Interesting piece in the New York Times Research section on parental views of vaccines and the possible link to autism. This has been an ongoing debate, and scare, which has lead 1 in 8 parents to refuse a recommended vaccination for their young child.
Read the entire article.
Here are some great legal blogs I have come across this year. Take a minute and check them out:
Latest information and developments in consumer law, with a focus on the civil justice system, environmental protection, medical negligence, political influence, tobacco, tort reform and vehicle defects.
A great source of news and discussion on class action issues, both in California and nationwide.
Catch the latest news and progress in pharmaceutical and medical device litigation from the experienced attorneys at Pogust Braslow and Millrood.
For the latest updates on the top practicing firms and attorneys across the country.
This article, "Concerns Over 'Metal on Metal' Hip Implants," from Wednesdays New York Times, highlights the ongoing discussion and alleged danger of using certain hip replacement devices.
Doctors aren't happy with the performance of many 'metal on metal' devices, and advise caution to other doctors and patents considering these systems. Some devices have been recalled, and many are being replaced due to continued complications. Learn more about metal hip implant devices, like the Zimmer Durom Cup.
In a recent decision, California state court Judge Brett Klein ordered attorneys fees be paid to plaintiffs’ counsel in the form of gift cards for defendant’s retail store. What makes this order more unusual than the form of payment? Plaintiffs’ attorney is a male, and defendant is a women’s apparel retailer.
The class action asserted that Windsor Fashions was committing routine violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, and sought compensation for “all customers who, between November 29, 2006 and November 18, 2008, purchased merchandise from Defendant’s stores in the State of California, used a credit card to make the purchase(s), and whose address, E mail address or telephone number was requested and recorded by a Winsor Fashions employee.”
At the time of Judge Klein’s decision, preliminary approval of settlement had already been granted by Judge Susan Bryant-Deason, who was presiding over the case at the time. The preliminary approval order called for payment to the class in the form of $10 gift vouchers and $125,000 to class counsel in reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
On the day of the final approval hearing, Judge Bryant-Deason was ill, and Judge Klein took the bench in her absence. Judge Klein not only went against Judge Bryant-Deason’s preliminary approval order and changed the terms of the settlement after the final approval hearing, but according to state Commission on Judicial Performance, he “engaged in a pattern of sarcasm and improper remarks toward the attorneys.”
Judges generally have discretion to determine what is and what is not considered fair and reasonable for attorneys’ fees. However, judges do not have unfettered ability to rule outside the scope of acceptable practice. The state Commission on Judicial Performance ultimately barred Judge Klein from presiding over future court cases and from receiving any state court-referred work.
On March 2, 2010, the Ninth Circuit reversed, in part, a district court’s grant of summary judgment in Rutti v. Lojack Corp., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 4278 (9th Cir. 2010). The case – a proposed class action/FLSA collective action brought on behalf of Lojack alarm installation technicians – challenged Lojack’s failure to pay for time spent commuting to client locations. The district court granted Lojack’s summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff’s commute was not compensable as a matter of law under both California law, as well as under the Portal to Portal Act (a component of the FLSA).
To read the rest of this post, and get the latest information on class action issues in California and nationwide, subscribe to www.baileydaily.com
In a press release issued last Friday, KPA announced their sponsorship and leadership commitments for the first half of 2010.
Not only devoting money to sponsor events such as the Capitol Hill Reception at the upcoming AAJ Minority Caucus Lobby Days and the Keynote Lunch featuring Roger Dreyer at the CAOC Tahoe Seminar, KPA also vows to dedicate thought leadership through judging the AAJ Student Trial Advocacy Competition, presenting at the CAOC Tahoe Seminar, and contributing articles to the AAJ Women's Caucus and Minority Caucus Newsletters.
Look for the KPA attorneys at each of these amazing events. They continue to dedicate themselves to developing programs that create discussion between plaintiff attorneys across the country, will you?
When civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact are pending in different districts, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Panel) may transfer those actions to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) process. 28 U.S.C. § 1407. When this happens, a fundamental inquiry arises: Which circuit’s law will the transferee court apply to the class certification determination? District courts are divided into two camps on this issue: one group following the law of the courts from which they were transferred (transferor courts) while the other group applies its own circuit’s laws. The MDL assignment is technically for pretrial proceedings only, and unless the transferred cases are resolved during pretrial proceedings, the Panel must remand the cases back to the transferor courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a).
The justification for the first approach (district courts following the law of the transferor court) has been that the Panel is obligated to remand any transferred cases back to the transferor courts for trial. In other words, class certification is not only a pre-trial issue: class certification requirements are entangled with trial considerations because the trial court will need to examine the facts and law raised by the class claims. Further, given that Section 1407 requires cases to remand to the transferor courts for trial, the transferee court’s authority ends once the pretrial proceedings are completed. The case that best embodies this principle is In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 241 F.R.D. 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) wherein the court reasoned, “[i]t would be neither just nor efficient to apply the law of this Circuit in considering class certification, and then force the transferor court to try a class action that it might never have certified.” Thus, the court applied the law of the transferor court in examining class certification.
The justification for the second approach (district courts applying their own circuit’s laws) is that there is only one body of federal law and there is ultimately a single proper interpretation of federal law. At its core, this approach has considerations of consistency and efficiency in mind. One of the more important current cases exemplifying this concept is the Central District of California’s decision in In re Live Concert Antitrust Litigation, 247 F.R.D. 98 (C.D. Cal. 2007). The court in Live Concert held that the transferee court’s law applies to class certification determinations in the MDL context. The Live Concert court noted that “circuit and district courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have uniformly applied the law of the transferee circuit in MDL proceedings involving federal law.”
Unfortunately, so long as the current MDL remand procedure exists, both approaches have their inherent problems since the remand procedure leads to two highly flawed approaches to the choice-of-law issue. Neither approach provides an adequate answer to the choice-of-law question: either the transferee district court abides by its own circuit’s law and faces the risk that the transferor district court or circuit will overturn the decision, or it makes a determination that may be incorrect under its own circuit’s precedent to avoid a problem upon remand.
Coverage on the popular GlaxoSmithKline medicine, Avandia, has recently sparked due to a new Senate report. Although hundreds of individuals suffer each month from the dangerous side affects associated with the drug, the drug still remains on the market. A better look at these latest developments can be read in this NY Times article - "Research Ties Diabetes Drug to Heart Woes".
Shawn Khorrami and James Kenna of KPA have been appointed to the JCCP Steering Committee for Avandia, and will continue to fight on behalf of those injured individuals.
Get to know KPA Senior Associate, Jim Kenna:
Q: Where are you from? A: I was born and raised in a small village in Ireland.
Q: How long have you been in the United States? A: I moved to California in 1984.
Q: Are you on Team Conan or Team Leno? A: Most definitely....Team Conan!
Q: Best song of all time? A: "I still haven't found what I'm looking for" by U2
Q: Starbucks drink of choice? A: Grande latte
Q: Favorite Superhero? A: Batman
Q: Favorite sports team? A: Manchester United - English Premier League Soccer team.
Q: Saying to live by? A: "The true test of character is doing the right thing, when nobody is looking."
Q: Favorite television show? A: Boston Legal.
Q: Favorite fictitious lawyer? A: Atticus Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird.
Q: Tell us a little bit about your experience building houses in the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans with other KPA employees through LowerNine.Org. A: It was one of the most rewarding and fulfilling experiences of my legal career to date. Not only am I representing these victims of Katrina in the courtroom, but I was also able to make a tangible difference for some families by physically helping to construct a home for them.
Q: What made you want to practice law? A: I wanted a career that was intellectually challenging and at the same time could effect positive change in society.
Q: Favorite part about being a plaintiff lawyer? A: It is the idea that we are always fighting for the underdog and trying to even the playing field for those less fortunate.
Q: Any advice to clients? A: Be patient because litigation can be a drawn out process. Be upfront about anything negative in your case, and we will work hard for you.
Q: Advice to first year attorneys? A: Ask questions, but also have done some research into potential answers. Don't fear being wrong. Eventually you will find your niche in your firm and your profession.
Enter keywords:
