bar about ethical implications of the dual representation.”

“The clients are in a relationship, and one is charged with a crime where the other was a victim, the opinion recounted. But the alleged victim was intoxicated when the event occurred, and was arrested for driving while intoxicated after the alleged perpetrator was arrested, it said. And each is a witness in the others case, with the alleged victim wishing to testify in favor of the perpetrator, it said.”

Read the article.

“Based on a mistake about when a Cook County default judgment became final — plus a 60-cent discrepancy between the amount of the judgment ($238,007.61) and the amount listed in a memorandum of judgment ($238,007.01) that the plaintiffs filed as a lien on the defendant’s real estate in Will County,” reports Steven P. Garmisa in Chicago Daily Law Bulletin’s Courts & Cases.

“Leonard and Cecilia Urban sued Joseph L. Blewitt in Cook County. On August 6, 2003, a default judgment was entered against Blewitt, in favor of Leonard, in the amount on $238,007.61. And on March 29, 2004, a Cook County judge (1) denied Blewitt’s motion to vacate and (2) revised the judgment to include Cecilia. As the judge explained: ‘The order of August 6, 2003, was considered by the court at that time to adjudicate all claims, therefore the order will be considered to include the non-injured spouse (Ms. Urban) nunc pro tunc to August 6, 2003.'”

“A Rule 23 order from the 1st District (a) affirmed the order that denied Blewitt’s motion to vacate (b) ruled that the judge erred in adding Cecilia nunc pro tunc and (c) concluded that the March 29, 2004, order was the final judgment that resolved all the claims of all the parties — with a money judgment for Leonard and no award for Cecilia.”

“On Sept. 16, 2004, the Urbans filed a memorandum of judgment in Will County that listed Leonard and Cecilia having scored a default judgment of $238,007.61 on Aug. 6, 2003. But on Feb. 28, 2006, the Urbans filed a memorandum of judgment that said the default judgment was $238,007.01.”

Read the article.

“Atlanta lawyer Robert Ward acknowledges that he took off his pants at a security checkpoint at a federal courthouse in Tampa, Florida,” reports Debra Cassens Weiss in ABA Journal’s Trials & Litigation News.

“In an April 13 opposition, Wyndham noted that U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell ordered Ward Feb. 21 to show cause why she shouldn’t revoke his pro hac vice status for taking off his pants.”

“The Jan. 30 incident was precipitated when a court security officer told Ward that he would have to take off his belt for the metal detector. Ward replied that lawyers shouldn’t have to take off their belts. Ward then took off his pants, threw them in the bin and walked through the metal detector.”

Read the article.

“An Ohio attorney who stole from and overcharged a client nearly $129,000 was indefinitely suspended by the state’s highest court,” reports Melissa Heelan in Bloomberg Law.

“The Dublin, Ohio, lawyer first began working for the client, who suffered from mental illness, alcoholism, and depression, in 2015, the court said. His then-firm agreed to represent her pro bono for $20 per month. But Buttars entered into a separate written fee agreement, agreeing to represent her “in any capacity” for an hourly rate of $250.”

“The client told Buttars that even though she couldn’t pay him right away, she was going to receive ‘a substantial inheritance’ from her mother when she passed away, the court said.”

“After the mother died in 2015, Buttars—who soon after formed his own firm—administered the estate and did various nonlegal, personal jobs for the client, according to the court. He helped her look for a new apartment, mowed her lawn, and went shopping for her. He sometimes charged his hourly rate of $250 and at other time the paralegal rate of $150 per hour, the court said.”

Read the article.

“After a public dispute with the White House about exporting N-95 masks, 3M is turning to trademark law to help combat impressions that it is price-gouging at home … reported earlier this week on 3M’s lawsuit against Performance Supply, a New Jersey company that offered to sell 3M masks to New York City for 500-600% of 3M’s list price. Shortly after filing that complaint, 3M also sued a Utah company for similar activities in the Eastern District of California,” reports Kimberly Maynard in Frankfurt Kurnit Klein + Selz’s IP & Media Law Updates.

“In the second complaint, 3M alleges that Rx2Live, LLC contacted Community Medical Centers, Inc. (“CMC”), a healthcare provider based in Fresno, offering to sell 3M-branded N95 masks at 400-500% of the 3M list price (with a minimum purchase of 10 million masks).  Rx2Live invoked the 3M name multiple times, stating that the masks were “direct from 3M” and that “3M requires payment in full before order can be placed.”  According to 3M, neither of these statements is true.  The case is 3M Company v. Rx2Live, LLC, 1:20-cv-00523.”

