Quantcast
Channel: Law Suit
Viewing all 86 articles
Browse latest View live

Prison Officers At Supermax Are Being Sued For Torturing This Inmate Until He Took His Own Life

$
0
0

DNU

Jose Martin Vega was no saint. Convicted in 1995 of 15 counts of racketeering and armed drug trafficking, he was sentenced, at the age of 20, to four consecutive life sentences.

Nine years after his conviction, and after a violent confrontation at another maximum security federal prison, Vega found himself at the United States Penitentiary -- Administrative Maximum ("ADMAX" or "ADX") near Florence, Colorado.

As its name suggests, this lonely place is where America sends many of its most troublesome prisoners.

Vega first came to ADX on April 5, 2004. Six years and 26 torturous days later he was dead -- at the age of 35. On May 1, 2010, using a bed sheet, Vega hanged himself in his cell in the control unit of the prison, an especially isolating part of the facility.

Although Vega was not shackled when he hanged himself, the photos contained in the coroner's report show an unconscious man shackled at the hands and feet while prison officials are administering rescue efforts. At ADX, in the control unit especially, even the dead or dying are shackled.

Fremont County Deputy Coroner Carlette Brocious estimated the time of Vega's death at 9:10 a.m., but she noted in her report that "the scene of the death was 'cleaned up' when I sought to go out to the prison to finish my investigation.

Therefore, I was unable to go to the scene of the death, see the cloth utilized as a ligature or talk to anyone other than the attending PA [physician assistant] regarding the decedent." She had first seen Vega's body hours later, at a local hospital, where it had been brought, still shackled, by prison officials.

Brocious also noted in her report that she talked with two prison health officials about Vega and was told by Mark Kellar, ADX's health administrator, "that the decedent had a long psychiatric history. ... As to whether or not the decedent had ever attempted suicide previously neither men could tell me." That "psychiatric history," and how ADX officials dealt with it in Vega's case, is at the heart of an important new federal lawsuit that seeks to dig down deeper into ADX's mental health policies and practices.

Why should we care about how our most difficult prisoners are treated? Why should we interfere with a "prison code," expressed or implied, that emphasizes both the use of official force and the denial of official help to humiliate and ultimately control inmates? The answers are both simple and complex. Because we tell the world (and each other) that we are an enlightened nation of laws and not a medieval land ofbarbarism. Because even our harshest prison isn't supposed to be the Tower of London. 

THE PRISON

You probably know ADX better by its stage name, "Supermax," the forbidding place that houses such criminal luminaries as Terry Nichols, Ramzi Yousef, and Ted Kaczynski as well as hundreds of other, less notable prisoners. When I visited the facility in 2007 as part of a media tour that was carefully choreographed by the Bureau of Prisons, I found the place sterile and soulless. But the hard-ass approach to incarceration was obvious, right down to the tiny circus-like cages where some of the men -- one at a time, of course -- are permitted to briefly exercise.

Today, Supermax is the most famous prison in America, a worthy if far less visible heir to Alcatraz out in California. When 60 Minutes did a memorable piece on ADX in October 2007, Scott Pelley interviewed one of its former wardens, a man named Robert Hood. Pelley asked Hood why he had been so excited to come to Florence when the job opportunity presented itself. "In our system," Hood answered, "there's 144 prisons. And there's only one Supermax. It's like the Harvard of the system."

If anything, the past five years since Hood spoke those words have only heightened the national perception of ADX as some sort of forbidden fortress, America's chamber of secrets. Terrorist after terrorist has been deposited there since 2007-- most under Special Administrative Measures which largely preclude them from communicating to the world (or having it communicate back). Meanwhile, inside the prison, for the few guests ever allowed in, there is a place where you can buy ADX shirts and coffee mugs.

Supermax has nine different units, some more secure than others, and in that sense it's a microcosm of the nation's federal prison system. There is a unit for the terrorists, for example, and also one where prisoners have some measure of interaction with one another. But the Control Unit, where Vega lived and where his body was found, is the harshest. This is especially true for prisoners suffering from mental illness, who often are ostracized by other inmates even as they become more isolated by prison officials.

THE PRISONER

Generally speaking, unless you are an infamous terrorist, you have to do something bad in prison to make it to Supermax -- and then to its control unit. And Vega had. On March 13, 2003, while at the federal prisonin Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, Vega attacked an associate warden with a razor blade at the late-morning meal. Vega was subdued after a struggle, given an injection to render him defenseless, stripped naked, and then "assaulted by prison staff for a duration of at least one hour," according to an unpublished federal trial court ruling.

The Lewisburg prison health officials who saw Vega after the incident neither treated him properly nor adequately recorded his injuries. That same day, Vega was transferred to the nearby Allenwood federal prison facility, where authorities saw fit to place him on "suicide status." Soon thereafter, Vega was sent to the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, located in Springfield, Missouri (the same place where the Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, was more recently sent for pre-trial competency tests).

In July 2003, while at the Missouri facility, Vega was charged in federal court for his attack upon the warden. He pled guilty and was given a 188-month sentence added to his existing life sentences. But he also had the nerve to complain, officially, about the way he had been treated by Lewisburg officials after they had gotten the razor blade out of his hand. Unsurprisingly, prison officials rejected his claims -- and then promptly shipped him to ADX, where he'd be subject to a whole other level of incarceration.

The facts about how Vega made it from Pennsylvania to Colorado are set forth in an opinion dated November 4, 2005, by U.S. District Judge William Caldwell, a distinguished Reagan appointee. Vega didn't stay at ADX long, however. Less than one year after he arrived in Colorado, and a few months after an ADX psychologist there diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia, Vega was sent back to the Missouri prison facility for more mental health evaluations. About one year later, after another diagnosis of severe mental illness, he was back in ADX Florence. And back in the control unit.

