Monkey See, Monkey Sue Update
Posted on 01/12/2016 @ 09:00 AM
A judge in San Francisco has ruled on what came to be one of the most ridiculous lawsuits of 2015. To read the full story, click here.
Monkey See, Monkey Sue
Posted on 10/28/2015 @ 10:00 AM
“A monkey, an animal rights organization and a primatologist walk into federal court…” Read this lawyer’s delightful response to PETA’s absurd monkey selfie lawsuit. Click here to read the story.
Press-Telegram Op-Ed: Why lead paint lawsuits are a dud for California cities, counties: Carmen Trutanich
Posted on 10/28/2015 @ 10:00 AM
In today’s Press Telegram, Carmen Trutanich, former city attorney for Los Angeles, addresses the long reach of lead-paint lawsuits into the private sector.
Among his points he opines:
It appears that those who joined this lawsuit failed to consider the possible impacts to private property owners by the court’s findings. For example, the verdict, in essence, labels “every” painted residential building, constructed prior to 1981, as a “public nuisance.”
This label remains with the structure until it is inspected, and if lead paint is found, until the lead paint is abated or removed, and then passes re-inspection. In essence, the findings transfer the stigma of lead paint to every single private property owner via judicial decree, in exchange for money to the cities, counties, and of course, the lawyers.
How will the entire abatement process for all these properties be handled so as not to impact property values? And who do you think is going to actually pay for all this to happen?
Homeowners and landlords whose properties are labeled a “public nuisance” could see drastic declines in home values. And the hardship won’t be isolated to the private sector; governments will suffer too. Tax revenues will fall as property taxes decrease.
To read the entire op-ed, click here.
History Suggests California Will Require Warning Labels For Bacon
Posted on 10/27/2015 @ 10:00 AM
Sacramento’s Capitol Public Radio reports that the World Health Organization has classified bacon, ham and other processed meats as carcinogenic. As such, would California require Proposition 65 warning labels?
Passed in 1986, Proposition 65 requires California to compile a list of “chemicals known to increase cancer risk.” If these meats are added to that list, everyone from grocers and butchers to restaurants will have to post a notification.
The report notes that WHO-identified carcinogens are historically added to the Proposition 65 list, but State health officials say they are reviewing the WHO's findings and are not sure if they will add processed meats.
To listen to the report and read the story, click here.
Should you be allowed to invest in a lawsuit?
Posted on 10/26/2015 @ 10:00 AM
A recent New York Times article tackles the question, “Should you be allowed to invest in a lawsuit?” This practice is also known as litigation finance.
Those involved argue that it allows smaller companies to afford a day in court. Detractors worry that it could give rise to a litigation arms race, with speculative money aggravating already high litigation costs.
To read the story, click here.