“As with the Performance Supply lawsuit, 3M does not allege that Rx2Live sold counterfeit products, placed the 3M marks or a colorable imitation thereof on its own masks, or sold “gray market” goods (i.e., 3M-branded products manufactured for sale outside the U.S. and improperly imported and sold in the U.S.).  It is unclear from the complaints if the defendants are reselling authentic 3M masks they previously purchased, albeit at an unconscionable price.  While price-gouging is illegal, it is not prohibited by the Lanham Act.  In fact, the first-sale doctrine expressly allows consumers to resell unaltered, branded products and to advertise them as such.”

Read the article.

“…numerous COVID-19 related class actions have been filed throughout the country in various different spaces—consumer, mass tort, securities, labor & employment, and banking and privacy. These newly filed complaints (and some corresponding opinions) provide us valuable insight into how class action plaintiffs will proceed with outbreak-related claims, and allows us the opportunity to further analyze the viability of putative class action complaints. This post will address the first COVID-19 certification decision and include an analysis of the two most active areas of COVID-19 class actions: mass torts and consumer protection,” write Bethany Gayle Lukitsch, Kamran B. Ahmadian and Drew Gann in McGuireWoods’ In The News.

“While the majority of these cases will take weeks or months (particularly given the court shutdowns that have occurred throughout the country) to progress to the class certification stage, surprisingly we have already seen the first COVID-19 class certified. ”

Read the article.

“West Palm Beach attorneys William D. Zoeller and Michael V. Baxter of Schuler Halvorson Weisser Zoeller Overbeck obtained a $4 million jury verdict for the family of a 72-year-old man who died after his doctor tried to insert a catheter 14 times—for a procedure the plaintiffs alleged could have waited,” reports Raychel Lean in News.law’s Civil Plaintiff.

“But not all the facts were on their side. Gerald Sanford had a history of mitral valve regurgitation, a heart problem that can cause a back flow of blood. He also had an 80% to 90% blockage in one of his arteries, which the defense said warranted surgery to unclog.”

“Zoeller and Baxter argued that wasn’t as bad as it sounds because Sanford wasn’t experiencing symptoms, such as chest pain or shortness of breath. They claimed the risks of opening that artery outweighed the benefits.”

Read the article.

“On April 9th, 2020 the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the trial court’s decision in Nemeth v. Brenntag North America, et al., Case No. 9765, New York County Index No. 190138/14, denying the defendant’s post-trial motions,” reports Levy Konigsberg LLP in Benziga’s PRNewsWire.

“The plaintiffs, Florence and Frank Nemeth of Lake Ronkonkoma, New York, sued several manufacturers and distributors of asbestos-containing products, including a distributor of talcum powder named Whittaker Clark & Daniels, Inc. (“WCD”), after Florence was diagnosed with mesothelioma following years of using talcum powder in a product called Desert Flower, the talc for which WCD had sourced from asbestos-containing mines.”

“Florence succumbed to the disease before trial, and was survived by her husband Frank and their two children and four grandchildren.”

Read the article.

“A 2018 Sixth Circuit panel upheld a jury verdict convicting Dr. Richard Paulus of submitting fraudulent medical claims. That same panel, with 2020 hindsight(!), reversed that conviction. It held that the trial court’s order unconstitutionally blocked exculpatory evidence,” reports Thomas Zeno in Squire Patton Boggs case updates.

“The ‘twisted’ history of the verdict began when a jury deadlocked twice and needed an Allen charge in order to convict Dr. Paulus of billing angiograms that were unnecessary.  The trial court rejected the jury’s verdict and set aside the conviction: a doctor’s decision about the degree of blockage of an artery was a matter of subjective medical opinion that ‘could be neither be false nor fraudulent.’  The government disagreed and appealed.  (Double jeopardy does not prevent appeal of a judgment of acquittal after verdict.)”

“In the first appeal, the panel (McKeague, Batchelder, Griffin) recognized the difficulty of distinguishing a fraudulent medical opinion from mere expert disagreement.  Relying on the U.S. v. Persaud, however, the panel reaffirmed that fraud occurs when a doctor deliberately inflates artery blockage in order to bill for unnecessary procedures.  The panel emphasized that “it is up to the jury – not the court – to decide whether the government’s proof is worthy of belief.”  Deferring to the jury, the panel reversed, reinstated the conviction, and remanded the case for sentencing.”

Read the article.