THE LAWSUIT

Exactly what happened next to Vega is the subject of a new lawsuit that has been filed in federal court in Colorado. Vega's brother, Raymond Vega, has brought a wrongful death action against ADX warden Blake R. Davis and other prison officials, alleging that they helped cause Vega's death by exhibiting a "persistent and deliberate indifference" to the prisoner's "serious mental illness." The lawsuit accuses ADX officials of giving Vega "cruel and unusual" punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Raymond Vega contends that mental health officials at the special Springfield facility concluded in 2005 or early 2006 that Jose Martin Vega (his family called him "Martin") had a "history of depression and antisocial personality disorder." This diagnosis, says the plaintiff, should have precluded Vega from being transferred back to ADX at Florence and from being assigned to the control unit. Once there, the complaint charges, Vega's continued presence in the control unit prevented him from receiving "medication to treat or ameliorate the effects of his mental illness."

It's not hard to predict what happened next. The worse Vega acted without his meds, the more prison officials in the Control Unit clamped down. And the more they clamped down, the worse he got. The complaint alleges that "ADX staff members repeatedly chained Vega unnecessarily, sometimes for periods of ten days or more." In the meantime, when he could, Vega was reportedly telling "other prisoners that he believed the ADX Florence guards were poisoning his food and spraying things into his vents."

Indeed, Vega's prison file, portions of which I have seen, reveal a delusional man. On January 18, 2008, for example, Vega complained in writing that a prison guard had "violated" his "bodily integrity" after drugging him following a "verbal altercation." The response from the feds? "Your allegations of staff misconduct have been referred to the appropriate Bureau component for investigation," wrote a bureaucrat. "The results of the investigation and the action taken against staff, if any, are not disclosable to you."

THE LAW

The pending complaint alleges that Supermax officials mistreated Vega in contravention of Bureau of Prison policies governing the treatment of prisoners with mental health diagnoses. "BOP policies require that mentally ill prisoners be monitored on an ongoing basis to asses treatment compliance," the complaint states, but "BOP does not provide adequate mental health staffing at ADX Florence, given the size of the mental health caseload at that facility." Vega may be gone, in other words, but the problems his case highlight likely linger.

You probably won't be surprised to learn that federal law and judicial precedent make it tremendously difficult for the families of prisoners like Vega to win wrongful death claims brought against federal officials. In fact, the procedural and substantive hurdles make it virtually impossible. The right to bring such a claim -- a right that is contested by many conservative scholars -- was first recognized, in 1971, in a Supreme Court case styled Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents.

In Bivens, the Court's majority ruled that an individual could recover money damages from federal officials for particularly odious conduct -- "flagrant and patently unjustified," is how Justice John Marshall Harlanput it. In the 41 years since Bivens, however, the lower federal courts have gone back and forth on the extent of the right. But this much is clear. The Bivens right to sue applies in the prison context. It extends beyond the death of the individual who is acted upon by government officials. And inadequate mental health care in prison can trigger actionable Eighth Amendment rights.

Raymond Vega, Jose Martin Vega's brother, is represented pro bono in the case by Ed Aro, a partner atArnold & Porter, a revered white-shoe law firm with a history of pro bono work on behalf of the indigent and mentally ill. U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch, the fearless Oklahoma City bombing trial judge, has been selected to handle the litigation, which likely will take years to resolve. The federal government has not yet responded to the complaint -- it has not yet even been served -- but federal lawyers will almost certainly ask Judge Matsch to quickly dismiss the case.

When the feds react, I will write about their response to the complaint. Vega v. Davis, as the case now is styled, represents an enormous opportunity for all of us to gain some rare insight into one of the most secret places in America, a prison where hundreds of men go and are never heard from again. We want to be safe from our most dangerous criminals. But how we treat these men, and how are government treats them in our name, ultimately says more about us than it does about them.

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »


AWKWARD! Ellen Pao Is Still Showing Up For Work Every Day At Kleiner Perkins, The VC Firm She's Suing

$
0
0

ellen pao kpcb

Ellen Pao, who's suing the fabled venture-capital firm of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers for gender discrimination and retaliation, is showing up every day for work with the partners she's accused of doing her wrong—and who have accused her of lying.

"I don't plan to quit," she wrote on Quora Monday, as TechCrunchnoted.

She's even going out for cocktails with her colleagues. Sort of.

Reuters Sarah McBride reported this scene at a recent Kleiner Perkins party held at Reposado, a Mexican restaurant just off University Avenue in downtown Palo Alto:

There, Pao held court on one side of the room, greeted with hugs and hearty handshakes by a number of start-up entrepreneurs she has worked with. Meanwhile, other Kleiner partners at the bash—including Matt Murphy and Ted Schlein—clutched their drinks and steered clear of their suddenly famous colleague.

At the entrance, two arrivals loudly told the female Kleiner assistants who were greeting guests:  “I’m on team Ellen.”

Those two aren't the only ones. PEHub, a private-equity news site, polled its readers about how the case affected their view of Kleiner; 69 percent said it had changed their opinion of the firm for the worse. Her Quora post drew a dozen or so comments, almost all expressing strong support.

Pao is on the board of three Kleiner-backed startups, including Flipboard, a hot maker of software for reading content on smartphones and tablets—one of Kleiner's highest-profile bets on mobile and social apps.

Top Kleiner partner John Doerr has said Pao's claims are false. In other word, he's calling her a liar. Why does he want her representing the venture-capital firm on Flipboard's board, then?

Of course, for Kleiner to take any action against Pao while the lawsuit is pending would be legally suicidal for the firm—it would be a prima facie act of retaliation.

And Pao, by continuing to show up for work, could be seeking to demonstrate that her job performance isn't an issue—not to mention picking up a paycheck and a long-term share in Kleiner's profits.

Of course, if things are awkward now, imagine how they'll get when Kleiner and the individual partners named in the lawsuit file their response.

Pao filed her lawsuit on May 10. Kleiner's response is due on June 13.

