
• Owners of Who Dat?, Inc. sue the NFL and the New Orleans Saints for trademark infringement, seeking to protect the mark that "has become one of the most recognizable in all of America and quickly became well-known around the world." Who Dat?, Inc. v. NFL Properties
• Army bomb disposal expert sues the makers of "The Hurt Locker" for plagiarizing his life story. The film is "nothing more than the exploitation of a real life honorable, courageous, and long serving member of our country’s armed forces, by greedy multi-billion dollar 'entertainment' corporations." Sarver v. The Hurt Locker
• Former patient sues the Cincinnati hospital where he was sexually assaulted by a transgender nurse. The nurse's "employment while masquerading as a member of the female gender in a hospital environment involved an unreasonable risk of harm to others." Evans v. University of Cincinnati
• Federal judge enjoins the City of Phoenix from enforcing a noise ordinance against "sound generated in the course of religious expression," finding the right of churches to ring bells outweighs "the City's interest in preserving the peace and tranquility of its neighborhoods." St. Mark Roman Catholic Parish v. City of Phoenix
• 5th Circuit says a Texas city's junked vehicle ordinance applies to a cactus planter made out of wrecked Oldsmobile 88. "Irrespective of the intentions of its creators ... the car-planter is a utilitarian device, an advertisement, and ultimately a 'junked vehicle.'" Kleinman v. City of San Marcos
• Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols notifies a federal judge that he has gone on hunger strike, saying he is "prepared to die if necessary because he is done allowing his body to be defiled by [ ] refined and dead foods." Nichols v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
• Texas judge finds the makers of a film about Rin Tin Tin did not infringe on the trademarks of a breeder of German Shepherds. "Defendants['] title 'Finding Rin Tin Tin: The Adventure Continues" is a fair use of the term 'Rin Tin Tin.'" Rin Tin Tin, Inc. v. First Look Studios
• Illinois appeals court says the contact sports exception to negligence liability does not apply to the case of an athletic trainer who was struck in the eye by a hockey puck while refilling water bottles. Michael Weisberg "suffered injuries as a result of alleged conduct that was not inherent to the sport of hockey." Weisberg v. Chicago Steel

|
|
Jeweler Awarded $3.8M for Pink Diamond Theft |
|
 |
John Stafford
Julius Klein Diamonds insists the pink diamond it allegedly stole from an Ohio jeweler never existed. But the mysterious gem was real enough to a federal jury, which awarded John Stafford $3.8 million for his loss.
The case opened a window into the secretive world of diamond trading, pitting Stafford, who operates a retail jewelry store in Miami Township, Ohio, against JKD, an industry giant which is one of only nine Diamond Trading Company “sightholders” in the U.S.
JKD argued that Stafford failed to prove the 5.56 carat pink diamond existed or, if it did, that he ever shipped it to JKD's New York office in February 2006 with the Brink's security company. When the package allegedly containing the diamond arrived in New York, JKD said, there was nothing in it.
But an investigation by Brink's showed the package had not been opened or tampered with before it was delivered. And a jury in Dayton last month rejected JKD's theory that Stafford lied about the shipment of the diamond as part of an insurance scam.
“The jury sent a strong, strong message that this kind of conduct absolutely will not be tolerated in our society,” Stafford attorney Dianne F. Marx said.
The verdict totaled $3.8 million in compensatory damages -- $8,400 for unjust enrichment, $1.7 million for conversion, and $2.3 million on a claim of civil liability for the criminal act of theft.
In a proposed judgment, Marx contends that Stafford is entitled to treble damages on the civil liability claim, which would bring the total award up to $8.6 million. However, defense counsel Stephen E. Chappelear says he can recover no more than $2.3 million since all three claims were based on a single event.
[Editor's note: Based upon information released by Marx, On Point initially reported that the jury awarded Stafford $6.9 million -- reflecting treble damages for civil liability.]
JKD, which was founded in 1948 and has offices in five countries, intends to appeal. “Prior to this case, in its entire 60 year history, Julius Klein Diamonds LLC has never been accused of taking any diamond,” the company said in a court document.
According to Stafford, he bought the “fancy,” “intense” pink diamond from a German man during a trip to Las Vegas in 2005, paying only $8,000 in cash. The man, who said his mother considered the stone to be bad luck, disappeared before Stafford could give him a receipt.
