California resident Colleen Gallagher filed suit in federal court in San Francisco alleging that Chipotle falsely represents its food as GMO-free. Her allegations are that the restaurant chain knowingly mislead diners into paying premium prices for food they thought was of a higher quality. The company posts disclaimers on its website telling customers that the animal feed used to raise the meat for Chipotle is GMO feed and that many of its drinks also contain GMO ingredients. Ms. Gallagher argues that the average customer will never see these disclaimers and that they will only rely on the company’s advertising.
Lawsuits & Litigation
The highest court in New York refused to hear an appeal from the Nonhuman Rights Project regarding the legal personhood of Kiko & Tommy, two captive chimpanzees. Lower courts ruled against the idea that the chimps deserved basic rights, such as freedom from captivity.
I was involved in the exact same type of class-action litigation as a contractor for UPS Supply Chain Solutions, who withheld payments from me in a very similar fashion that Uber drivers are accusing their company, only instead of tips, it was a fuel surcharge. Our case also began in Northern Californa, only to have competing attorneys recruit additional plaintiffs to sue in Florida, which led to the case becoming consolidated and transferred to South Florida District Court. The case I was involved with, Dunakin vs. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, ended up being dismissed with Judge Joan Leonard ruling that individual driver’s cases were too different to be considered part of the same class.
C.R. Bard settles vaginal mesh lawsuits for $200M. This agreement comes after five years of expensive legal battles. Over 3,000 women claiming that implantation of Bard’s bladder or vaginal sling caused them injuries filed the suits being settled. The products are commonly used in surgeries treating stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. This isn’t
The appeals ruling involved the civil rights of protestor Harold Hodge of Southern Maryland. In January 2011 after ignoring three warnings by Supreme Court police, Hodge was arrested while wearing a sign inside of the plaza near the front of the Court’s entrance that read, “The U.S. Gov. Allows Police to Illegally Murder and Brutalize African Americans and Hispanic People.”
The hearing also comes as California begins resuming executions this fall, introducing a new single-drug lethal injection procedure. The state had issued a defacto suspension of executions since 2006, joining many states’ concerns over the effectiveness and pain level of the established injection substances. It also comes just weeks after Connecticut’s Supreme Court commuted all of its condemned prisoners’ death sentences to life without parole. Voters in that state abolished the death penalty in 2012; however the law that was adopted only abolished it for future crimes, not for those already sentenced.
Lexmark added Impression products to the list of over two dozen defendants in a patent infringement lawsuit filed in U.S. Court for the Southern District of Ohio, a suit that began by the company in 2010. Although all of the other defendants buckled to Lexmark’s clout, either choosing to settle, or with the court granting Lexmark default judgments against absentee defendants, Smith and his attorney stood their ground electing to fight the lawsuit.
The 2-1 panel ruling did not dismiss the case outright, kicking the case back to lower federal court for further deliberation. The ruling, however, severely weakens the validity of the lawsuit and likely for similar cases of privacy invasion by the spying program in the future.
Laster believed that the executives fraudulently created grim sales forecasts, as well as drove the stock price down by understating the cost savings of Dole’s 2012 sale of its Asian operations, as well as cancelling a planned stock buyback. These activities led to Murdock purchasing the remaining shares for $13.50 each in a $1.2 billion purchase. Laster ruled that the executives undervalued the shares by $2.74 apiece, ordering that they pay the difference, a total of $148.2 million to the investors, many of them pension funds, that filed the class-action lawsuit.
In addition to suing for compensatory and punitive damages, the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction mandating that the automakers install the automatic shutoff components in all current and future vehicles with keyless ignition systems.