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Woman Who's Suing Kleiner Perkins Has A Husband With A Lawsuit-Filled Past

$
0
0

ellen pao kpcb

Ellen Pao, who's suing venture capital giant Kleiner Perkins for alleged sex discrimination, has a husband who has reportedly been entangled in a dizzying number of lawsuits.

Pao's husband, hedge fund manager Alphonse Fletcher, has been enmeshed in litigation from a real-estate battle to a fight over his hedge fund, the New York Post reported Monday.

Here are some of the lawsuits the Post reported Fletcher has been involved with:

  • Fletcher is perhaps best known for suing his co-op board for racial discrimination after it wouldn't let him buy a fifth unit to expand his apartment. He made $700,000, way less than he would have needed to pay he maintenance on all those units, the Post reported.

  • In 1991, he filed another racial discrimination action, that time against his employee Kidder Peabody, a securities firm.

  • Fletcher has also been the target of litigation. Two male property managers he hired reportedly sued him for making unwanted sexual advances toward them.

  • And earlier this year, he got hit with litigation over his business, the Post reported. The state of Louisiana claimed filed a petition seeking to get back $100 million in pension money it had put into Fletcher's hedge fund.

Read on for the fully story >

DON'T MISS: This Might Be Why Clarence Thomas Hasn't Asked A Question In Six Years >

 

 

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Facebook Just Settled A Privacy Fight Over Its 'Sponsored Stories' Ads

$
0
0

facebook-background-mark-zuckerberg

Facebook Inc. has agreed to pay $10 million to charity to settle a lawsuit that accused the site of violating users' rights to control the use of their own names, photographs and likenesses, according to court documents made public over the weekend.

The lawsuit, brought by five Facebook members, alleged the social networking site violated California law by publicizing users' "likes" of certain advertisers on its "Sponsored Stories" feature without paying them or giving them a way to opt out, the documents said.

A "Sponsored Story" is an advertisement that appears on a member's Facebook page and generally consists of another friend's name, profile picture and an assertion that the person "likes" the advertiser.

The settlement was reached last month but made public this weekend. Facebook declined to comment on Saturday.

The proposed class-action lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Jose, California, could have included nearly one of every three Americans, with billions of dollars in damages, according to previous court documents.

In the lawsuit, Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg was quoted as saying that a trusted referral was the "Holy Grail" of advertising.

In addition, the lawsuit cited comments from Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, saying that the value of a "Sponsored Story" advertisement was at least twice and up to three times the value of a standard Facebook.com ad without a friend endorsement.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said the plaintiffs had shown economic injury could occur through Facebook's use of their names, photographs and likenesses.

"California has long recognized a right to protect one's name and likeness against appropriation by others for their advantage," Koh wrote.

The settlement arrangement is known as a cy-pres settlement, meaning the settlement funds can go to charity.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California is Angel Fraley et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Facebook Inc., 11-cv-1726.

Facebook shares closed at $30.01 on Friday, down 21 percent since the company's initial public offering last month.

(Editing by Jackie Frank)

DON'T MISS: We Spent The Night In Manhattan's Notorious Night Court And Here's What We Saw >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

New York Startup CamUp Sues Google For Allegedly Ripping Off Hangouts

$
0
0

marissa mayer

Be In, a startup behind video chat site CamUp, is suing Google for allegedly ripping off its product in Google Hangouts.

Here's what it's alleging:

  • Marissa Mayer and some Google engineers visited Be In's booth at SXSW in March 2011. Shortly after, Be In met with Google's Head of Business Markets (UK), Richard Robinson.
  • Robinson met with Be In on May 11, 2011 to discuss a potential partnership. Be In gave him a live demo of CamUp. Be In and Google Ireland had a non-disclosure agreement prior to the meeting.
  • The companies discussed a "Watch with your Friends" button on YouTube powered by Be In. Google didn't mention the development of a similar product internally.
  • At the meeting, Robinson was "extremely enthusiastic" about CamUp. He said he'd put CamUp in touch with YouTube.
  • Robinson neglected to respond to Be In's follow up messages, but Be In noted "A dramatic spike in user traffic to the CamUp site, in particular from Mountain View, California," shortly after the meeting.
  • One month later, Google released Google+ with Hangouts. It also embedded a "Watch with your friends" Hangout button on YouTube pages, "virtually identical in text and appearance to the CamUp bottom that Be In proposed."

We've reached out to Google for comment.

Here's the filing (via Scribd):

CamUP v Google

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Thousands Of Small Banks Could Sue Wall Street Giants Over LIBOR

$
0
0

JP Morgan Chase Bank

The thousands of community banks have often said their much larger counterparts have trampled on them. Now some hope the latest Wall Street scandal could give them ammunition to strike back.

Big banks' alleged manipulation of interest rates has become the subject of a deepening global investigation by regulators. It has also led one small bank in Wisconsin to file a lawsuit accusing JPMorgan Chase & Co, Bank of America Corp, Citigroup Inc and other major banks of colluding to set rates artificially low.

The Community Bank & Trust of Sheboygan -- a town on the shores of Lake Michigan about 60 miles north of Milwaukee -- is claiming manipulation of the benchmark London interbank offered rate, commonly known as Libor, has kept its interest margins artificially low.

Determined in London by the world's biggest banks, the Libor is used to set interest rates on everything from credit cards to student loans and mortgages.

Charles Tompkins of Boston law firm Shapiro Haber & Urmy filed the lawsuit in late May on behalf of the 11-branch bank, which has assets of about $554 million. It seeks class-action status so other community banks can join the litigation.

While it is unclear whether many small banks will do so, the legal action is further evidence that the scandal is reverberating well beyond the confines of Wall Street and the City of London. Big banks are already facing an array of Libor-related lawsuits by some big investors and local governments, such as the city of Baltimore.

Tompkins, whose class-action firm has handled securities, antitrust and consumer lawsuits, said U.S. community banks might have lost more than $1 billion over four years on loans to small businesses at artificially low rates.