Before deciding whether to buy the diamond, JKD needed to see it first. So, as alleged in his complaint, Stafford took it from his safe, packaged it in a UPS box placed inside a Brink's shipping bag and handed it over to Brink's on Feb. 13, 2006 after insuring it for $1.5 million.
The package arrived in New York the following day, but JKD called Stafford to say “there was no Pink Diamond.” Stafford was “shocked” and, after Brink's completed its investigation, “was left with the disconcerting conclusion that his trust in JKD was woefully misplaced.”
JKD came to its own conclusion about Stafford, accusing him in a counterclaim for fraud of “a pattern of conduct which involves scamming shipping carriers and insurance companies by alleging lost shipments pursuant to an insurance fraud scheme.”
“Stafford's testimony only establishes that he allegedly purchased the Pink Diamond from a ghost,” the company argued in a court brief, referring to the enigmatic German, and “plaintiffs have not introduced any substantial evidence that the Pink Diamond exists.”
But Stafford emphasized the testimony of Brink's that "JKD received and accepted the Brink's package containing the Pink Diamond 'in good order.'” He has also questioned whether JKD could have “accidentally or inadvertently deleted” the original surveillance video showing the opening of his package at its premises in New York.
"Mr. Stafford unequivocally testified that he placed a $1.7 million Pink Diamond in [a] box and that neither the Pink Diamond box nor the Brink’s bag containing the Pink Diamond box contained any hole," Marx said.
|
Stafford's Jewelers v. JKD Documents
|
By Matthew Heller 12/14/08
|
|
-
"Upskirting" Victim Loses Privacy Suit Against Store
A customer at a T.J. Maxx store in upstate New York has lost her lawsuit against the retailer for allowing a man to take photos up her skirt by using her as “human bait” in a sting operation.
Read more...
-
Perfume Allergy Case Settles for $100,000
A Detroit city planner with an allergy to perfume is savoring the sweet smell of legal success after the city agreed to pay her $100,000 and be more sensitive to the chemically sensitive.
Read more...
-
Teen's Suit Puts Mug-Shot Publisher Against the Wall
A new publication in Lincoln, Neb., milks mug shots for humor. But a teenager whose arrest photo appeared in Cuffed doesn't see the funny side of it and has sued the publisher for misappropriating his image.
Read more...
-
BA Settles 'Reckless' Baggage Handling Suit
Limiting its liability to a group of only 13 airline passengers, British Airways (NYSE: BAY) has settled a first-of-its kind lawsuit that accused the airline of being “inexcusably reckless” in its handling of passengers' baggage.
Read more...
-
Judge Says "Gay" Still Defamatory in Texas
What one court has called “a veritable sea change in social attitudes about homosexuality” has evidently not reached Texas where a judge ruled that an airport security guard can sue a radio show host for calling him “gay” on the air.
Read more...
-
Mom Says Hospital Gave Her Wrong Baby to Nurse
Because of a hospital's error, Jennifer Spiegel became an involuntary wet nurse to another woman's newborn son. Now she is suing the hospital for its malpractice in providing her with the wrong baby to breastfeed.
Read more...
-
Case Over MySpace Page Chills Student Speech
Several recent court rulings have been protective of off-campus student speech -– with the exception of a very shaky decision that a dissenting judge said “vests school officials with dangerously overbroad censorship discretion.”
Read more...
|
Newdow v. Rio Lindo Union Sch. Dist. Subject: Pledge of allegiance Document: Opinion
Vance v. Rumsfeld Subject: Detainee abuse Document: Opinion
Stern v. Sony Corp. Subject: Disabled gamers Document: Opinion
Churchill v. Univ. of Colorado Subject: Academic freedom Document: ACLU amicus brief
KBR/Halliburton v. Jones Subject: Sexual assault Document: Petition for review
more
|
|
Spears v. Allergan, Inc. Court: Orange County (Calif.) Superior Subject: Botox death Verdict: Defense
Patterson v. Hudson Area Schools Court: USDC, E. Mich. Subject: Student harassment
more
|
|
McClain v. Pfizer, Inc. Date: 3/2/10 Court: USDC, Conn. Hearing: Jury trial in case over unsafe lab conditions.
Sherman v. McDonald's Corp. Date: 3/23/10 Court: Washington County (Ark.) Circuit Hearing: Jury trial in case over nude photos.
more
|
|
|