Posts

Another day, another iconic 1960s musician’s image going to federal court over trademark disputes. In August, the Ninth Circuit said that Jimi Hendrix’s post-mortem publicity rights survived in Washington state, thanks to a state statute allowing it (otherwise, publicity rights don’t normally survive death). Last week, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict finding several companies violated the Lanham Act by using Bob Marley’s image on T-shirts and other merchandise....

Let’s say you’re a microbiologist that works at a chemical company and you find out your best friend is pregnant with your husband’s child. What would you do? If you’re Bond … Carol Bond, then obviously, you try to poison your best friend. But in a turn of events that’s more Austin Powers, than 007, the mistress/best friend only winds up suffering a burn to her thumb. To make things more complicated, rather than being an open and shut state criminal case, this appeal involves issues of treaty obligations and federalism....

Can you remember which teams played in the Super Bowl in 2004? Neither can we. All we remember is the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction. Apparently, there was a football game between commercials and musical acts. The New England Patriots beat the Carolina Panthers 32-29. Sports Illustrated called it the “Greatest Super Bowl of all time.” (Clearly, we Googled this.) No one cares. What we continue to care about, nearly eight years later, is the bare breast that we may have seen for 9/16 of a second; the nip slip that cost CBS a $550,000 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) fine....

Niagara Mohawk Power Assn. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., No. 08-3843, involved an action to recover costs pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The district court granted summary judgment for defendant. As the court of appeals wrote: “At the center of this dispute is a contaminated site in Troy, New York – known as the Water Street Site – that over the last 100 years has played host to various industrial activities including a coke plant, a steel manufacturing facility, a manufactured gas plant, and a petroleum distribution facility....

A lawsuit filed just days ago in Colorado’s state courts against two of the biggest oil companies, Exxon and Suncor, alleges that the oil producers have caused climate change and damages to the citizens of the state of Colorado. Unlike similar cases filed in New York and California, Colorado is not alleging damages based upon sea level change. Rather, the state claims that the “dwindling” snow pack, increased fire risk, and changes in the amount of annual precipitation, caused by climate change, are its damages....

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the sentence of a heroin dealer last week, and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing. Michael Lowry, 28, was sentenced to 10 years behind bars for dealing heroin. He was caught after attempting to sell the drugs to a police informant. He was indicted on possession with intent to distribute less than 100 grams of heroin and he pleaded guilty....

In an antitrust action against Ford Motor Co. (Ford), district court’s order granting Ford’s Bill of Costs is affirmed where: 1) district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding costs without specifically addressing each item as there is no requirement under FRCP 54 that a district court provide a detailed review or analysis of every item of cost it awards; rather, a prevailing party is presumptively entitled to recover all of its costs and plaintiff failed to offer any specific basis to rebut the presumption in favor of awarding the costs to Ford or that the award was unreasonable or unnecessary; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding costs of video depositions; and 3) district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the recovery of pro hac vice fees of the clerk under 28 U....

In its first merits opinion of the term, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prevent the retrial of a Puerto Rican lawmaker and a businessman who were convicted of bribery. Those convictions were later overturned because of faulty jury instructions. And they were paired with inconsistent acquittals, on two uncontested counts. At issue before the Court was whether those inconsistent verdicts, following the vacatur of the bribery convictions, prevented the government from trying the men once again....

The European Union’s highest court dealt a mighty blow against social media platforms with a decision earlier this month that extends the region’s laws on defamatory content beyond its own borders. Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, a politician of Austria’s Green Party, sued Facebook over comments made on the online platform calling her corrupt, fascist, and a “lousy traitor.” Judges of the European Court of Justice not only found the comments were defamatory, but also that Facebook had a responsibility to do something about them....

Swearnigen-El v. Cook County Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 09-2709, and Egonmwan v. Cook County Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 09-2764, each involved a plaintiff’s suit against a county, county sheriff’s department and individuals, arising from their prosecution for custodial sexual misconduct while employed as correctional officers in a county jail’s women’s division. Both plaintiffs were acquitted and each made section 1983 and other similar claims against defendants. In Swearnigen-El, the plaintiff claimed constructive discharge and malicious prosecution against defendants....