The alleged manipulation hurt small banks that operate on thin profit margins and rely more on interest income than large banks with diverse trading operations, he said.

The lawsuit accuses the banks of violating the mob-busting U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by rigging rates.

The bank defendants declined to comment. They have said in court papers seeking dismissal of other Libor lawsuits that plaintiffs have failed to show how banks acted to restrict competition, even if rates were misstated.

ALL OTHER MEANS

In its complaint, Community Bank & Trust estimated that if Libor were understated by 80 basis points in 2008, it would have lost $64,000 in interest income on its $8 million of floating rate loans. The lawsuit applies that figure to the roughly 7,000 U.S. community banks, which it defines as those with assets of $1 billion or less, to come up with an estimate of $448 million in damages for that year alone. The extrapolation makes the estimate very rough.

Documents released by the New York Federal Reserve and other regulators late last week show big banks as desperate to under-report their borrowing rates in 2007-2008 to appear stronger as the financial crisis worsened. Britain's Barclays Plc agreed late last month to pay $453 million in fines for attempting to manipulate Libor.

"If the allegation of Libor manipulation by the largest banks is found to be true," small banks need to consider "legal and all other means available," said Daryll Lund, president of the Community Bankers of Wisconsin.

Some community bankers, though, are on the fence over whether to join the lawsuit.

Steve Gardner, president of Pacific Premier Bank of Costa Mesa, California, said he needed to learn more about the potential impact of rate manipulation on his bank before deciding whether to sue. The bank used Libor to set rates on a substantial number of loans, including to bakeries, manufacturers and accountants, he said.

Others said only a small portion of loans were linked to the benchmark, and they did not think it had a big impact on their business.

If a few customers borrowed at slightly lower rates, "it's not going to cause any heartburn," said Michael Kubacki, chief executive officer of Lake City Bank in Warsaw, Indiana.

Community Bank & Trust CEO Anthony Jovanovich seemed surprised that the law firm had named his company as the lead plaintiff, although he supported the lawsuit. He said his bank's margins were squeezed by borrowers who wanted to switch to Libor-linked loans from those tied to other benchmarks because of the low rates.

For its part, the Independent Community Bankers of America trade group will keep its members informed of developments in the scandal, but said members should consult their own lawyers to decide if they should sue, said Chief Economist Paul Merski.

The Libor investigation is "just another example of the litany of scandals of the largest players that caused the financial crisis," he said. "Community banks got caught in the aftershock of that."

REGULATION OVERLOAD

Many community banks blame Wall Street for causing the financial crisis and the subsequent toughening of regulations that they say falls disproportionately on them.

Proving a Libor manipulation case could be difficult, though.

In a note to clients last week, Nomura analyst Glenn Schorr said it would be hard to quantify damages and to show that banks worked together to rig rates. He also said Libor set rates on very short-term loans, limiting the impact.

On Thursday, the community bank lawsuit was consolidated with three other proposed Libor class actions that accuse big banks of violating antitrust laws. U.S. District Judge Naomi Buchwald in Manhattan is overseeing the cases.

The other proposed classes would cover plaintiffs who purchased Libor-linked securities from the banks, those who traded Libor-linked securities on exchanges and those who invested in securities that paid interest based on Libor.

Legal experts expect many more proposed classes of plaintiffs to emerge.

"I actually think there will be a lot of piling on here," said Duke Law School professor James Cox.

The government inquiry in the UK has unearthed a lot of information, he said. "It's honey for the bears."

One of the biggest challenges to new group cases will be proving far-flung plaintiffs have enough in common to form classes -- a problem the community banks may face, he said.

Potential plaintiffs may opt to sue on their own, outside class actions. One municipality, New York's Nassau County, said last week that it might have lost as much as $13 million over five years on Libor-linked transactions and was looking to bring its own case.

(Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware; Additional reporting by William James in London; Editing by Martha Graybow, Martin Howell and Lisa Von Ahn)

DON'T MISS: Wells Fargo Is Paying $175 Million In The Second-Largest Fair Lending Deal Ever >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Lady Gaga Sued For $10 Million By Toy Manufacturer

$
0
0

lady-gaga

Lady Gaga is the latest celebrity to be involved in a legal battle.

The pop star has been sued by MGA Entertainment, a toy manufacturer responsible for "Moxie Girlz" dolls and "Best Friends Club" dolls, for $10 million for an alleged breach of contract.

MGA Entertainment claim that Lady Gaga deliberately sabotaged a toy deal that cost the company millions. 

The singer had licensed MGA Entertainment to make a Lady Gaga doll, voice chip included. The deal was initially planned so that the product would hit shelves in time for Christmas. However, the toy makers are accusing the singer of "intentionally and deliberately" delaying the doll's release so that it coincides with her new album and perfume launching in 2013.

The toy makers claim that Lady Gaga had request the removal of the voice chip in their doll, delaying the doll's release. After being sent a sample doll, they claim Lady Gaga requested a "more supermodel like" face: "Think a prettier version of Gaga. Thin out the cheeks and sharpen the jawline. Give her more of a cat-eye and sexier, poutier lips."

Lady Gaga's spokesperson, Amanda Silverman, gave this statement to The Huffington Post: "There is no legitimate reason for dragging Lady Gaga into this dispute. Lady Gaga will vigorously defend MGA's ill-conceived lawsuit and is confident she will prevail."

The 26-year old singer is no stranger to lawsuits. She was sued back in December 2011 by her former personal assistant, Jennifer O'Neill, for $380,000. O'Neill claimed that the singer was a "nightmare to work with and made diva-like demands, including ensuring the promptness of a towel following a shower."

SEE ALSO: Kevin Costner sues over "Robin Hood" profits >

Please follow The Wire on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

New York Lender Claims Big Banks Rigged Rates And Cheated It Out Of Interest

$
0
0

Manhattan appellate courthouse

A New York lender has sued a group of large banks on the panel that sets a key global interest rate, saying it was cheated out of interest income through alleged rate manipulation.

