Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Archive for the ‘Lex scripta’ Category

Noopy does it

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 18, 2008

Congratulations to David Nieporent – Overlawyered:

For being the first Overlawyered blogger to have a post cited in a federal case. In Taylor v. XM Satellite Radio, Inc., 533 F.Supp.2d 1151 (N.D. Ala. 2007), XM argued that the class action demanding a refund for a 24-hour outage was moot because they offered refunds well before the class certification motion was made. Plaintiffs disputed this, arguing they did not know about the refund offer until after they moved for class certification. One questions the relevance of the time of the certification motion (and, indeed, the court found this factual claim irrelevant) given that the refund offer was to the entire class rather than just to the named plaintiffs, but one reason that the court expressed skepticism at the attorneys’ claims was the existence of an Overlawyered post by David discussing the refunds and the ludicrousness of the suit. Case dismissed for mootness, though the court also noted that XM had no contractual obligation to provide continuous uninterrupted service.

That’s my Neiporent!  He used to blog here!  He used to work for me!  He’s a miniature-sized mega-brain and he likes sucking candies!  What else do you want to know about this?

Posted in Blogophilia, Lex scripta | 2 Comments »

More from a day in a lawyer’s life

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 11, 2008


At ABC studios

Originally uploaded by Ron Coleman.

The excitement wasn’t over after I blogged about my shoes and other critical societal concerns yesterday! Through a process I have yet fully to comprehend, in mid-afternoon I found myself at ABC Studios answering questions about employment law in front of a camera!

Don’t laugh. I have litigated, even tried (successfully, of course!) a number of cases involving employment discrimination. I’m no one-trick-IP-pony.

The issue here was a pending Pennsylvania bill that would prohibit employers from asking job applicants about marital or parental status, which is legal in about half the states. They could not find anyone who would go on camera to explain why an employer would have a fundamentally economic justification to ask such a question — in other words, to go on the record “against motherhood.” So ABC somehow worked its way down the food chain and got to me. (You know what an old hand I am at this!)

I had no trouble saying that. I also think you should be able to ask about religious observance — anything that will affect, or may affect, your degree of commitedness to the job and your ability to be there during the hours for which you were hired.

A very short sound bite, meant mostly to give the impression of balance in a piece that will surely be very anti-employer (i.e., anti-freedom of contract), will probably be on tonight’s World News Tonight with Charles Gibson at 6:30 Eastern time some day, maybe. How I will come out sounding when they’re done dicing and slicing, I have no idea. But I promise you I was brilliant, charming and profound in the studio. Of course.

Oh, and I brushed past a much-taller-than-I-imagined Curtis Sliwa on the 1 train on the way to the studio. Presumably he was on the way from the studio (he does radio there). That’s a good omen, right?

Posted in Lex scripta, Medialites | 4 Comments »

The court errs

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 10, 2008

On my earlier, funnier blog:

The court, as a general rule, has no idea how the Internet really works, and tends to rely on the court’s young clerks to explain it to the court. But usually the court errs in this regard.

Why should you miss out on literary gems and stunning societal scalpelry like this just because you don’t like trademark law?

Posted in Lex scripta | Leave a Comment »

Shoe shine

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 10, 2008


Shoe shine

Originally uploaded by Ron Coleman.

So far, so good.

I had two early court dates this morning, in two cases where I represent plaintiffs in trademark infringements. Amazingly, and quite coincidentally, they were scheduled an hour apart in the same courthouse, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. So in addition to the blue pinstripe Brooksease suit, I decided to go whole-hog and wear my Court Shoes, the Aldens with the extra-heavy hard soles lined by a thick Republican welt. These puppies are full wing tips, my lads, not those girly curvy little wingers that drop out on you half way back to the heel like on my everyday Florsheims, you hear? Yes, the steel shanks set off the metal detectors, but this seemed like the morning to go crazy.

Now not everything started out perfectly. First I had to get up super early, because the first conference was scheduled for a punitive 8 AM. I left Clifton at 5:30 so I could get to the office in time for morning prayers, prep and leaving cushions for disasters, but not before realizing these shoes needed serious attention — which I was not going to get before court. Still, they would manage, on the merits. I had a cold-sweat moment in the Lincoln Tunnel, realizing I had brought the wrong keys, but after furrowing my brow and analyzing all the alternative courses of action including breaking down the internal door to my own law firm, I realized I had, ta-da!, a spare set in my briefcase. Wow.

Traffic was a breeze at that hour — I felt like king of the city whizzing cross town around 6! — and I was ensconced at my place on 42nd Street by 6:15.

