Sometimes we can get the impression that celebrities are very special, maybe not quite mortal. But when it comes to divorce, the stars often prove themselves to be decidedly normal. Just like other couples, the rich and famous squabble over support and child custody. Unlike the rest of us, however, celebrities can often afford protracted legal battles. Let’s take a look at some celebrity divorces and custody battles in the spotlight recently....
The Supreme Court will decide whether corporations can be held liable under the Alien Tort Act (ATA). The Court granted cert in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum on Monday. The question now is whether the Court will agree with the Seventh, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits that the ATA applies to corporations, or if it will affirm the Second Circuit on Kiobel, the lone opinion that denied liability. In Flomo v. Firestone Natural Rubber Co....
US v. Sanchez, 08-2679, concerned a challenge to the district court’s convictions of defendant for conspiracy and attempted kidnapping of witnesses in a trial against a drug kingpin, and conspiracy to retaliate against these witnesses. However, the court reversed and remanded with respect to defendant’s conviction on the retaliation count as the government presented no evidence that defendant knew the two targets of the kidnapping plot had given testimony against the drug trafficker for whom defendant was purportedly working, but rather, evidence suggested that defendant thought the witnesses owed the drug kingpin money, Thus, defendant’s sentence is remanded for resentencing on an independent ground as the district judge erroneously withheld a three-level reduction under U....
Breach of Contract Action by Ex-MSNBC Anchor In DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., No. 09-2821, an action for breach of contract (and related New York Labor Law violations), defamation, and tortious interference with prospective business relations, based on the termination of plaintiff’s employment by defendant as an entertainment reporter, correspondent, and anchor, the court affirmed in part the dismissal of the complaint where the complaint failed entirely to describe any third party with whom plaintiff had prospective business relations to be interfered with....
Just call him Lazarus. Benjamin Schreiber, 66, is a living and breathing inmate in the Iowa State Penitentiary, where he is serving a life sentence for bludgeoning a man to death with an ax handle. But he claims that he technically died four years ago when septic poisoning caused his heart to stop beating. Schreiber is among the living today only because doctors were able to revive him. But because his heart did stop for a time, Schreiber claims that he has completed his life sentence and should be released from prison....
Oneida Indian Nation v. Cty. of Oneida, No. 07-2430, involved an action by the Oneida Indian Nation claiming that the State of New York wrongfully appropriated its lands. The court affirmed in part partial summary judgment for defendants, holding that was controlling, and thus all claims dependent on the assertion of a current possessory interest in the subject lands were barred by equitable defenses. However, the court reversed in part on the grounds that 1) plaintiffs’ purportedly nonpossessory claim was also barred, both by New York’s sovereign immunity and by the equitable principles applied in Cayuga; and 2) on the same basis, the alternative nonpossessory claim articulated on appeal by the plaintiffs, premised on a violation of the Nonintercourse Act, was also barred....
A family-owned company in Indiana has won a temporary injunction against the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate, Reuters reports. In a split-panel decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated the case, Grote v. Sebelius, with its December decision in Korte v. Sebelius, and granted the Grote family’s request to be exempted from the birth control mandate pending appeal. The members of the Grote Family are Catholic and operate their business in accordance with the precepts of their faith, including the Catholic Church’s teachings regarding the moral wrongfulness of abortifacient drugs, contraception, and sterilization....
Following Goya Foods CEO’s recent announcement of his support for President Trump, the president and his daughter Ivanka appeared to return the favor, as each posted photos of themselves posing with Goya products. The plugs for the brand generated an intense amount of backlash on social media, with many arguing that the move was not just in bad taste, but possibly illegal. Is this a violation of federal ethics laws?...
The former Subway pitchman turned social pariah, Jared Fogle, has filed a motion requesting Judge Tanya Pratt recuse herself from his case. The longshot motion is not only not likely to go anywhere, it has no bearing on his conviction or length of his sentence, as those appeals have already been taken and squashed. In short, Fogle incredulously claims that Judge Pratt is biased against him because she has teenage daughters and Fogle’s case involves convictions for child pornography with teen girls and for sex with teens as well....
Three years ago, it was the authorities who wanted her as a witness in a murder case. Now lawyers say she is listening to kids and recording them without permission. It all sounds bad, except everybody knows Alexa is listening to our conversations 24/7. So who’s to blame if parents let her babysit their kids? “Alexa, What’s Your Defense?” In lawsuits filed in Washington and California, attorneys say parents never consented to have Alexa record their kids....