The lawsuit, filed last week in District Court in Manhattan, seeks class-action status on behalf of similar lenders.

Berkshire Bank, which is not connected to Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, says borrowers were able to take advantage of artificially low interest rates because of the big banks' "unlawful suppression" of benchmark rates.

Defendants named in the suit include Bank of America Corp, Barclays Plc, JPMorgan Chase & Co and Citigroup Inc.

At least one other community bank has filed similar legal claims, a sign that the rate manipulation scandal is having a broad impact. The Community Bank & Trust of Sheboygan, Wisconsin, said in a lawsuit several months ago that alleged rate rigging had kept its interest margins artificially low. That lawsuit also is pending in District Court in Manhattan.

Berkshire Bank had $854 million in assets at the end of last year, according to its website. It has 10 branches in New York and one in New Jersey.

The reliability of the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, which underpins transactions worth trillions of dollars, has been rattled by the rate manipulation accusations. Libor is used to set interest rates on credit cards, student loans and mortgages.

Big banks already face an array of Libor lawsuits by some big investors and local governments. Bank defendants have said in court papers seeking dismissal of these lawsuits that plaintiffs have failed to show banks acted to restrict competition, even if rates were improperly stated.

Berkshire Bank said in court papers dated July 25 that a misrepresentation in the referenced U.S. dollar Libor rate on the date on which a loan resets will generally reduce the lender's interest income.

"It was not only foreseeable but obvious that by manipulating the rate of U.S. dollar Libor, defendants would impair the interest income received by plaintiff and other lenders providing U.S. dollar Libor-tied loans," Berkshire said.

The case is Berkshire Bank vs. Bank of America Corp and others, Case No. 12-5723, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

(Reporting by Sakthi Prasad in Bangalore; Additional reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Martha Graybow and Lisa Von Ahn)

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »


Apple And Samsung Are Squaring Off In The Patent Fight Of The Century

$
0
0

Apple iPhone vs. Samsung Galaxy S

Two tech titans will square off in federal court Monday in a closely watched trial over control of the U.S. smartphone and computer tablet markets.

Apple Inc. filed a lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co. last year alleging the world's largest technology company's smartphones and computer tablets are illegal knockoffs of its popular iPhone and iPad products.

The Cupertino-based company is demanding $2.5 billion in damages, an award that would dwarf the largest patent-related verdict to date.

Samsung counters that Apple is doing the stealing and that some of the technology at issue — such as the rounded rectangular designs of smartphones and tablets — has been industry standards for years.

The U.S. trial is just the latest skirmish between the two over product designs. A similar trial began last week, and the two companies have been fighting in courts in the United Kingdom and Germany.

The case is one of some 50 lawsuits among myriad telecommunications companies jockeying for position in the burgeoning $219 billion market for smartphones and computer tablets.

In the United States, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose last month ordered Samsung to pull its Galaxy 10.1 computer tablet from the U.S. market pending the outcome of the trial, though the judge barred Apple attorneys from telling the jurors about the ban.

"That's a pretty strong statement from the judge and shows you what she thinks about some of Apple's claims," said Bryan Love, a Santa Clara University law professor and patent expert.

Love said that even though the case will be decided by 10 jurors, the judge has the authority to overrule their decision if she thinks they got it wrong.

"In some sense the big part of the case is not Apple's demands for damages but whether Samsung gets to sell its products," said Mark A. Lemley, a Stanford Law School professor and director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science, and Technology.

Lemley also said a verdict in Apple's favor could send a message to consumers that Android-based products such as Samsung's are in legal jeopardy. A verdict in Samsung's favor, especially if it prevails on its demands that Apple pay its asking price to certain transmission technology it controls, could lead to higher-priced Apple products.

Lemley and other legal observers say it's rare that a patent battle with so much at stake doesn't settle short of a trial.

Court-ordered mediation sessions attended by Apple's chief executive Tim Cook and high-ranking Samsung officials failed to resolve the legal squabble, leading to a highly technical trial of mostly expert witnesses opining on patent laws and technology.

Cook is not on the witness list and is not expected to testify during what is expected to be a four week-trial.

Lemley, Love and others say it also appears that Apple was motivated to file the lawsuit, at least in part, by its late founder's public avowals that companies using Android to create smartphones and other products were brazenly stealing from Apple. To that end, Samsung's attorneys made an unsuccessful pitch to have the jury hear excerpts from Steve Jobs' authorized biography.

"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong, I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product," Jobs is quoted as saying in Walter Isaacson's book "Steve Jobs" published in November. "I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

But the judge barred those statements in a ruling earlier this month.

"I really don't think this is a trial about Steve Jobs," Koh said.

In court papers filed last week, each company laid out its legal strategy in so-called "trial briefs."

Apple lawyers argue there is almost no difference between Samsung's products and Apple's and that the South Korean company's internal documents show it copied Apple's iconic designs and its interface.

"Samsung once sold a range of phones and a tablet of its own design," Apple lawyers argue in their documents filed Wednesday. "Now Samsung's mobile devices not only look like Apple's iPhone and iPad, they use Apple's patented software features to interact with the user."

Samsung denies the allegation and counter-charges that Apple copied its iconic iPhone from Sony. Samsung lawyers noted that the company has been developing mobile phones since 1991 and that Apple jumped into the market only in 2007.

"In this lawsuit, Apple seeks to stifle legitimate competition and limit consumer choice to maintain its historically exorbitant profits," Samsung lawyers wrote in their trial brief also filed Wednesday. "Android phones manufactured by Samsung and other companies — all of which Apple has also serially sued in numerous forums worldwide — offer consumers a more flexible, open operating system with greater product choices at a variety of price points as an alternative to Apple's single, expensive and closed-system devices."

"Between 2005 and 2010 alone, Samsung invested $35 billion in research and development relating to telecommunications technology, with over 20,000 engineers worldwide dedicated to telecommunications research and development," Samsung's lawyers wrote.

