“There is nothing much better for a litigator/baseball fan than when these two interests collide.  One of the highpoints of my legal career was successfully representing a major league baseball player (Pat Kelly) in his salary arbitration with the Yankees.  So I was pretty excited when the case Olson, et al. v. Major League Baseball, et al. was filed this year in the SDNY.  Maybe not as excited as if I would have been if I were involved in the case myself, but in these times we have to take what we can get,” discusses Edward H. Rosenthal in Frankfurt Kurnit Klein + Selz‘ blog.

“Olson was a putative class action brought by individuals who participated in DraftKings fantasy baseball competitions. The plaintiffs sued Major League Baseball (“MLB”), MLB’s marketing entity called Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. (“MLBAM”), the Houston Astros and the Boston Red Sox alleging that plaintiffs’ fantasy baseball efforts had been harmed by virtue of the electronic sign-stealing scandal that has been revealed over the past few months. In a nutshell, the Astros were found to have devised a system using cameras to relay the signs the opposing team’s catcher was giving to its pitcher by sending the signs to a player or coach situated behind the Astros dugout.  The recipient of the video would then convey the pitch information to the batter by banging on a trash can.   It is undoubtedly true that a batter’s knowledge of the pitch about to be thrown enhances his chances of a successful time at the plate.  While sign-stealing is not in and of itself illegal (it’s a time honored tradition for baserunners to try to figure out the sign being given by the catcher and then convey that information to the batter), the rules of baseball specifically prohibit electronic sign stealing.”

Read the article.

“The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware approved … a $1.7 million settlement agreement in the bankruptcy case of Springdale-based nanotechnology manufacturer NanoMech Inc. that will clear its former CEO of any wrongdoing,” reports Jeff Della Rosa in Talk Business & Politics.

“U.S. Bankruptcy Judge John Dorsey approved the agreement between NanoMech, its directors and officers and New York-based lender Michaelson Capital Partners. The directors and officers in the agreement include all existing and former directors and officers of NanoMech, including former chairman and CEO Jim Phillips, Ajay Malshe, Deborah Wince-Smith, Michael Easterly, Arpana Verma, Wyatt Watkins and Ben Waisbren.”

“NanoMech’s directors and officers will have their insurer pay $1.7 million to NanoMech, and the company will pay $1.68 million to Michaelson, the agreement shows. Also, NanoMech will release all pending claims against Phillips and Conner & Winters LLP, and they will be dismissed with prejudice.”

Read the article.

“On March 27, 2020, a five-year legal battle between three certified classes of Jeep Cherokee drivers and Fiat Chrysler came to a sudden end, when a federal judge in the Southern District of Illinois held that allegations that the vehicles were vulnerable to cyber-attacks did not give plaintiffs standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution,” reports Melissa D. DiGrande in Proskauer’s Appellate.

“U.S. District Judge Staci M. Yandle—who was assigned to the case in April 2019, after Judge Michael Reagan retired—did not take lightly her decision to grant defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, given the lengthy history of the dispute. Discovery had been completed, experts had been retained, and several motions involving the same standing issues had already been resolved—in plaintiffs’ favor. But, as Judge Yandle explained, a federal court has ‘an independent obligation at each stage of the proceedings’ to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the litigation. Ultimately, defendants’ persistence paid off and resulted in the full dismissal of the claims, with prejudice.”

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.

“An initial wave of three class actions stemming from COVID-19 were filed against the Chinese government this past week. Each action claims the Chinese government is liable for injuries and damages in the United States caused by the virus. Other suits no doubt will follow,” discusses Simren K. Gill  in Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner’s Insights.

“The first suit, Logan Alters, et al. v. People’s Republic of China, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-21108-UU, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in Miami, asserts claims for negligence, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, strict liability for ultra-hazardous activity, and public nuisance against the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) and its National Health Commission, Ministry of Emergency Management, and Ministry of Civil Affairs, as well as the People’s Governments of Hubei Province and Wuhan City, where the virus allegedly originated. Plaintiffs seek to certify national and Florida “non-commercial tort” and “commercial” classes consisting of all persons and legal entities who suffered injury, damage and loss related to the COVID-19 outbreak.”

