Web Site Sues Google Over Its Low Ranking

A company has sued Google because it’s unhappy with its ranking. Parent portal KinderStart.com accuses the search giant of unfair trade practices and a lack of objectivity after KinderStart said its Web site stopped being listed in the results as prominently as it had been in the past. Here’s the story from Red Herring.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Jose on Friday, the company said that Google blocked its site, violating the “free flow of speech, traffic, and commerce.” The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, could potentially force Google to reveal its proprietary search logarithims.

A Google spokesperson told Red Herring: “We believe the lawsuit is without merit and we will defend against it vigorously.” . . .

[S]aid a reseach analyst to Red Herring: “The implications of what they’re arguing are really sweeping. It would imply everyone is entitled to their ranking. It’s a piece of property they own. Every time someone’s ranking changes, they can make these types of claims.”

Details here from The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog.

Supreme Court Limits State-Court Securities-Fraud Class Actions

In a victory for corporations and a defeat for securities class-action plaintiffs’ lawyers, the Supreme Court today severely limited the viability of shareholder lawsuits brought in state courts. The unanimous opinion written by Justice Stevens ruled that the purpose of the pre-emption provision of SLUSA — the 1995 federal securities litigation reform act — is to pre-empt certain types of state-law shareholder class actions.

Which types? The court ruled that lawsuits brought by “holders” of securities alleging fraud must, under SLUSA, bring their cases in federal court just like “buyers” or “sellers” of securties who allege fraud. Justice Stevens said the distinction between “holders,” on the one hand, and “buyers” or “sellers,” on the other, “is irrelevant” in civil securities lawsuits. Had the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, argued the securities industry, it could have opened up the floodgates for state-law securities fraud claims brought by “holders” rather than buyers and sellers.

Shareholder class action suits–brought by such plaintiffs firms as Milberg Weiss and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman–have for years been the scourge of Wall Street. While Corporate America loathes any shareholder class action suit, it especially detests having to defend itself in state court, which typically brings relaxed pleading standards and the potential for substantial punitive damage awards.

Details here from The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog. The Court's opinion is here.

Supreme Court Tackles Patentability of Scientific Phenomena

Supreme Court justices appeared reluctant Tuesday to decide a key patent law case in a way that would, as one justice put it, establish "monopolies in this country beyond belief" over naturally occurring phenomena.

Justice Stephen Breyer expressed that concern during oral arguments in Laboratory Corp. of America v. Metabolite, a dispute that tests the scope of patentability. Other justices indicated sympathy with the solicitor general's view that the case should be sent back to lower courts for further review.

The case could help resolve a festering debate in patent law over whether a basic scientific phenomenon can be patented -- and, by extension, whether business strategies or other less tangible creations can also be patented.

Details here from Tony Mauro of Legal Times.

‘Cut & Paste’ Shoots Down Shooting Victim’s Case

Note to lawyers: you probably should prepare new briefs for each case you do.

On Tuesday, a split three-judge Ninth Circuit panel granted Jacqueline Canales-Vargas’s request to have an immigration court review its denial of her asylum claim, even though the Peruvian refugee — who said she was a threatened after speaking out against Shining Path rebels — might have suffered from some less-than-original lawyering.

In a footnote to his majority opinion, Judge Harry Pregerson wrote that “Canales-Vargas also claims in her opening brief that she was shot four times by members of the Shining Path. As both the government and our dissenting colleague properly note, these facts are not in the record and appear to be a vestige from a different immigration case that Canales-Vargas’ attorney cut-and-pasted into the brief in this case. Of course, we do not hold the sloppiness of Canales-Vargas’ attorney against Canales-Vargas herself.”

From Law.com's Legal Pad blawg. The Court's opinion is here.

B Vitamin Supreme Court Case Could Prove Tough Medicine for Patent Lawyers

B vitamin deficiencies can cause a range of serious health effects, including spinal defects in children born to women with below-normal levels of folic acid and anemia in people not getting enough B12.