“An East Bay school district has agreed to pay $665,000 to settle a free-speech suit by a former student who was suspended from a leadership class, and briefly barred from serving as student body president, after posting a video that showed him as a James Bond hero fighting off terrorists, the youth’s lawyers said Tuesday,” reports Bob Egelko in the San Francisco Chronicle.

“The video by Nathaniel Yu was a parody, and the supposed terrorists were played by two of Yu’s Muslim friends, his lawyers said in announcing the settlement with the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. They said district officials falsely described the production as hate speech, and that the ensuing publicity led to threats of violence against Yu.”

“In an apology that was part of the settlement, the district said the video was not hate speech and that it ‘egrets the negative consequences associated with mischaracterizations regarding you and the content of the video.’ But Mark Davis, a lawyer for the district, said the apology was only for the harm that Yu suffered, and the settlement does not include any admission of violating the youth’s rights.”

Read the article.

“In 2019, 15 percent of cases settled within two years of filing, consistent with the rate over the last 10 years. The average time from filing to settlement in 2019 was 3.3 years,” reports Laura E. Simmons and Laarni T. Bulan in The National Law Review.

“Compared to cases that settled more quickly, cases that required three to five years to settle in 2019 had a higher frequency of factors such as a public pension as a lead plaintiff and/or the presence of a corresponding SEC action.”

“Only 7 percent of cases in 2019 took more than five years to settle, the lowest rate in the past decade. Of these, 80 percent involved institutional investors. The median assets of the defendant firms in these cases were also substantially higher at $68 billion, compared to a median of $1.2 billion in other cases.”

“In 2019, cases that took more than five years to settle had a lower median settlement amount than cases that took three to five years to settle. This is despite the higher median “simplified tiered damages” of $602 million for cases that took more than five years to settle, compared to $375 million for cases that took three to five years to settle.”

Read the article.

“Coal companies owned by Gov. Jim Justice and his family have settled with federal agencies to satisfy more than $5 million in unpaid penalties for violations of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act,” reports Brad McElhinny in MetroNews the Voice of West Virginia.

“Although it’s a settlement, the federal officials say the 23 named defendants agreed to pay the full amounts of the assessed civil penalties, plus interest and penalties.”

“Federal officials sued almost two dozen Justice companies almost a year ago over millions of dollars in unpaid safety violation penalties dating back years.”

Read the article.

“Companies that utilize third-party staffing vendors should take stock of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Hiser v. NZone Guidance, L.L.C. The March 24, 2020 opinion, applying Texas law, reinforces that both contract language, and keeping such language up-to-date, is critical for navigating the legal landscape of company relationships with vendors, including enforcing arbitration provisions,” write A. John Harper III and Paige A. Cantrellnin Littler’s News & Analysis.

“In this case, the defendant NZone contracted with the plaintiff and other workers as independent contractors via RigUp, Inc., a workforce bidding platform. The plaintiff brought class claims against the defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of himself and other workers similarly situated.  RigUp was not named as a defendant, but was alleged to be a joint employer with NZone.”

“The workers entered into an agreement with RigUp allowing them to use RigUp’s on-line platform, which contained an arbitration provision (the ‘RigUp Agreement’). NZone moved to compel arbitration of the FLSA claims pursuant to that agreement.  The RigUp Agreement stated that arbitration was to be used to ‘resolv[e] disputes between you and RigUp,’ and that ‘[a]ny arbitration between you and RigUp will be settled under the Federal Arbitration Act.’  The RigUp Agreement further stated that either ‘you or RigUp may commence an arbitration proceeding.'”

Read the article.

“In Richards v. State Farm Lloyds … the Texas Supreme Court answered a certified question posed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; namely, whether the absence of a clause requiring a carrier to defend claims that are “groundless, false or fraudulent” means that the “eight-corners” rule does not apply when determining the existence of a duty to defend. The Texas Supreme Court held that the eight-corners rule applies regardless of whether the underlying policy obligates a carrier to defend claims that are groundless, false or fraudulent,” write Alissa K. Christopher and Gregory S. Hudson in Cozen O’Connor’s Recent News & Publications.

“Ten-year-old Jayden Meals died in an ATV accident while under the supervision of his paternal grandparents Janet and Melvin Richards. Jayden’s mother filed suit against the Richards, alleging that they negligently failed to instruct or supervise Jayden in his operation of the ATV. The underlying petition, however, contained no allegations regarding where the fatality occurred and no allegations regarding the custody relationship between Jayden and his paternal grandparents.”