Read the article.

“LeafedOut, formerly known as LeafedIn, announced a resolution to their intellectual property dispute with the professional networking site “Linkedin” that correlated with their complete rebrand to Leafedout as of the start of this year. This press release signifies the end of all references to the former brand name within the LeafedOut organization,” reports Ellie Alexander in Reported Times.

“LeafedOut emboldened even further by its brand identity upgrade, continues on as one of the most disruptive and popular cannabis tech companies in the industry today. However, unlike the industry standard, it’s management believes that putting this settlement behind them as well as moving forward with a very aggressive and ambitious roadmap for 2020 in terms of their product offering will allow them to continue their exponential revenue and user growth while providing even more value across multiple verticals for its community. LeafedOut set itself apart from other rising businesses in the canna community with its focus on social responsibility, marijuana activism, and focus on veteran and patient rights.”

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.

“A St. Louis County Circuit judge has given preliminary approval to a nearly $1.7 million settlement on a class-action lawsuit. It affects about 10,000 people who were charged fees for the issuance of warrants or for failing to appear for a municipal court date in Ferguson, said Michael-John Voss, co-founder and special projects director with ArchCity Defenders,” reports The St. Louis American.

“These municipal court abuses were at the heart of the Ferguson uprising, which began after the killing of Michael Brown in August of 2014 and continued for about two years. Roelif Carter, a 62-year-old disabled military veteran, who depends on disability payment and food stamps, filed the case represented by ArchCity Defenders, the Saint Louis University School of Law Legal Clinics, and the Campbell Law Firm.”

“The city did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement. The American reached out to the city’s attorney for comment and is awaiting a response.”

“Circuit Judge Joseph Dueker has approved a settlement of $1,699,405 to be distributed among Roelif and 10,000 person class, as a partial return for the exploitative warrant and failure to appear fees they were charged by Ferguson’s municipal court between 2009 through the present. The parties have valued the total settlement being worth more than $5 million — a value that reflects the additional amount Ferguson would have continued to collect from 2014 through 2022 if it had not stopped charging the improper fees, attorneys said. The class of people who paid the fees will get 80 percent of what they paid back in a refund if they file a claim.”

Read the article.

“Directors of the Tulare Local Health Care District (TLHCD) voted  … to file a formal complaint against their former attorney with the California State Bar Association,” reports Dave Adalian in Valley Voice.

“’This is a mechanism to remove a bad apple from the profession,’ said TLHCD director Xavier Avila before the board voted unanimously to approve making the complaint. ‘If you’re driving down the road and you see an obstruction, a branch laying in the way, you remove it.’”

“Avila was describing the TLHCD’s former general counsel Bruce Greene.”

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.

“The Eleventh Circuit has clarified the scope of the ‘local event exception’ to the federal-court jurisdiction over ‘mass actions’ conferred by the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), holding that claims by former foundry employees against manufacturers and distributors of products used at the foundry are not within the exception,” posted Valerie Sanders in Eversheds Sutherland’s 11 Circuit Business Blog.

“The plaintiffs in the case are 230 former workers at a now-closed Alabama foundry.  They worked in different jobs at different times, but all claim that they were harmed by exposure to hazardous chemicals during their employment.  The defendants are unrelated companies that manufactured (and in some cases distributed) chemical products used at the foundry, including sands, resins, gases, and other substances of various formulations.  The plaintiffs’ complaint, originally filed in state court, includes several claims, all arising from the allegation that the ‘normal and foreseeable’ use of the defendants’ products at the foundry caused the ‘formation and release of hazardous and carcinogenic chemical substances,’ which harmed them.”

Read the article.

