|
|
|
Author Of 'The River Why' Sues To Stop Film
Headline News |
2008/05/01 07:30
|
pDavid Duncan, author of The River Why, had sued a husband and wife, and their film companies, and Sierra Club Books, claiming Sierra resold movie rights to his book, without his permission and without paying him, after an initial option expired.
Duncan, author of the critically acclaimed River Why and The Brothers K, sued Thomas Cohen dba Hammermark Productions, and Cohen's wife, Kristi Denton Cohen dba Peloton Productions, in Federal Court.
Duncan says Denton Cohen, who makes corporate training films, claims to have acquired rights to his book from her husband, a Marin County attorney. This right, however, was not Cohen's to give, Duncan says.
Duncan claims the Cohens and Sierra Club Books perpetrated a fraudulent scheme, in which Sierra, purporting to act as his agent, sold Hammermark film rights to the book. But Hammermark never exercised the option, Duncan says.
The complaint continues: SCB, in violation of its fiduciary duty owed to Duncan, revived Hammermark's expired option without any consideration after Hammermark purportedly assigned the rights to Cohen and Cohen offered SCB an opportunity to invest on its own account in the film production. Even in the absence of this fraudulent conduct, Duncan terminated Hammermark's right to prepare a film derivative work in 1993 because Hammermark failed to fulfill its obligations within a reasonable time. ... Duncan has gone to great lengths in an effort to resolve the impasse created by Denton Cohen's insistence that she owns the film rights to the book and SCB's faithless conduct. Denton Cohen is not qualified to produce the film, and Duncan never would have agreed to grant her the rights. All else seemingly has failed, and Duncan now seeks herein by way of a lawsuit to finally put a stop to Denton Cohen's infringement of the right to prepare derivative works of his book 'The River Why.'/p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal lawsuit filed over jail overcrowding
Headline News |
2008/04/30 07:45
|
| pCivil rights lawyer Jonathan Feinberg [firm profile] filed a lawsuit Monday on behalf of 11 inmates challenging the unconstitutional conditions in which inmates are currently being held at four Philadelphia jails. US District Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled last January that overcrowded Philadelphia jails violate inmates' constitutional rights and therefore require court monitoring. Surrick's ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by Feinberg's partner, University of Pennsylvania law professor David Rudovsky, in 2006 and ordered the City to immediately rectify conditions including the failure to provide beds and bedding, ... material for personal hygiene including soap, warm water, toothpaste, toothbrushes and shower facilities. Suffolk's temporary injunction expired several months ago, and the new lawsuit now seeks class certification on behalf of all Philadelphia inmates. /ppA similar lawsuit filed by Rudovsky 35 years ago resulted in court oversight of Philadelphia jails from 1971 to 2001./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court orders new credit card case trial
Headline News |
2008/04/28 07:41
|
pA U.S. appeals court reinstated a class-action suit on Friday against a group of banks that force their credit card customers to use arbitration instead of the courts to settle disputes.
The credit cardholders alleged that the banks (with other co-conspirators, including American Express (AXP.N) and Wells Fargo (WFC.N)) illegally colluded to force the cardholders to accept mandatory arbitration clauses in their cardholder agreements, according to the ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals./ppThe cardholders argued that the banks had violated antitrust laws by refusing to issue cards to individuals who did not agree to arbitration, according to the decision./ppThe cardholders want the court to stop the banks from compelling arbitration, prevent them from continuing their alleged collusion and invalidate the existing mandatory arbitration clauses./ppA lower court judge sided with the banks, which include Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), Discover Financial Services (DFS.N), Capital One Bank (COF.N), JPMorgan Chase amp; Co (JPM.N) and Citigroup Inc (C.N), and dismissed the case, saying the cardholders lacked standing./ppThe panel of three appellate judges disagreed. The cardholders have adequately alleged antitrust injuries, it said in its ruling./ppBank of America, Capital One and Discover declined to comment. The other banks did not immediately return calls seeking comment./ppWe're quite happy with the decision, said Charles Goodwin, whose Philadelphia law firm represents the credit cardholders. The cardholders are a large class coming from Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and California, he added./ppOther banks named in the lawsuit include units of HSBC (HSBA.L) and Washington Mutual Inc (WM.N)./ppJoe Ridout of the nationwide nonprofit group Consumer Action hailed the ruling, saying: It's unfair for consumers to have to give up their legal and constitutional rights just to get a credit card.