“State Farm Lloyds provided a homeowner’s policy to the Richards. It agreed to defend the Richards under a reservation of rights and separately initiated a declaratory judgment proceeding in federal court.”

Read the article.

“In yet another opinion applying the Florida Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed denial of motions for judgment as a matter of law against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Philip Morris USA Inc. in a published opinion upholding multi-million dollar jury verdicts against both defendants,” posts Keith Emanuel in Eversheds Sutherland’s 11th Circuit Business Blog.

“Plaintiff Kerrivan became an addicted serial smoker at an early age, suffered increasingly serious medical diagnoses as a result, and made repeated unsuccessful attempts to quit. He eventually quit smoking but has required an oxygen tank to assist his breathing ever since. After the jury awarded $15.8 million in compensatory damages and $25.3 million in punitive damages on various fraud and conspiracy claims, the tobacco companies renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law and filed a motion for new trial or remittitur, arguing that the compensatory damages award was excessive, that the punitive damages award was unconstitutional, and that the evidence of reliance was insufficient to support the fraudulent concealment and conspiracy claims. The appeal stemmed from the district court’s denial of such motions.”

Read the article.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is ruling on the Dish Networks $280M settlement reports Eric J. Troutman in TCPA World.

“The appellate court concluded that the district court made no material legal errors save one– in assessing damages the Court started with the Plaintiff’s ability to pay and worked backward. The Court determined that proper constitutional analysis starts with the amount of harm actually caused, and then application of a multiplier.”

“The appellate court concluded that the district court’s award amounted to $4.00 per violation and suggested that if the harm caused per call was $1.00 than the judgment would certainly be proper. But it remanded for the lower court to assess the damage of an unwanted call (according to one expert the cost per unwanted call is as low as 6.8 cents, which would make a proper award no higher than 72 cents a call using a 9 times multipler.)”

Read the article.

“General Motors has reached a $120 million settlement with owners who claimed that their vehicles lost value because of defective ignition switches, which have been linked to 124 deaths,” reported in Reuters’ AutoBlog.

“The preliminary settlement was filed on Friday night with the federal court in Manhattan and requires approval by U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman. It would resolve the last major piece of litigation stemming from ignition switches that could cause GM vehicles to stall and prevent airbags from deploying.”

“The automaker denied liability in agreeing to settle, court papers show.”

Read the article.

“The once high-flying California attorney Michael Avenatti wants a judge to reject a jury verdict that found he tried to extort Nike,” reports Larry Neumeister in The Sacramento Bee.

“Lawyers for Avenatti asked a Manhattan judge late Monday to overturn the verdict or grant a new trial for the 49-year-old man who rose to fame representing porn star Stormy Daniels in lawsuits against President Donald Trump.”

“They said in court papers that U.S. District Judge Paul G. Gardephe should take the rare step of overturning the jury verdict that convicted him of trying to extort up to $25 million from the shoemaker.”

Read the article.

“A federal district court in Massachusetts recently ordered Minneapolis based Coloplast to pay over $760,000 to Plaintiff, Amy Lestage, for retaliating against her after she and others filed a whistleblower complaint against the company,” reports Jolena Jeffrey in Katz, Marshall and Banks’ Whistleblower Law Blog.

“In December 2011, pharmaceutical whistleblower, Lestage, along with two former Coloplast employees filed a False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam action against the company, Byram Healthcare, and other large distributors of medical devices and services related to medical conditions and surgeries such as incontinence and ostomy.  The qui tam action alleged that Coloplast and some of its distributors engaged in an illegal kickback scheme to inflate their Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements and thereby defraud the federal government.  The qui tam action was unsealed on November 20, 2014, and the names of the relators, including Lestage, became public knowledge.”

Read the article.

“Generally speaking, a court does not have the discretion to extend a statute of limitations.  A court can, however, consistent with its inherent equitable powers, preclude a defendant from asserting a statute of limitations defense where the defendant’s own intentional misconduct prevented the plaintiff from timely filing suit,” discusses Paige Bartholomew in Farrell Fritz’s blog.

“This equitable doctrine, known as equitable estoppel – or, “equitable tolling” – is consistent with the principle that a wrongdoer should not be able to benefit from his own wrong, and is often raised by a plaintiff in response to a statute of limitations defense.  But, as recently illustrated by the Suffolk County Commercial Division in Shoreham Hills, LLC v Sagaponack Dream House, LLC … its application is rare, and “estopping” a defendant from asserting a statute of limitations defense where it is otherwise appropriate is no simple feat.”

Read the article.