I got everything I needed taken care of here and headed onto the 5 train express downtown at a quarter after seven, even having time to scarf down an H&H Bagel bagel at my desk first. Got to court 15 minutes early, greeted my out-of-town adversary on the front steps, and the conference went off more or less as expected (i.e., a fairly spineless judge got pushed around and my adversaries lied through their teeth).

Conference number two was a little less intense, except for the judge making us sit an entire half hour before coming out on the bench. It was worth the wait — he immediately provided my adversary new accommodations for lower-GI evacuation, giving me a good report to take to my angel-like client in that particular case. I skipped out of court (okay, well, figuratively; we do not skip), retrieved my BlackBerry from the stern blue-blazer boys in the U.S. Marshal’s office, and flipped it on as I bounded toward the subway. God had placed not one but two very happy emails in the ether for me, and my handheld snagged them and provided me with their appealing company as I descended into cool underground station at Foley Square.

Now back uptown, and to deal with the shoes.

I knew what I wanted. Since I left the snazzier part of midtown, I haven’t found a good, regular shoe-shine place along my commuting path. Now that spring was here, surely the guy in front of Grand Central would be the way to go? I sat down on what was now a perfectly sunny spring day and let him to his worst, as he commented to me about the “high level of talent” on 42nd Street this morning, and warned me not to look at the shoes directly in the sun after he was through without proper eyewear.

He finished the shine, and I asked him what the damage was. To my surprise, it was a cool five-spot — a very expensive shoe shine, considering that most places in the City still charge $3 or maybe $4. I was also not blown away by the gloss, frankly. With the tip, the same amount of tip I would have given on a $3 shine, now we’re talking $7 for a good but not great shine. The front of Grand Central guy was not going to be my answer. Perhaps I would have to stick for now with the boys in the Port Authority, who do at least as good a job for a buck less and usually throw in some excellent improvisational comedy that gives me the rare opportunity to play straight man.

But the shoes do look better, even if they don’t throw off photons like black neon as I would like them to, and it was a heck of a good start to the morning on a day that looks as if it could be the real beginning of climatic spring. What’s not to love?

Posted in Heart and spirit, Homo sapiens, Lex scripta, Metropolis, Style | 13 Comments »

Wolfe among sheep?

Posted by pennywit on April 9, 2008

It’s worth following up on the story of Billy Wolfe, who has filed a lawsuit to halt bullying, if for no other reason than because the other side is coming out. Overlawyered’s Walter Olson links to a story in the Northwest Arkansas Times that sheds light on the other side of the story. Young Master Wolfe, it seems, is a bit of a bully himself.

I don’t necessarily share Olson’s criticism of the NYT story. School officials — and, to a lesser extent, police officials — are often unwilling to cooperate with journalists early in a story like this, so getting the “other side” is usually difficult in the early coverage.

That said, I stand by my earlier rumination on the use of lawsuits in school bullying, even if my moral outrage on young Master Wolfe’s behalf is no longer as appropriate. If a student finds himself in a situation where officials are indifferent to bullying and he has exhausted other avenues, then perhaps legal action is the only way out.

I also think the lawsuit brings out another dimension of the story. Sometimes, when you bring a lawsuit against somebody, unpleasant truths come to light.

Update: Contra Overlawyered, the NYT did include some of the “other side” of the Wolfe story:

Some teachers think he’s a sweet kid; others think he is easily distracted, occasionally disruptive, even disrespectful. He has received a few suspensions for misbehavior, though none for bullying.

Judging by school records, at least one official seems to think Billy contributes to the trouble that swirls around him. For example, Billy and the boy who punched him at the bus stop had exchanged words and shoves a few days earlier.

[…]

Mr. Wilbourn said federal law protected the privacy of students, so parents of a bullied child should not assume that disciplinary action had not been taken. He also said it was left to the discretion of staff members to determine if an incident required police notification.

That said, there is always a choice in how to play these stories. The “other side” of the story was pushed to the very end, while the Wolfe family was placed at the top. And with more coming out about Wolfe’s own actions, the NYT really needs to revisit the story if it has not done so already.

Posted in Lex scripta | 5 Comments »

Oh, the vanity!

Posted by pennywit on April 5, 2008

Vanity Fair investigates Monsanto’s efforts to enforce its patents on seeds against farmers. I can’t speak to the validity of Monsanto’s claims one way or another, but the company’s tactics strike me as heavy-handed.

Posted in Lex scripta, Scientificus | Leave a Comment »

No other way?

Posted by pennywit on April 2, 2008

After what amounts to a multiyear campaign of harassment, an Arkansas boy named Billy Wolfe and his parents have filed lawsuits against schoolyard bullies, according to coverage in the New York Times, the Northwest Arkansas Times, and elsewhere. The kid even appeared on the Today Show to tell his story.