"One thing that is notable is that this trial is happening at all," said Love, the Santa Clara law professor and patent expert. He said that in an industry such as this where so many companies hold so many vital patents needed by all players, lawsuits are viewed as toying with "mutually assured destruction" and that most disputes are solved through "horse trading" and agreements to share intellectual property and royalties.

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Judge In Apple-Samsung Patent Battle Says It's 'Time For Peace'

$
0
0

Apple iPhone vs. Samsung Galaxy S

The judge presiding over an intellectual property dispute between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. said the chief executive officers of the contending companies should talk again before the jury begins deliberating.

“I’m going to make one more request that CEOs from both sides speak by phone,” U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said in federal court today in San Jose, California. “I see risks here for both sides,” she said.

Koh had ordered the parties to meet before the trial began, a conference that didn’t yield a settlement. “It’s at least worth one more try,” she said today.

Apple sued Samsung in April 2011, accusing it of copying patented designs for mobile devices, and Samsung countersued. The case is the first to go before a federal jury in a battle being waged on four continents for dominance in a smartphone market valued by Bloomberg Industries at $219.1 billion.

Apple is claiming at least $2.5 billion in damages for patent and trade-dress infringement. Cupertino, California-based Apple also wants to make permanent a preliminary ban it won on U.S. sales of a Samsung tablet, and extend the ban to Samsung smartphones.

‘Message Delivered’

Samsung, based in Suwon, South Korea, is trying to persuade the jury to find Apple’s patents invalid and to award unspecified damages for alleged infringement of its patents.

“If all you wanted is to raise that you have IP on these devices, message delivered,” Koh said today. “External valuations” of the intellectual property have been established at the San Jose trial and in other courts, she said.

“In many ways, mission accomplished,” she said. “It’s time for peace.”

Attorneys for both sides said they will obey her request. Apple General Counsel Bruce Sewell, who was in court, told the judge he will deliver the message to his company.

Koh has given each side 25 hours to present its case. The trial is expected to conclude late this month. Jury deliberations may begin as early as Aug. 21, she said.

The case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 11-cv-01846, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

TVNotas Broke Copyright Law By Publishing This Latin American Singer's Wedding Photos

$
0
0

noeliaTVNotas, a Spanish-language magazine focused on celebrity gossip, broke copyright law when it published the photos of a singer's secret wedding in Las Vegas, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Maya Magazines, the publisher of TVNotas, had no right under copyright law to print photos of the 2007 wedding of pop singer Noelia Monge to her producer, Jorge Reynoso, according to court documents obtained by TheWrap.

A paparazzo named Oscar Viquiera allegedly received $1,500 from Maya for a memory disk containing 400 photos and three videos of the couple.

Maya eventually culled through and selected five photos for its photo exposé of the wedding, which the couple hoped to keep secret. They hadn't even told family members.

"Out of all of the possible photos that Maya could have selected from the disk," the documents said, "Maya chose those five because they told the story of the couple's clandestine nuptials in Las Vegas."

The two-to-one decision found that, because the Monge and Reynoso owned the photos and Viquiera had no right to sell them, Maya's exposé was not protected under the oft-cited fair use clause, as their gossip journalism is for commercial and not education enterprise. 

Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., the dissenting voice in the decision, wrote that the ruling undermines journalistic freedoms. 

"To satisfy a celebrity couple's desire to control their public images, the majority extends inappropriate case law to undercut the fair use doctrine and the free press," he wrote.

SEE ALSO: Hollywood banker claims $50 million in damages after alleged police beating >

Please follow The Wire on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Why A Plastic Surgeon Wants $10 Million From This 'Mob Wife'

$
0
0

renee

Plastic surgeon Andrew Klapper is suing mob wife Renee Graziano, along with six corporations, alleging defamation. The doctor —who is seeking $10 million in damages — claims Graziano complained about surgeries Kalpper performed on her, including a body lift, to get attention for her VH1 show, "Mob Wives."

She claimed on air and in print that Klapper's alleged medical malpractice caused extensive bleeding and the need for a blood transfusion.

Klapper denies her claims, according to Courthouse News. The doctor, in his suit, says the mob wife was overly dramatic in the surgery room because she knew cameras were present and wanted the publicity. She says she acted in response to a "near death experience." 

Klapper's suit includes Graziano, six companies, and a former employee who he said went out of her way to destroy his practice. 

Klapper claims that Debra Rossi, the former employee, wrote an email that said, "The fact about Dr. Klapper is that he is seriously addicted to drugs and has extensive mental problems. A simple google search of 'Martinez v. Klapper' will show you the whole story and the real truth about Dr. Klapper. He is about to lose his medical license for good for doing a terrible job during a surgery he did on a young woman."

Rossi says these are unsubstantiated allegations and that she has not been served any papers regarding the issue yet. She also says the above never happened.

"This is a ploy to intimidate me," Rossi said of the doctor.

The lawsuit mentions Rossi, saying she allegedly "acted in concert with defendant, Renee Graziano by conspiring to spread malicious lies ... for the purpose of enhancing Renee Graziano's celebrity and enhancing the popularity and viewing audience of Mob Wives."

Rossi has a whole section of the lawsuit dedicated to her as well, citing her alleged malicious email.

He claims that Graziano repeated her alleged defamatory remarks on VH1blog, Anderson Cooper 360, Fox LA, and The View.

SEE ALSO: The first trailer of the Julian Assange film >

Please follow The Wire on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Obama Campaign Is Trying To Force Ohio Restore Early Voting

$
0
0

Ohio SOS Jon Husted

The Obama campaign filed a motion on Wednesday asking a federal court to force the state of Ohio to obey its decision to restore early voting in the three days before the November election.

The motion was filed in response to an announcement from Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, who said Tuesday that he wouldn’t set early voting hours until an appeals court ruled on a decision made by U.S. District Judge Peter Economus last week. Economos found that the “public interest is served by restoring in-person early voting to all Ohio voters.”