That's why a two-step method of diagnosing those deficiencies that three medical school doctors patented in 1990 has become so widely used. It's performed tens of millions of times a year, at a cost of just a dollar or two, by laboratory testing companies nationwide.

Now, to the surprise of patent attorneys, a case involving one of those companies, sued after it stopped paying some royalties, has landed in the Supreme Court, where arguments will be heard Tuesday.

Even more surprising is that the Supreme Court may dredge up a bombshell question not asked when the lower courts considered the case: Have inventors been busy patenting laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas?

At stake, attorneys on both sides of the case say, are 25 years of patent law and literally tens of thousands of patents on drugs, medical devices, computer software and other inventions. If the court reins in what can be patented, they say, it could be among the most important patent law decisions ever made.

Details here from the AP via Law.com.

A Promise Kept: Texas Firm Spends $25,000 to Recover $77.55

In the age of tort reform, Texas plaintiffs attorneys are used to turning away clients whose suits cost more to litigate than can ever be recovered at trial. So why would a lawyer accept a case in which a client sought $77.55 -- an amount of money that might pay for 15 minutes of an attorney's time?

Partner James Holmes of Henderson, Texas' Wellborn Houston says he proudly accepted such a case in 1997. And years later, he and his East Texas firm ended up paying $25,000 in trial costs and legal fees out of their own pockets to recover that $77.55 for their client. The firm did not charge the client anything for the additional representation.

Holmes explains that, by representing Robbie L. Linton, he was making good on a promise his firm made nearly two decades earlier. On Jan. 29, Linton, a former oil field worker injured on the job 20 years earlier, won a verdict for $77.55 -- the cost of two prescriptions an insurance carrier refused to cover.

"This is the funniest tragic thing I've ever seen," Holmes says.

Details here from Texas Lawyer via Law.com.

Lawyer's Insults of Judges Escalate Into Speech Case

A constitutional battle involving a lawyer's right to insult a judge has been joined at the Michigan Supreme Court, which could set new limits on what lawyers say and do outside the courtroom.

And at the center of it all is Geoffrey Fieger, the outspoken former attorney for assisted-suicide doctor Jack Kevorkian.

Fieger faces a reprimand from the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission for insulting three state appellate judges on a radio talk show in 1999 after the judges overturned a $15 million verdict he won in a medical malpractice case.

According to the grievance commission, Fieger used numerous obscenities, called the justices "three jackass court of appeals judges," declared war on them and referred to them as "Nazis."

Big deal, argued Fieger's lawyer, Michael Alan Schwartz, maintaining that Fieger's comments outside the courtroom are protected by the First Amendment.

"There's no law that says you've got to be dignified," said Schwartz of Schwartz, Kelly & Oltarz-Schwartz in Farmington Hills, Mich. "Why are they looking to Fieger and what did he do that was so terrible? He made some uncharitable comments about a couple of judges in the course of a radio program."

MICHIGAN'S UNIQUE RULES

But according to the grievance commission, Fieger violated two Michigan rules regarding professional conduct, including a "courtesy rule," which is unique to Michigan and requires that lawyers treat judges with respect and courtesy.

"We all agree that attorneys have the right to criticize judges. There's no doubt about that ... . They just have to do so in a professional way," said Robert Edick, deputy administrator for the grievance commission.

Edick said the commission is asking the state high court to draw the line between an attorney's right to free speech and an attorney's obligation to courtesy and professionalism.

Details here from The National Law Journal via Law.com.

Crimson Tide Fan Sues Random House, Alleging Outrage

MONTGOMERY, ALA. (CN) – A fanatic University of Alabama football fan has sued an author and two divisions of Random House, claiming they used a photo of his green 1972 Dodge RV, known to Crimson Tide fans as “The Toad,” as a book cover without paying him for it. Ron St. John follows the Crimson Tide to every game in The Toad.