“One after another, like dominos, court systems are shutting down or moving to drastic restrictions. In the process, court dates are being pulled and cases are moving into limbo. As that happens to your own once trial-bound cases, you think, ‘What now?’ What do you do with the time that you now unexpectedly have as your case is put on pause?” asks Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm in Persuasive Litigator.

“Clients will often issue a ‘Stop work’ notice, thinking, ‘Let’s put a pin in it, package everything so it’s fresh, then revisit the situation down the road, closer to the new date.’ Limiting the expenses is, of course, a worthwhile goal, particularly now that the economy is moving into limbo as well. But sometimes, the decision to call an abrupt and complete halt can be more penny-wise than actually wise. When a pause is created, not just by the current Coronavirus measures, but by any delay or uncertainty over a court date, that pause can be an opportunity.”

In this post, Dr. Broda-Bahm shares seven ideas on how to make the best use of an unexpected delay.

Read the article.

“A prominent Chinese dissident may proceed with his malpractice case against a law firm based on allegations that the firm failed adequately to protect his personal data from hackers, a Washington, D.C. district court said in an opinion on February 20.  In his $50 million suit, the plaintiff, Guo Wengui, alleges that after he retained the firm, someone (assumed to be associated with the Chinese government) penetrated the firm’s computer servers, gained access to his confidential information and published it on the Internet,” reports Karen Rubin and Tom Zych in The Law for Lawyers Today’s Malpractice.

“The district court turned back the firm’s motion to dismiss and allowed most of Wengui’s claims to go forward.  The case bears watching as cyberattacks increasingly target law firms, and legal IT teams struggle to stay one step ahead of security threats.”

Read the article.

“PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging age discrimination in hiring by paying out $11.625 million, an amount that is not even a blip on the radar screen of a firm that reports annual revenues in excess of $41 billion,” reports Patricia Barnes in Forbes’ Leadership.

“Moreover, PwC seems somewhat tentative with respect to its commitment to change the hiring practices the plaintiffs have argued since 2016 were grossly discriminatory to older workers.”

“Both sides released a carefully worded press release earlier this month stating that PwC has agreed ‘to enhance certain of its recruiting procedures geared toward further attracting qualified older applicants for entry level jobs.’”

Read the article.

“The three giant drug distributors are negotiating a deal with the states to end thousands of opioid lawsuits nationwide, in which they would pay $19.2 billion over 18 years and immediately submit to stringent monitoring requirements to assure that suspicious orders for prescription opioids would be halted,” reports Jan Hoffman in The New York Times’ Health.

“So far, 31 states plus the District of Columbia have tentatively agreed to the deal, while 19 states, including Florida, Connecticut and West Virginia, have not.”

Read the article.

“New court filings reveal that the Department of Defense wants to ‘reconsider certain aspects’ of its decision to award Microsoft with the coveted $10 billion Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure contract,” reports Taylor Soper in GeekWire.

“The latest legal development is part of Amazon’s protest over the prestigious cloud computing deal, known as JEDI. Amazon Web Services sued the federal government after Microsoft emerged as the surprise winner of the JEDI contract last year.”

“In the new filing, a motion for voluntary remand, the DoD said that it ‘wishes to reconsider its award decision in response to the other technical challenges presented by AWS.’ The DoD is asking for 120 days to assess the matter. It wants to specifically examine one issue related to ‘online marketplace offerings.'”

Read the article.

“A $143 million settlement between Columbia Gas and thousands of people affected by the company’s 2018 pipeline disaster in the Merrimack Valley received final approval from a state judge on Thursday,” reports Callum Borchers in Bostonmix.

“The resolution of a class action civil case comes two weeks after Columbia Gas agreed to plead guilty in a criminal proceeding, acknowledging it violated the federal Pipeline Safety Act. The plea deal included a $53 million fine and required Columbia’s parent company, NiSource, to sell its Massachusetts business. NiSource quickly found a buyer in Eversource.”

“Anyone who lived in Lawrence, Andover or North Andover at the time of widespread fires and explosions in September 2018 can apply for compensation. The deadline to file a claim has been extended to April 27.”

Read the article.