In its filing Wednesday, the Obama campaign pointed out that Ohio had not sought an actual stay of Economus’ decision, and instead “appears to believe it can issue [a stay] on its own authority.” The Obama campaign said Husted’s memo does not “identify the legal basis for this extraordinary action,” and argued that the memo conflicts with a well-established principle that orders based on a court decision are to be respected until an appeals court rules on the matter.

“Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court act as appropriate and necessary to enforce its Order issued August 31, 2012,” lawyer Donald J. McTigue writes in the motion.

Mitt Romney’s campaign has previously attacked the Obama campaign for filing the lawsuit, falsely accusing it of trying to take away early voting rights from members of the military who were exempted from the law. Judge Economus ruled that restoring the early voting hours that were in effect during the 2008 election “places all Ohio voters on equal standing.”

Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

William Shatner's Former Employees Sue For Wrongful Termination

$
0
0

william shatner

Actor William Shatner is finding himself in legal trouble.

A former employee is suing the "Boston Legal" and "Star Trek" actor for wrongful termination and harassment. 

Oscar Alfaro, a handyman for Shatner and his wife Elizabeth, claims he was wrongfully terminated after refusing to sign a release for an on-the-job injury.

Both Alfaro and his wife, Delmy, worked for the Shatners for the past two decades.

According to the couple's lawyer, Alfaro slipped on a wet driveway, and received partial payment from the actor for his medical bills. 

Alfaro says he was fired soon afterward for refusing to sign a release for all claims. 

Since the injury, the couple claim they have experienced nothing but discrimination and harassment from Shatner and his wife.

The couple are seeking unspecified general, special and exemplary damages from the Shatners and 50 unnamed defendants.

SEE ALSO: Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds' secret wedding > 

Please follow The Wire on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

A PR Guru Is Suing A French Fashion Magazine Editor For $1 Million Over An Alleged Face Slap

$
0
0

zac posen, coco rocha

A PR rep is suing the editor-in-chief of French magazine Jalouse for $1 million, claiming she physically assaulted her by slapping her in the face at a recent fashion show, according to The New York Daily News.

The incident supposedly happened after fire marshals removed the first row of seats at Zac Posen's show Sunday, leaving the PR team at HL Group to scramble and reassign VIP seats.

According to NYDN, Jalouse editor Jennifer Eymere didn't like the way HL Group PR maven Lynn Tesoro explained the situation to her and her mother.

She reportedly threatened to slap Tesoro, and then allegedly followed through with her threat.

Tesoro has now filed a $1 million lawsuit against Eymere for “assault, battery, emotional distress, slander and/or libel,"according to the New York Daily News.

Fashion week never fails to be catty.

DON'T MISS: Here's What We Saw Backstage At Nicole Miller's Sci-Fi Runway Show >

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »


Co-Op President Allegedly Sabotaged The Sale Of This Penthouse After Her Own Bid Was Rejected

$
0
0

Messing with someone's terrace space in a ritzy Fifth Avenue co-op building is enough to bring on a full-fledged legal battle in New York.

After 1107 Fifth Ave. board president Maureen Klinsky's low-ball bid to buy her building's penthouse was rejected, Klinsky set out to sabotage the sale, according to a lawsuit obtained by New York Post.

Klinsky's $21 million bid on the apartment fell significantly below the $29.5 million list price. After it was rejected, the suit claims, Klinsky purposed to the board that the full-floor apartment’s private wraparound terrace could be used by all of the resident's buildings to enter the newly proposed roof deck.

The estate of Monique Uzielli, the current owner, wants $5 million in damages — and a court order declaring that the terrace is private.

The apartment is currently under contract, according to the listing's website, but the Post reports the co-op board is refusing to hand over the proper documents for the closing of the sale.

Here are some photos of the roof deck and the apartment.

fifth avenue penthouse

 

fifth avenue penthouse

 

fifth avenue penthouse

 

fifth avenue penthouse

 

fifth avenue penthouse

DON'T MISS: Legendary Party Thrower Robert 'Toshi' Chan Takes Us Inside His Williamsburg Bachelor Pad >

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Nissan Rebuffs Claims In Lawsuit Over Leaf Battery Life

$
0
0

nissan leaf

In response to a potential class action lawsuit filed against it in California last week over the battery life and range of the Leaf, Nissan says the case "lacks merit."

The lawsuit was filed by Humberto Daniel Klee and David Wallak, on behalf of current owners and lessees in California of 2011-2012 Leafs.

It charges that Nissan violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Business Practices Act.

It comes down to Nissan's advertisement of the electric car's range as 100 miles. The lawsuit reads:

Unbeknownst to purchasers, the advertised driving range is based on the vehicle's performance only after fully charging the battery to 100% capacity. In fact, however, charging the battery to 100% causes battery damage, and Nissan expressly recommends that owners not charge their vehicle to 100% in order to maximize battery life and that the battery be charged to only 80% capacity.

Filed in the California Central District Court, the lawsuit also charges that Nissan did not disclose a "thermal management defect" in the battery system that has limited range and battery performance in all 2011-2012 Leaf cars.

Nissan released a statement that does not respond directly to the accusations, but says it has not withheld information or misled owners and potential customers:

Nissan has provided information on how the vehicle works, its estimated range, and factors that can affect both range and battery life through many sources, including the Nissan LEAF website, owner's manual and detailed written disclosure.

The plaintiffs are seeking an order to stop Nissan using misleading information while selling the Leaf, to send Leaf owners and lessees "corrective disclosures," to reform its battery warranty, and to replace the battery systems of all the vehicles in question.

See More: The 15 Coolest Cars And Concepts At The Paris Motor Show

Please follow Getting There on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Elton John Loses Libel Case Against Rupert Murdoch's 'The Times'

$
0
0

The Times

The libel case between the Murdoch-owned UK newspaper "The Times" and Elton John was decided today, with the UK High Court ruling in favor of the paper.