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, we couldn’t agree more. Folks, Ohio has this ridiculous election law that bars people from making false statements with malice about candidates. It’s a load of crap, restricts speech, is far from content-neutral, and basically makes political satire illegal. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the remedy for false speech is more speech, not some unconstitutional law that will die an expensive (litigating the issue up to the Supreme Court can’t be cheap) death....
It’s been a nail-biter for judicial nominees since the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. Sure, Kavanaugh survived the surreal proceedings. But not every judicial nominee is making it in the stormy political climate. In the latest showdown, Jonathan Kobes cleared confirmation by one vote. Vice President Mike Pence cast the unprecedented tiebreaker. The Tiebreaker Over the “not qualified” rating by the ABA’s committee on the federal judiciary, Kobes will take a seat on the U....
In a case involving an agreement by a union to indemnify and hold harmless an employer for the employer’s withdrawal liability to a pension plan under ERISA and the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendment Act of 1980 (MPPAA), the existence of a union contract is not a jurisdictional requirement under section 301, and the case is ripe for adjudication. The district court’s judgment is vacated and remanded where there are not enough “definite indications” of public policy in ERISA or the MPPAA to preclude an indemnification agreement between an employer and a third party for the employer’s withdrawal liability, where the employer agrees that it will always remain primarily liable for the liability....
In a action for breach of contract and securities fraud, district court’s grant of plaintiff’s motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) the court properly ruled that plaintiff’s contract claim was barred by the Statute of Frauds as the possibility of performance of the alleged oral agreement within one year depended solely on the will and actions of plaintiff, the party seeking to enforce the agreement; and 2) plaintiff’s securities fraud claim under the Securities Exchange Act and SEC rules fail for lack of plausible and cogent allegations of scienter as the factual allegations do not give rise to an inference of either fraudulent intent or conscious recklessness, and the inferences advocated by plaintiff were not as compelling as an inference of negligence....
In a case where the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services sought to remove two children from their father, the father sought to remove the case to federal court. The removal of the children, and termination of parental rights, may well go ahead, but removal to federal court cannot, the Sixth Circuit ruled on Monday. When the Department filed a petition to terminate Shaun Winesburgh’s parental rights over his two children due to neglect and severe abuse, he claimed they were discriminating against him based on his mental disability and sought to remove the case to federal court....
In plaintiff’s suit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claiming that the Department violated the Act’s requirements by reporting that plaintiff is behind on a loan that has been paid off on four separate occasions, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity for compensatory-damages claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act; 2) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U....
Around these parts, we call it the Supreme Court’s BFC, or Big [Fall] Conference. Others call it the “long” conference. We’re sure the clerks have their own nicknames for annual stack of around 2,000 petitions. This year’s BFC falls on Monday, September 29, and when it gets here, the justices and their clerks will have their work cut out for them, with thousands of petitions seeking SCOTUS review. Nearly all of those petitions, of course, will be denied, but each petition has to be reviewed by both the cert....
Crack Cocaine Conviction Affirmed In US v. Brewer, No. 09-3909, the court affirmed defendant’s conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, distribution of crack cocaine, and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, holding that 1) the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant, and the search of his person was a valid search incident to arrest; 2) it was beyond serious question that the evidence in this case was sufficient to sustain defendant’s convictions; 3) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to instruct the jury about the punishment defendant faced if convicted; and 4) the district court considered and rejected defendant’s request for a variance based on the crack/powder disparity, and thus was within its discretion to depart downward....
In an honest services fraud prosecution involving two former San Diego City Council members, one defendant’s convictions are affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err by basing the denial of defendant’s motion for acquittal on the statements of co-conspirators; 2) there was sufficient evidence to find a quid pro quo relationship between defendant’s promised actions and the political contributions at issue; and 3) private gain is not an element of honest services fraud....
Conviction for filing false tax returns is affirmed and sentence vacated where: 1) there was no impermissible constructive amendment of the indictment warranting a new trial; 2) there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction as the jury could have found that defendant signed the returns willfully and knowing that they were false; 3) defendant’s claim that the government violated his due process rights when it took inconsistent positions in the two cases against him fails as the two trials did not involve the same underlying crime and the government did not take fundamentally opposite positions in its two prosecutions; and 4) defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him was not violated....