/p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fed. judge declares 2nd mistrial in terror case
Headline News |
2008/04/17 08:12
|
| pUS District Judge Joan A. Lenard Wednesday declared a second mistrial in a terrorism prosecution of six men charged with conspiring to bomb the Sears Tower in Chicago and the FBI headquarters in Miami after the jury was unable to reach a verdict after 13 days of deliberations. In December 2007 Lenard declared an initial mistrial when the jury was deadlocked after nine days of deliberations. A seventh man was acquitted in that proceeding./ppThe seven were indicted last year on charges of conspiring to provide material support to al Qaeda; conspiring to provide material support, training, and resources to terrorists; conspiring to maliciously damage and destroy by means of an explosive; and conspiring to levy war against the government of the United States. The indictment alleged that ringleader Narseal Batiste recruited the six other defendants to organize and train for a mission to wage war against the United States government, and that they pledged an oath to al Qaeda in an attempt to secure financial and logistical backing. Lawyers for some of the men said that their clients were entrapped by an FBI informant posing as an al Qaeda operative. If the men had been convicted, they would have faced up to 70 years in prison./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Says Lifelock Has Troubling Bosses
Headline News |
2008/04/11 07:41
|
Lifelock misrepresents and deceptively advertises its identity theft protection service, for which it charges $110 a year, a class action claims in Middlesex County Court.
Plaintiffs claim Lifelong does not actually provide the services it offers, that its president Richard Davis dreamed up the idea while sitting in a jail cell after having been arrested for failing to repay a $16,000 casino marker, and that Lifelock's Chief Marketing Officer and co-founder Robert Maynard is under a lifelong FTC injunction because of misleading infomercials he ran for his own credit improvement company.
nbsp; nbsp; The complaint adds, Finally, and perhaps most disturbing ... Maynard himself had engaged in the very type of identity theft his company had set out to eliminate, but stealing his own father's identity.
nbsp; nbsp; Plaintiffs say that whatever services Lifelock does provide its 900,000 subscribers are available elsewhere for free |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paxil Teen Suicide Case Trumped by Michigan Law
Headline News |
2008/04/01 07:53
|
pThe parents of a Michigan teenager who killed herself while on the antidepressant Paxil cannot sue the drug's manufacturer because a state law grants immunity to the maker of any drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration. /ppU.S. District Judge Paul L. Maloney of the Western District of Michigan said FDA approval of Paxil use by adults was enough to shield manufacturer SmithKline Beecham Corp., even though the agency never approved the drug's use by teens./pp
He therefore dismissed Nadine White and David B. McCullough's lawsuit against SKB over their 16-year-old daughter Moriah's 2001 suicide after taking Paxil for three months./ppMichigan is the only state with a law providing drugmakers immunity from state tort suits if the FDA has certified their products as safe and effective. The only exceptions to the statute are for fraud on the FDA or bribery of an agency official. /ppIn this case, White and McCullough filed a negligence and strict-liability suit against SKB in a Pennsylvania federal court because the company is located in that state. /ppThe drugmaker won a change of venue to the Western District of Michigan because the plaintiffs are residents of that state. It then filed a motion to dismiss./ppIn their opposition to the motion the plaintiffs argued that their suit is a failure-to-warn case because SKB never warned doctors not to prescribe Paxil to teens or children and, in fact, conducted a secret campaign to promote such off-label use. /ppMoreover, since the company never applied to the FDA for marketing approval to prescribe the drug to teens and children, it cannot argue that it has immunity under the Michigan statute, they said. /ppJudge Maloney rejected that argument, saying the Michigan Legislature provided immunity to drug manufacturers for FDA-approved products and that it is uncontested that Paxil was approved by the agency for use in adults./ppThe statute does not limit the protection to situations when the drug is used for approved purposes, he said. Should the Legislature wish to limit the protection available to off-label uses of the drug, it may do so. /p |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