Honestly, the whole storyline — “Bully sues his tormentors!!” sounds like something out of Weekly World News, somewhere behind the pages about alien Elvis impersonators running for president. But it’s not. It’s as real as the various little monsters who over the past decade-plus have taken up arms and slaughtered their classmates for slights real and imagined.

And when I try to think about what the kid is supposed to do about the bullies, that’s exactly what I think of. The school shootings. A lawsuit against the bullies (and possibly against the school administration) seems to outlandish and disproportionate that I’ve spent the better part of a week trying to figure out what Billy and his parents are supposed to do about the bullying.

But I can’t come up with anything better than the lawsuit. They’ve exhausted their legal self-help remedies. Billy’s parents talked to the bully’s parents, to no avail. Billy turned to school administrators, but he found no succor. In fact, he was blamed — and the bullies escaped punishment — in at least one of the incidents! With these remedies denied him, what’s left? Self-defense? Perhaps, though I’m not certain if he’s tried (and failed) that remedy.

Hitting back — the traditional, parent-endorsed response to such things — is right out. That sort of thing is illegal. Assault and battery. Responding to the harassment campaign — which included a Facebook page dedicated to hating Billy — may or may not be effective. And, again, it’s probably illegal.

If a friend of mine finds himself the target of a long, multiyear campaign of harassment and he’s had no luck getting it stopped on his own, I would likely tell him he should turn to the court system. Injunctions, restraining orders, and defamation lawsuits can be highly useful things. And Billy has taken the same route.

And then there’s the school shootings. When some of these bullied kids have had enough, some have turned on their tormentors with violent results. Which would be bad enough. But those kids — Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris among them — lash out not just at their tormentors, but at nearly anybody who gets in their way. Despite the outward ridiculousness of Billy’s lawsuit, perhaps his choice is the better alternative.

UPDATE:  Hmm.  (RDC)

Posted in Lex scripta, Oppression | 1 Comment »

Against victim impact statements

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 1, 2008

Walter Olson at Overlawyered:

I have no idea what effect victim impact statements have on the guilty person being sentenced; I think they are worth opposing because of their barbarous effect on the innocent.

He has a very interesting perspective on the issue.

Posted in Heart and spirit, Lex scripta | 8 Comments »

Jersey barriers

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 19, 2008

confusion.jpg

Get this:

New Jersey prosecutors have subpoenaed records of JuicyCampus.com, a Web site that publishes anonymous, often malicious gossip about college students.

Language on the site ranges from catty to hateful and offensive. One thread, for example, on the “most overrated Princeton student” quickly dissolves into name-calling, homophobia and anti-Semitism.

JuicyCampus may be violating the state’s Consumer Fraud Act by suggesting that it doesn’t allow offensive material but providing no enforcement of that rule — and no way for users to report or dispute the material, New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram said Tuesday.

What a load of baloney! I have litigated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act frontwards, backwards and sideways, and believe me — this would be an unbelievable stretch. If Milgram’s interpretation were to fly, it would make that statute an omnibus be-a-good-person-online law with essentially no meaningful limitations. Not that I doubt that the Attorney General would love to have such power, but that would certainly be beyond anything contemplated by the New Jersey Legislature when it was passed.

Of course beyond what the Act itself provides, such an application of it would be unconstitutional too.

Unfortunately, neither of those are giant concerns to many judges in the Garden State.

By the way, this is not an endorsement of online defamation, especially when done anonymously. On the contrary. But please, let’s call a fraud a fraud.

Posted in Lex scripta, Nuvo-Techno, Oppression | 1 Comment »

School days

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 17, 2008

Nicole Black looks at an issue everyone has an opinion about but few people really understand — what the law does and does not allow school administrators to do to deal with student “dissent”:

It is the thorn in the side of every school administrator: organized student dissent, which “substantially and materially interfere[s]” with schoolwork and discipline.

She writes about a recent Second Circuit case, still pending, that tests the parameters of this issue.

I know, why bother learning about something when you can go straight to havin an opinion, but still — you’d like to have the option.

I actually talked my way into being admitted to the college of my choice largely on the “merits” of a jejune, but nervy, “underground newspaper” that a few fellows had been publishing and invited me to join in on — the Semi-Monthly off the Wall News.  It was the beginning of a career in a certain kind of subversion that is still with me.

But I never really doubted at the time that Hightstown High could have shut us down if they’d wanted to.  I’m still not so sure.

Posted in Lex scripta, Oppression | 4 Comments »