John sued "The Times" over an article published Jun. 21, 2012 with the headline "Screen Play: how movie millions are moved offshore" which said a former accountant of the singer, Patrick McKenna, was one of two main providers of film investment schemes in the UK. 

However, John claimed he never heard of McKenna. Rather, the man simply worked at an accounting firm he once employed.

In response, "The Times" ran a correction on Jun. 22 clarifying McKenna and John were never involved in business together.

John claimed the correction was not noticeable enough to clear his name from the tax avoidance scheme mentioned.

Instead, the singer claimed the article had damaging effects on his reputation in the "sphere of charity fundraising."

The UK High Court did not agree.

"The conclusion I have reached is that the words complained of are not capable of bearing the meaning attributed to them by the claimant or any other defamatory meaning," Justice Michael Tugendhat said according to the "Guardian."

SEE ALSO: QVC host faints on live TV >

Please follow The Wire on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Black Keys Settle Lawsuit With Home Depot & Pizza Hut Over Cheesy Bites Ad

$
0
0

The Black KeysRock duo the Black Keys have reached a state of harmony with Pizza Hut and Home Depot.

Or at least they've agreed to call off the lawyers.

The group, along with their producer Danger Mouse, have reached settlement agreements with the pizza chain and the home-goods giant, after filing suits against them in June, according to court papers obtained by TheWrap.

Also read: The Black Keys Sue Pizza Hut and Home Depot Over Ads

According to court papers, the parties have requested that the suits, which were filed in U.S. District Court in California, remain on the docket while they finish documenting the settlements.

The group and its producer claimed that Pizza Hut, in "a brazen and improper effort to capitalize on Plaintiffs' hard-earned success," used the group's 2011 song "Gold on the Ceiling" in an ad for their Cheesy Bites Pizza without authorization, and that Home Depot had done the same with their song "Lonely Boy" in a commercial for Ryobi power tools.

Also read: Review: Black Keys' Glam 'El Camino" Leaves Blues in the Dust

The group had sought injunctions against the companies from further using the songs, plus reimbursement for profits derived from the songs' use, unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and court costs.

Terms of the settlements were not disclosed, and the group's attorney has not yet responded to TheWrap's request for comment.

However, if the group suddenly finds itself with an abundance of Cheesy Bites pizza and bathroom tiles, you'll know why.

Pamela Chelin contributed to this report.

SEE ALSO: Steven Tyler's lawyer being sued over botched 'American Idol' contract negotiations >

Please follow The Wire on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Judge Rules California's $69 Billion Bullet Train Project Will Go On

$
0
0

california high speed rail bullet train

SACRAMENTO -- California's $69 billion bullet train will continue zooming toward a groundbreaking next year after a judge on Friday denied a last-ditch request from Central Valley opponents to halt all work on the state's high speed rail project.

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Tim Frawley said at the end of a closely watched three-hour hearing that the 520-mile rail line was so unprecedented in size that he alone could not stop it now.

"This keeps us on track," Jeff Morales, CEO of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said inside the courthouse after the hearing. "It's not a surprise, but obviously you don't know until you get the ruling."

The long-shot request was filed by Madera County and local farmers who did not want the first 29-mile stretch of the high-speed railway to come through their Central California properties. Many of them showed up alongside several reporters from around the state to witness the courtroom drama.

The Madera opponents argued the state did not adequately plan for the project under California environmental law and asked Frawley to issue an injunction to stop all planning. The state conceded the delay would have pushed back a groundbreaking scheduled for as soon as July. And it might have put the entire bullet train in jeopardy because $3 billion in federal funding to start construction is tied to a deadline.

Though the bullet train has fended off several other lawsuits, with a few more pending, this case is the most important because it is the only one that sought an injunction and thus could have immediately blocked construction. After voters passed the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles rail line in 2008, Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature in July approved the first Central Valley link.

This, however, is not the end of the legal battle. With the injunction request out of the way, both sides will now battle over the actual lawsuit, with a hearing scheduled on April 19, though Frawley said he was leaning toward ruling in favor of the state. Opponents are also contemplating a federal lawsuit.

"I think this is a slap in the face to our very important agricultural interests," a tearful Anja Raudabaugh, executive director of the Madera County Farm Bureau, said after the judge's ruling.

Frawley said to issue an injunction, he would have had to rule that construction would harm the farmers more than it would harm the project. But citing the potential the delays would have to raise construction costs and lose billions of dollars in federal funding, he said it was "not close" -- the project had more to lose than the farmers.

Frawley also said that there was not much point in issuing an injunction now, before the full case is decided in April, since construction won't start until summer 2013.

Barry Epstein, an attorney for the bullet train opponents, argued that spending "tens of millions" of taxpayer dollars planning for the project over the next several months would push the state so far along that it'd be impossible to stop it by next spring.

Epstein also argued the "rushed" environmental plans the state undertook over the last few years to prepare for the first leg of tracks failed to analyze everything from road closures to noise impacts to lost agricultural land. That strategy is typically how similar environmental cases are won by opponents, as a judge could rule that a developer needs to do more studies before starting construction.

But deputy attorney general James Andrew, defending the rail authority, brought huge maps and documents to the courtroom, showing point by point where the state had included plans for each of the things Epstein said were missing.

"It's all there," Andrew told the judge.

Ultimately, Frawley ruled the rail authority did not need to be flawless in its plans largely because the project was so massive -- requiring 15,000 pages of planning -- and also because the law "does not require perfection."

Contact Mike Rosenberg at 408-920-5705. Follow him at Twitter.com/rosenberg17. ___

(c)2012 the San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.)

Visit the San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.) at www.mercurynews.com

Distributed by MCT Information Services

SEE ALSO: A $4.2 Billion Transit Center Will Make Getting Around San Francisco A Breeze

Please follow Getting There on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Viewing all 86 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images