He sued author Warren St. John, Three Rivers Press and Crown Publishing Group in Federal Court, claiming Random House published “Rammer Jammer Yellow Hammer: A Road Trip into the Heart of Fan Mania,” with a photo of The Toad on the cover. They promised to pay him for it, but stiffed him, he says.

He also sues for outrageous conduct, claiming defendant St. John bought his own RV to follow the Tide, dubbed it The Hawg, and now fans approach plaintiff St. John and dare to ask him whether The Toad is The Hawg. “The emotional distress that Defendant(s) caused Plaintiff to suffer was so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.” He seeks punitive damages. He is represented by Richard “Cracker” Waldrop of Enterprise, Ala.

From Courthouse News Service.

Who Is Carla Martin and Why Is She In Trouble?

Lawyer excoriated by both sides after Moussaoui trial blunder

Until Monday, Martin, 51, was a mid-career attorney working in relative obscurity at the Transportation Safety Administration. Now she's a fixture in the news.

It began with the disclosure of conduct that threatens to derail the sentencing trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person to face a U.S. jury in connection with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Martin is accused of improperly contacting a half-dozen aviation safety witnesses in violation of a judge's order. She sent them trial transcripts by e-mail, supplemented with her observations, suggestions and talking points, according to testimony.

Martin's attorney, Roscoe Howard, defended her Thursday.

"Someone has decided they're going to throw her under the bus, and that's exactly what's happened here," Howard said Thursday in an interview with CNN. "I think there are explanations for everything." Howard said earlier in a statement that Martin has been "viciously vilified by assertions from the prosecution and various media pundits."

"Only her accusers' stories have been told; and those stories have been accepted as the whole truth. They are not," Howard's statement said.

Details here from CNN.

Judging By His Handwriting

Holier-than-thou jurist scrawls an illegible signature order

MARCH 14--It seems that there is a serious penmanship problem with lawyers filing documents in Mississippi's Eighth Circuit Court. So much so that the presiding judge there issued the below order warning attorneys that the court clerk would now reject pleadings and motions containing illegible signatures. The judicial order, filed February 3, will be enforced by clerks in four Mississippi counties: Leake, Neshoba, Newton, and Scott. Now here's the funny part: We defy you to make out the signature of the judge who issued the handwriting order. Sure, some online searching may turn the guy's name up, but to TSG's naked eye, it seems the jurist is named "Micg Gl." Or perhaps "Smccg Ge."

Details here from The Smoking Gun. (via The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog)

Raul Galaz v. Julian Jackson, Cal. Ct. Appeal, 2nd App. Dist. No. B184916 (Mar. 16, 2006)

Plaintiff and appellant Raul Galaz, having successfully defrauded owners of a television program of a large amount of royalty payments, entered into an illegal moneylaundering contract with defendant and respondent Julian Jackson. Under their oral agreement, Galaz would give Jackson $59,000 in illicit royalty proceeds, which Jackson would place in an offshore bank account and return the funds in untraceable cash to Galaz, less a five percent commission for himself. Jackson, however, eschewed the commission and kept the cash. Galaz, aggrieved to find so little honor among thieves, sued Jackson for rescission and fraud. Following a bench trial, the court denied relief and ruled in favor of Jackson. The court refused to grant any relief under the illegal contract, and found Galaz’s unclean hands precluded the equitable remedy of rescinding the illegal contract. Alternatively, the court found that Galaz’s actions on the oral contract and for fraud were barred by the applicable two- and three-year statutes of limitation.

In his timely appeal, Galaz contends (1) the trial court erred in refusing to rescind the illegal contract, and (2) his claims were not barred by the statutes of limitations. We disagree with the first contention and, therefore, have no reason to reach the second. As ur courts have long recognized, an illegal contract may not serve as the foundation of any action, either in law or in equity. This state’s courts are not in the business of helping criminals recover the proceeds of their fraudulent schemes.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Spitzer Files $250M Fraud Suit Against H&R Block

New York state filed a $250 million fraud suit Wednesday against H&R Block Inc., the nation's largest tax-preparing service, charging the company fraudulently steered customers into a losing retirement account plan.

