Posted on Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 11:09 am
In the early morning of March 28, nineteen California taxi companies filed a lawsuit against the popular car-sharing service app Uber. This comes directly on the tail of similar lawsuits that have been filed by taxi firms and other for-hire drivers all over the United States, which includes a class action suit that’s currently pending in Florida. In all these cases, the plaintiffs emphasize that Uber is endangering the lives of their passengers through deceptive claims about the safety of their services.
The California lawsuit, in particular, cites ‘false and misleading advertising’ used by Uber Technologies for their UberX platforms. As the Los Angeles Times reported, the ads promote the new platform as “the safest rides on the road” and “safer than a taxi”. The plaintiffs, including cab companies from San Diego, Palm Springs, and San Francisco, claim such statements lead passengers to a false sense of security even when Uber drivers aren’t subjected to background checks and other safety regulations.
The nineteen California cab companies also emphasize that Uber’s misleading ads have inadvertently created unfair competition. The plaintiffs claim that the deceptive UberX ads have caused financial and reputational harm to their services. As the lawsuit claims, Uber’s exaggerated safety claims “spurn plaintiff’s taxi cabs for UberX rides, resulting in lost revenue for plaintiffs.”
Should the lawsuit face trial, a jury will end up determining a specific amount to be awarded for the damages that the plaintiffs are seeking. Eve Behrend, spokesperson to Uber, responded to the lawsuit by saying that it was “frivolous” and “without merit”.
Posted on Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 10:59 am
A resident of Los Angeles, Jesus Pimentel, started the class action ball rolling when he received a parking ticket when the meter where his car was parked expired. He is claiming that the $175 fine was excessive, and in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as well as Article 1 Section 17 of the California Constitution. He also alleged that when he failed to pay the fine, he was not allowed to renew the registration on his car and was threatened with impoundment of his car as well as civil litigation. This, Pimentel’s lawyer says, is a violation of due process, another hit at the Constitution (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments).
Pimentel is the lead plaintiff in a class action suit against the city, but his lawsuit is not the only one. Jeff Galfer, another Los Angeles resident who received similar treatment is also petitioning for joiners for a class action suit. In addition to the city’s Department of Transportation, Galfer also named Xerox State and Local Solutions, which handles the parking ticketing system for the city. If the court rules for the plaintiffs, it could have significant repercussions in transportation departments all over the U.S.
Posted on Monday, March 11th, 2013 at 5:25 pm
In the United States, the recent passage of laws legalizing the recreational sale and use of marijuana in the states of Washington and Colorado has highlighted the natural tension between state and federal legal authority. Marijuana has been illegal under federal law for decades, and most states have similarly criminalized the substance throughout this time. However, with the new laws, it is unclear what actions, if any, will be taken by federal authorities.
Some states have already dabbled with legalized marijuana for medical purposes, and in some instances, particularly in California, the federal government has ignored state prerogatives in these cases in favor of enforcing federal statutes. The new laws, however, represent a far greater challenge to federal authority than that posed by medical marijuana laws, calling into question whether the federal government will even be able to pursue this same strategy, or whether enforcement will necessarily become more enhanced or ignored altogether.
Attorney General Eric Holder, the nation’s highest-ranking lawyer, has recently acknowledged the difficulty of this problem, and provided assurances that the Administration’s position will be clarified relatively soon in the future.
Posted on Friday, March 8th, 2013 at 4:28 pm
Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $8.3 million to a 65 year old man who claimed that the DePuy ASR hip implant he received was defective. This case was the first of over 10,000 lawsuits filed against Johnson & Johnson to be brought to court.
In the jury ruling, Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay over $300,000 to cover the plaintiff’s medical expenses, and another $8 million for pain and suffering resulting from the defective hip implant. Johnson & Johnson issued a recall of 93,000 implants back in 2010 after announcing that 12% of the devices failed after just five years.
Experts agree that the cost of resolving the over 10,000 suits against the company could cost Johnson & Johnson billions of dollars.
Posted on Friday, March 1st, 2013 at 3:59 pm
The Chicago Tribune, one of the largest newspapers in the United States, has recently agreed to settle a class action lawsuit filed by 46 reporters who worked for its Trib Local services over allegations of unpaid overtime wages. The settlement, which is reported to be in the amount of $660,000, will be distributed to employees based on the amount of work for which they were denied overtime payment.
The overtime lawsuit was filed by Carolyn Rusin, and in addition to her share of the settlement, she will also receive $10,000 for bringing the case and $2000 for her individual claim. A court hearing for final approval on the settlement is scheduled for June. Approval is expected. Individuals engaged in an overtime lawsuit may find themselves facing incredible difficulty, especially if they are going against a large company with extensive legal resources. In cases like this, the assistance of an overtime lawyer is almost always necessary to give plaintiffs a shot at securing the verdit they want.