Justice Joan Larsen will join the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, becoming the second woman confirmed to a federal appeals court by the Senate this week. Larsen also becomes the ninth woman on the Sixth Circuit, bringing her perspective to a court where men outnumber women two to one. The female jurist is hardly defined by gender, but her appointment represents clear differences in the judiciary. In addition to more women, President Trump has appointed more judges in a shorter period of time than the last two presidents....

Chinese citizen’s claim of changed country conditions based on China’s “one-child” policy Liang v. Holder, 09-3713, concerned a Chinese citizen’s petition for review of the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen and again apply for asylum, withholding of removal and CAT protection. In denying the petition, the court held that the BIA gave a rational explanations for its conclusion that petitioner failed to show changed country conditions regarding China’s “one-child” policy, in her home province since the time of her initial asylum hearing....

Noe v. US, No. 08-2057, involved habeas proceedings arising from a drug conspiracy conviction and sentence. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of petitioner’s habeas petition, on the grounds that 1) the district court’s determination that defendant and his codefendant were represented by independent counsel was not clearly erroneous; 2) petitioner claimed that defense counsel’s failure to pursue a split conspiracy defense or to “point the finger” at the codefendant established an actual conflict, but he did not show that these strategies were objectively reasonable; and 3) petitioner made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to conflict-free assistance of counsel....

In June, we blogged about the Second Circuit’s opinion reversing Judge Rakoff’s denial of a consent decree between the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and Citigroup. Last week, on remand, Judge Rakoff reluctantly approved the consent decree stating, “That Court [the Second Circuit] has not fixed the menu, leaving this Court with nothing but sour grapes.” Ouch. Let’s take a look at the settlement, the opinion, and how we got here....

Calvin Thomas filed a civil rights claim against the State of Illinois and the Illinois Department of Correction, alleging that he had been subjected to cruel and unusual conditions in his prison cell. What was so cruel and unusual about Thomas’ digs? Try cockroaches. And mice. And a missing window pane that let the rain in. (Is there anything worse than damp clothes?) This week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Thomas’ case....

The Supreme Court doesn’t care about Internet memes or mass protests. The Justices aren’t influenced by messages projected on the Court’s darkened columns or Facebook profile pictures. The Court cares about standing. And now, a lot of other people do, too. Standing is finally a hot topic because the outcomes in the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases could turn on a simple procedural issue: Can the Court even rule on the merits?...

In an ERISA action seeking benefits under plaintiffs’ employer’s disability plan, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where, even if the doctrine of “reasonable expectations” applied here, the one-year contractual statute of limitations met its requirements and also met the statutory and regulatory standards for disclosure. Read Scharff v. Raytheon Co. Short-Term Disability Plan, No. 07-55951 Appellate Information Submitted May 7, 2009 Filed September 9, 2009 Judges Opinion by Judge Graber...

If you’ve never heard of paw-ternity leave, then it’s a good thing you’re seeing this. It’s a new trend, and if you’re not on-board, you can expect to be branded as a dog hating monster. Basically, it’s like parental, paternity, or maternity leave, except instead of it triggering when an employee welcomes a new human being into their family, it triggers upon employees getting a dog, which for some folks is pretty darn close to the same thing....

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against jail guards for permitting an attack on plaintiff, dismissal of the complaint is reversed where only those individuals who are prisoners (as defined by 42 U.S.C. section 1997e(h)) at the time they file suit must comply with the exhaustion requirements of 42 U.S.C. section 1997(a). Read Talamantes v. Levya, No. 06-55939 Appellate Information Argued and Submitted January 16, 2009 Filed August 6, 2009...

It was a really bad idea, they just didn’t realize how bad until years later when their convictions were upheld. Their plan was to close lanes and lock up traffic to make the city look bad. It would be four days of angry commuters stuck on a bridge and revenge against the mayor for not endorsing the governor. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Wait, you put that in an email?! “It Made No Sense” That’s how the “Bridgegate” story unraveled in United States of America v....