National Courts Monitor

Connecticut’s highest court rules against Remington over Sandy Hook

Updated: March 27, 2019

Photo Credit: REUTERS/Joshua Roberts, as included in the report by Reuters on 3/14/19.

Remington Outdoor Co. Inc. can be sued for the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 school children aged 6 and 7 and six adult staff dead, a court ruled on March 14.

This marks a “setback for gun makers long shielded from liability in mass shootings,” Reuters reported.

“In a 4-3 ruling widely expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Connecticut’s highest court found the lawsuit could proceed based on a state law protecting consumers against fraudulent marketing,” noted Reuters.

Litigants argued that Remington marketed its AR-15 Bushmaster rifle “based on its militaristic appeal.”

USA Today noted the larger ramifications of the ruling: “By ruling against a gun-maker, the Connecticut Supreme Court appears to have pierced a legal shield that could lead to more lawsuits and damaging disclosures involving the arms industry, gun control advocates say.”

The newspaper added that the method of marketing was questioned, quoting Justice Richard Powers in the majority opinion: “The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers.”

California marijuana retailer sued by former chief financial officer

by NCM Staff

Posted: March 22, 2019

Leave a Comment

Image: MedMen Chief Executive Adam Bierman as reported by Los Angeles Times. Photo Credit: Ricardo DeAratanha / Los Angeles Times.

MedMen, a major marijuana industry operator in California with 1,243 employees, faces a lawsuit by its former chief financial officer, the L.A. Times reports.

“As California’s marijuana industry works to project an image of mainstream respectability, one of its best-known companies has come under attack by a former insider,” the newspaper reports.

MedMen Enterprises Inc. is trying to bring pot sales into the mainstream by providing sleek, comfortable stores in high-profile locations, and its strategy often is said to emulate the Apple store model.

The marijuana retailer is being sued by its former chief financial officer, James Parker, “who alleges the Culver City firm forced him out for objecting to a variety of alleged misdeeds at the company, whose stock became publicly traded last year.” A MedMen official denies the allegations.

Parker’s suit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court following his departure from the firm on Nov. 5.

“After earlier rounds of private funding, MedMen went public last May through a reverse takeover — MedMen bought an existing Canadian public company — that enabled MedMen’s stock to be listed on the Canadian Securities Exchange,” the L.A. Times reports. “Although California and more than two dozen other states allow medicinal or adult recreational use of marijuana, cannabis remains illegal under U.S. federal law and thus the major U.S. stock exchanges will not list cannabis firms that operate in the United States.”

Pre-trial bail rejected by San Francisco judge

by NCM Staff

Updated: March 18, 2019

Leave a Comment

Photo: www.cand.uscourts.gov

San Francisco’s money bail schedule deprives plaintiffs of their rights, a judge ruled while overturning the law, possibly creating an opening for additional challenges.

Findlaw.com reports that U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that the sheriff’s use of the bail schedule “has significantly deprived plaintiffs of their fundamental right to liberty by sole reason of their indigence.”

The concept of bail, Findlaw.com notes, “means that thousands of potentially innocent people are stuck in jail — often for minor offenses — simply because they can’t afford bail.”

One of the plaintiffs in the case decided by Judge Rogers lost her job while in custody, only to have the charges against her dropped.

The ruling is not an isolated rejection of money bail, the site notes. “Cities, states, courts, and the Department of Justice have come out against pre-trial money,” the site reports.

Testing the 1st Amendment: Journalism Becomes a Proving Ground for Anti-SLAPP Laws

by NCM Staff

Posted: March 15, 2019

1 Comment

by Sara Corcoran, Courts Monitor Publisher
(Originally published in CityWatch LA on 3/14/19)

Photo originally published in CityWatch LA, 3/14/19.

On February 11, L. Lin Wood, an Atlanta based lawyer, filed a complaint in conjunction with Kentucky based lawyer, Todd McMurtry, in the Eastern District of Kentucky against the Washington Post (Wapo).

Kentucky does not have Anti-Slapp Laws — laws designed to allow for early dismissal of lawsuits related to Freedom of Speech. Mr. Wood is an experienced defamation litigator who has represented multiple high-profile clients, including accused Atlanta bomber Richard Jewell, former Congressman Gary Condit, and Burke Ramsey the brother of Jon Benet.

The complaint was filed on behalf is Mr. and Mrs. Sandmann, as guardians of. The Plaintiff seeks $50 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages for the harm Nicholas allegedly suffered as a result of the negligent, reckless, and malicious attacks both digital and in print. Sandmann asserts that these events have caused permanent damage to his life and reputation and were directed by malice. It is the events of January 18, 2019 that occurred on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. that serve as the basis for the civil complaint. Read the full story…

Arbitration gains currency after Supreme Court decision

by NCM Staff

Updated: March 11, 2019

Leave a Comment

Employees trying to take companies to court face more likelihood of arbitration based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, The Recorder at law.com reports.

A string of U.S. Supreme Court decisions favoring arbitration contracts, including the recent split decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, changed the landscape of workplace litigation, the site notes.

“Claims of persistent sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace, fast-food workers shorted on pay and gig economy contractors fighting for employee status have all been routed to arbitration in decisions citing Epic,” The Recorder notes.

“[Epic] changes the dynamics in a profound way,” Gerald Maatman, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago told The Recorder. “It’s one of the most important decisions from the Supreme Court that impacts workplace issues.”

“In collaboration with San Francisco-based legal research company Casetext, The Recorder affiliate The National Law Journal analyzed 92 decisions from U.S. courts of appeal and federal district courts that cited Epic in the seven months between when it was handed down last May and the end of 2018,” the article notes. “Among those cases, 10 circuit court and 49 district court decisions centered on arbitration and dealt with workplace claims — and the majority either compelled arbitration or revived it as a live issue.”