The news unnerved investors, who sent H&R Block shares down $1.30, or almost 6 percent, to $20.70 in midday trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan's state Supreme Court, says Block advised clients to buy an "unsuitable, fraudulently marketed, poorly performing, fee-ridden 'retirement vehicle' called the Express IRA," an account that actually shrinks over time.

The court papers, filed by Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, say the money in the retirement account decreases because the only investment option offered is a money market account with an interest rate so low that it does not cover the fees -- "fees that H&R Block fails to adequately disclose."

Details here from the AP via Law.com.

Google, Justice Department Set to Face Off in Court

(AP) - SAN FRANCISCO-The U.S. administration will renew its effort to find out what people have been looking for on Google Inc.'s Internet-leading search engine, continuing a legal showdown over how much of the Web's vast databases should be shared with the government. Lawyers for the Justice Department and Google are expected to elaborate on their opposing views in a San Jose hearing scheduled Tuesday before U.S. District Court Judge James Ware.

It will mark the first time the Justice Department and Google have sparred in court since the government subpoenaed the Mountain-View, California-based company last summer in an effort to obtain a long list of search requests and Web site addresses.

The government believes the requested information will help bolster its arguments in another case in Pennsylvania, where the Bush administration hopes to revive a law designed to make it more difficult for children to see online pornography. Google has refused to cooperate, maintaining that the government's demand threatens its users' privacy as well as its own closely guarded trade secrets.

Details here from the AP via FindLaw.com.

Hey Mickey, Watch Out For That Harley!

The organization known as Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Club has filed a lawsuit against Walt Disney for the media giant’s use of the Hell’s Angels’s name and trademark in its upcoming film “Wild Hogs.” (Here’s the complaint from FindLaw.com.)

The motorcycle club says it never approved Disney’s usage of its name and trademarked death skull in publicizing the movie, a comedy about middle-aged bikers. (Click here for the Hell’s Angels’ Web site, which displays the organization’s helmeted, horned, and feathered skull.)

The suit, filed in California federal court, alleges that the movie’s promotional materials say that “Wild Hogs” — which will star John Travolta and Tim Allen and is set to begin production next month — is about a “group of middle-aged wannabe bikers look[ing] for adventure out on the open road, where they soon encounter a chapter of the Hell’s Angels.”

Details here from The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog.

Case Proceeds Over 'Flying' T-Shirt Accident

In a case with echoes of Palsgraf, a Long Island judge has ruled that a lawsuit filed by an 11-year-old girl and her grandmother, who were both injured when a man crashed into them while chasing a T-shirt launched into a crowd at Jones Beach as part of a radio-station promotion, presents triable issues of fact.

"The permission granted to the defendant radio station to stage this event impliedly, if not expressly, obligated it to ensure that reasonable, common sense safeguards were used," Acting Supreme Court Justice Lawrence J. Brennan of Nassau County, N.Y., held in Curran v. CXR Holding, 011118/02. "These included providing security and warnings, and not allowing these shirts to be randomly thrown or slingshoted into the air without regard for the safety of bystanders, beachgoers or others using the beach for normal purposes."

Plaintiff Kristen Curran was attending an Independence Day fireworks show with her mother, grandmother and six of her siblings. They were sitting on a blanket when rock-station WBAB-FM began launching T-shirts into the audience as part of a pre-fireworks promotion. Kristen claims the station used a cannon-type device; the station claims the shirts were thrown.

Either way, the plaintiffs alleged "that within a few minutes, a large, rowdy male beachgoer descended upon the blanket in an attempt to grab a 'flying' t-shirt, and, in so doing, fell on them and caused [them] to sustain serious personal injuries," according to the decision.

Details here from the New York Law Journal via Law.com.