Posted on Wednesday, February 27th, 2013 at 8:32 am
Indigent residents of states across the U.S. are facing a loss of the legal assistance they need as a result of funding shortfalls at both the state and federal level. While constitutional guarantees of access to criminal defense representation for criminal defendants remains an important bulwark of protection for criminal suspects accused of committing a crime, those in other situations who may require legal assistance but who cannot afford an attorney on their own are now facing the possibility that they will not be able to obtain representation.
In Texas, for instance, where nearly six million of the state’s residents have incomes which would qualify them for legal aid in normal circumstances, some individuals have been turned away because of shortfalls in the state’s fund for legal aid. According to some estimates, the state only has enough resources to provide legal assistance to 100,000 individuals in the year.
The problem is part of a national trend, with states struggling to balance their budgets being forced to make tough spending decisions and, in many cases, having to reduce funding for legal aid services. On the national level, the Legal Services Corporation, the federal organization which provides much of the funding for legal aid agencies across the country, has seen its own budget reduced by Congress. As a result, the availability of lawyers for indigent citizens has been dramatically reduced in scope.
Posted on Thursday, February 21st, 2013 at 4:15 pm
A case soon to come before the Supreme Court has far-reaching consequences for civil liberties and law enforcement methods in the United States. At issue is whether law enforcement agencies can legally require individuals who have been arrested, but not convicted, for a criminal offense to submit a DNA sample for testing. These samples would not necessarily be used for the case being investigated, but rather to check against databases of other crime scene investigations and determine whether the suspect had been involved in separate offenses.
Proponents of the law point to its effectiveness in the case which has come to the courts. In Maryland, Alonzo King was arrested for attempted assault, and when police checked his DNA profile against their database of crime scene evidence, they found that his DNA matched that found at the scene of a serious sexual assault. King was, therefore, convicted for this crime, as well as the more minor assault charge.
Opponents of the practice, including King’s lawyers, have argued that DNA testing of arrest suspects is a violation of the 4th Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches. Furthermore, some claim that this overzealous DNA collection practice adds to evidence backlogs and impedes the ability of law enforcement agencies to effectively investigate criminal offenses in a timely manner.
The Supreme Court’s decision will have far-reaching ramifications on defendants and criminal defense lawyers, regardless of how it is decided, as dozens of states have already put in place these types of laws and many more are considering them.
Posted on Monday, February 4th, 2013 at 5:02 pm
The first civil charges have been filed over a controversy that unfolded last year regarding drug samples at a Massachusetts drug lab. Chemist Annie Dookhan, a former employee of the state drug lab, has been accused of tampering with evidence and compromising as many as tens of thousands of drug samples submitted as evidence for criminal proceedings in drug crimes cases. Dookhan was arraigned in her sixth and final arraignment and pleaded “not guilty” to the charges against her.
Because of the invalidity of evidence used in so many MA criminal cases that were affected by Dookhan’s alleged actions, many criminal defense lawyers have been able to have the charges, convictions, and penalties against their clients overturned or dramatically reduced in severity.
Now the first charges have been filed against Dookhan and other authorities for charges and convictions based on faulty evidence. Jeffrey Solomon has named Dookhan, the state, District Attorneys from both Suffolk and Norfolk counties, and one police officer in his lawsuit. Solomon is seeking damages for drug charges and for a mandatory prison sentence that accompanied them.
Posted on Wednesday, January 30th, 2013 at 5:48 pm
The Lancet Neurology recently published the results of a new study revealing a link between IQ and Depakote (valproate). According to the study, children born to women who took valproate while pregnant had, on average, lower IQs at age 6 than children whose mothers took different anti-seizure medications.
This is not the only scrutiny that has befallen Depakote / valproate. In May of 2012, Depakote’s manufacturer, Abbott Laboratories Inc., pleaded guilty to charges that it promoted Depakote for uses that had not been approved and deemed safe by the FDA, and paid $1.5 million in the case.
Numerous plaintiffs have already taken action against Abbott Laboratories Inc. by filing Depakote lawsuits alleging that using the drug while pregnant resulted in a number of serious birth defects in their children, including facial deformities, abnormal digits, spina bifida, and impaired cognitive development.
These new findings could be used as additional evidence in existing lawsuits, or could result in new lawsuits being filed.
Posted on Friday, January 25th, 2013 at 5:03 pm
A huge constitutional law decision was handed down today, as President Barack Obama’s three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) were deemed to be unconstitutional. Obama had been accused of abusing his power as president by make these three appointments while Congress was not meeting, and today, the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia confirmed these accusations.
The controversy in these appointments centered over what can constitute congressional “recess”. The Constitution allows the president to make recess appointments, but what was debated was whether or not recess means when Congress recesses at the end of a session, or any time that Congress is not meeting, be if for a number of days or a number of weeks.
In this instance, President Obama made the NLRB appointments when Congress had recessed for more than a few days, but not during the major recess at the end of the calendar year. This appointment was ruled to be an abuse of power, dealing a major political blow to the president at the beginning of his second term.