Perry v. Schwarzenegger
Judge strikes down California's same-sex marriage ban, finding that "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians."
U.S. v. Arizona
Arizona judge enjoins enforcement of a new immigration law's requirement that police determine the immigration status of
every person who is arrested.
McGuire v. United Airlines
Michigan woman says a United Express flight crew locked her in a plane for nearly four hours after it landed because they failed to ensure that all passengers had disembarked.
R.H. v. Schenectady Sch. Dist.
Middle school student says he was suspended for wearing rosary beads because the rosary "is considered a gang-related symbol" and cannot be worn in school.
lc_search
LC_DayByDay

 Aug   September 10   Oct

SMTWTFS
   1  2  3  4
  5  6  7  8  91011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930 
Julianna Willis Technology
LC_BySubject
OnTheMap

rss

LC_ExtraPoints

• 9th Circuit says the U.S. may be held vicariously liable for the sexual harassment of asylum applicants by an INS officer. "California law makes the United States bear the cost of [Thomas] Powell’s conduct, unauthorized but incidental to the asylum system." Lu v. Powell

• Nevada man sues the Mormon church over a back injury he suffered performing baptisms for the dead. The church was negligent in not warning Daniel Dastrup that "the repetitive motion required for performing baptisms for the dead could cause serious damage to a person's back."
Dastrup v. LDS Church

• Attorney says he was harassed by his boss at a Newport Beach, Calif., law firm because refused to attend a seminar "where he would be stripped naked, not allowed to leave, be required to discuss details of his sex life, handle a wooden dildo, and potentially allow other men to touch his genitals."
Eggleston v. Bisnar/Chase

• Parents of a 10-year-old boy who witnessed a killer whale's fatal attack on a trainer sue Sea World Orlando for infliction of emotional distress. "Without question, it was reasonably foreseeable and in fact predictable that an attack such as this one by a killer whale with the tendencies of Tilikum was inevitable." Connell v. Sea World

• Denver judge dismisses Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols's civil rights claims against prison officials for denying him a high-fiber diet.
Nichols v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

• Illinois teenager with cerebral palsy sues the Special Olympics for refusing to let her play basketball with the help of a service dog.
Youngwith v. Special Olympics

• Montana judge sets aside a government decision removing protections for the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf. The Endangered Species Act "was not intended to sow the dragon's teeth of strife or to plant the seeds of future conflicts that have given rise to this case."
Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar

• San Francisco judge dismisses a cereal consumer's false advertising suit. "[T]here is nothing in the packaging or marketing of Cap’n Crunch that would in any way deceive a reasonable consumer into believing that the cereal contains or derives nutritional value from real fruit." Werbel v. PepsiCo

• Iowa judge says a sheriff denied the applications of a father and son for concealed weapons permits in retaliation for their political activism. "This is a great reminder that the First Amendment protects the sole individual who may be a gadfly, kook, weirdo, nut job, whacko, and spook, with the same force of protection as folks with more majoritarian and popular views." Dorr v. Weber

• 5th Circuit rules that a school district violated the religious freedom of a Native American boy by requiring him to wear his long hair in a bun on top of his head or in a braid tucked into his shirt. The boy "has a sincere religious belief in wearing his hair uncut and in plain view."
A.A. v. Needville Ind. Sch. Dist.




Alltop_125x125.jpg

ADVERT

Free no win no fee claims advice for personal injury.


ADVERT

For accident claims advice, visit a personal injury lawyer.


ADVERT

Injury Claims

Britney Attorney Could Pay for Federal Court Ploy Print

The diversion of the Britney Spears conservatorship case to federal court is shaping up to be a debacle for those who wish to free the embattled pop star from her father's control.

Attorney Jon Eardley, who purports to represent Spears, filed court papers Feb. 14 removing the conservatorship case from state court. Federal jurisdiction applies to the case, he argued, because the two conservators have supplemented the prescription drugs Spears receives “with a near total deprivation of her civil rights.”

Spears's father, James Spears, and attorney Andrew Wallet are acting as temporary conservators pending a March 10 hearing on a permanent conservatorship.

But U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez indicated last week that he will decline jurisdiction and remand the case back to state court. And counsel for James Spears is urging him to sanction Eardley and “any person or persons with whom he has worked in concert with the removal [to federal court], or in whose agency he acts.”

“This willful attempt to interfere with the Conservatorship Proceedings -– which, if successful, could have resulted in dire consequences for Britney –- justifies not only an award of attorneys’ fees, but also far more severe sanctions,” Jeffrey D. Wexler says in a motion to remand.

The brief suggests Eardley has links to Sam Lufti, a friend of Britney Spears who has been battling with her parents over management of her affairs.

UPDATE

  • Judge Gutierrez has granted the motion to remand, finding in a Feb. 26 minute order that Eardley "caused the case to be removed to federal court while clearly lacking the authority to do so." However, he declined to award attorney fees to James Spears.

  • Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, a state court case may qualify for removal if it “raise[s] a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.” Grable & Sons v. Darue Engineering, 545 U.S. 308 (2005).

    Eardley originally said the Britney Spears conservatorship meets the Grable test because “the deprivation of her civil liberties by the conservator is so severe as to interfere with the effectiveness of the [prescribed] medications.”

    In a more recent filing, he abandoned that approach, arguing instead that Spears's rights were violated when the state court waived notice to her before establishing the conservatorship.

    But Wexler says Eardley is an “attorney without a client” since the state court ruled in the conservatorship proceeding that Spears lacks the capacity to hire her own counsel. He also notes that a judge sanctioned Eardley in 2006 for filing a removal action on behalf of a litigant he did not represent.

    According to Wexler, James Spears has already incurred attorneys’ fees and costs of more than $27,495 as a result of the removal action.

    Judge Gutierrez could rule on the motion to remand by the end of this week. In a Feb. 19 minute order, he said Eardley's jurisdictional claims “appear to be defective” because they “may not 'arise under' federal law.”

    By Matthew Heller
    2/26/08


     
    rc_insidestories
    • Court Raps Judge Over 'Moral' Views in Adoption Case

      The Georgia Court of Appeals has rejected the reactionary views of a family court judge who ruled that a foster parent could not adopt a child because her out-of-wedlock relationship with a man was “immoral.”
      Read more...
    • Off With His Head! Woman Sues 'Mad Hatter' Actor

      Experimental theater clashes with premises liability law in the case of a Kentucky woman who claims she was injured while watching a performance of a circus-inspired play when one of the actors balanced his knee on her head.
      Read more...
    • Charity Worker Accuses CEO of Hypnotic Seduction

      A former charity worker may be pushing the limits of sexual harassment law by alleging that her boss required her to participate in “relaxation sessions” on his “magic couch” during which he hypnotized and molested her.
      Read more...
    • Appeal is Expert's Latest Challenge to Judges

      Expert witness Dr. David Egilman was previously successful in showing he had standing to appeal a judicial order in a case in which he was not a party — but that case may not help him in his latest challenge to a trial judge.
      Read more...
    • Plaintiff's Expert Files Appeal in 'Popcorn Lung' Lawsuit

      A controversial expert witness for plaintiffs has filed an unusual non-party appeal of a Washington state judge's decision finding his theory that snackers can contract lung disease from exposure to microwave popcorn is not scientifically sound.
      Read more...
    • Philly School Sued Over Race Attack on Student's Mom

      Taking civil rights law to what may be an extreme, an Asian-American woman is alleging a Philadelphia high school's tolerance of racism rendered her “helpless prey” to African-American students who attacked her when she picked her child up from the school.
      Read more...
    • 'McSteamy' Sex Tape Suit Cools off With Settlement

      Acting couple Eric Dane and Rebecca Gayheart have dropped a $1 million lawsuit against Gawker.com for publishing a videotape featuring them in a nude threesome with a friend after the gossip website agreed to take down the much-viewed posting.
      Read more...
    RC_OnFile

    Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan
    Subject: State secrets
    Document: En banc opinion

    Young v. Facebook
    Subject: Discrimination
    Document: Complaint

    LaRocco v. McDonald's
    Subject: Hot chocolate scalding
    Document: Complaint

    Stovell v. James
    Subject: LeBron's paternity
    Document: Motion to dismiss

    Arnaout v. Warden
    Subject: Muslim inmate prayer
    Document: John Walker Lindh declaration

    more

    RC_OnTrial

    McCourt v. McCourt
    Court: L.A. Superior
    Subject: Dodgers divorce

    Pom Wonderful v. Welch Foods
    Court: USDC, C. Calif.
    Subject: False advertising

    more


    RC_OnTheDocket

    McCourt v. McCourt
    Date: 8/30/10
    Court: L.A. Superior
    Hearing: Dodgers divorce trial

    more