California Business Litigation Blog

Boskovich Farms, Inc. filed a lawsuit in Orange County (California) Superior Court. In that lawsuit, Boskovich alleges that Taco Bell knew the green onions from its farm were NOT the cause of the E.coli outbreak that sickened 70 people, but continued to link the green onions to the outbreak. Thomas Girardi, a lawyer representing Oxnard based Boskovich Farms told the Los Angeles Times “Taco Bell engaged in an irresponsible and intentional crusade to save its own brand at the expense of an innocent supplier.”

Attorney Girardi went on to say, “The false connection between the farm and the fast food chain's E. coli problem has cost Boskovich millions of dollars of business."

Taco Bell stated, “We believed green onions may have been the source based on the presumptive positive testing, so we immediately removed them from our products to put public safety first. We later learned they were not the source of the E. coli outbreak."

The bottom line seems to be that that Boskovich green onions were clean, and Taco Bell is no longer using green onions in any of their food items.

It is highly likely that this lawsuit will come down to “Who said what and when?”

Meanwhile Boskovich announced that due to declining sales, green onions will no longer be grown on the 55 acre plot previously dedicated to the crop.

Continue reading "Taco Bell Sued for Libel by California Farm" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation

Bookmark:

Does 40 years of filing frivolous lawsuits constitute intellectual property? Steve Samwell learned about the lawsuit filed against NBC Universal by Clifton Mallery and his wife Amnau Karam Eele claiming their work has been wrongfully used on the television show “Heroes”. Mr. Samwell is asserting that Mallery & Eele have stolen his intellectual property and are profiting from that theft.

Samwell claims to have pioneered this type of lawsuit in 1967. Mr. Samwell filed suit against Mel Brooks, Buck Henry and other creators of the “Get Smart” TV show. He claimed that “Get Smart” was based on a short story he had sent to “Look” magazine in 1958. Although his story was never published, the case was settled for an undisclosed amount.

On March 26, Samwell announced that he will file a lawsuit against “everyone in the past 40 years who has filed a lawsuit claiming that their idea was stolen.”

Sadly, frivolous lawsuits cost everyone, including taxpayers whose dollars support courthouses, judges and their staff. I hope Mr. Samwell will reconsider this litigation…..Earth to Samwell…..are you listening?

Continue reading "Los Angeles: Is “Heroes” Lawsuit Against NBC Frivolous? Are Frivolous Lawsuits Intellectual Property? Are These Examples of Business Litigation Gone Insane?" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Intellectual Property

Bookmark:

In a case that closely mirrors a 2004 California lawsuit, New Hampshire has a law requiring anyone or any business running real estate ads on the web for New Hampshire homes to be a real estate broker. An internet listing service ZeroBrokerFees.com sued the New Hampshire Real Estate Commission and the state attorney general last year challenging the constitutionality of the law.

The Real Estate Commission failed in their attempt to have the suit dismissed. U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge James Muirhead ruled on Tuesday March 13 that the lawsuit presents important free speech questions that can and should be resolved in court.

ZeroBrokerFees.com argued that it provides advertising services similar to newspapers that publish Real Estate ads online and in print.

In late 2004, California lost a similar case when Sacramento U.S. District Court Judge Morrison C. England Jr. ruled that ForSaleByOwner.com did not need a RE Broker’s license to publish paid ads listing properties for sale any more than any print publication.

In my opinion, it seems that a great deal of taxpayer money is being wasted making sure that internet companies enjoy the same free speech rights as newspapers.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Internet   Real Estate

Bookmark:

A Motion for Summary Judgment was filed today in Los Angeles by attorneys for the 7 professional poker players (Howard Lederer, Annie Duke, Andy Bloch, Phil Gordon, and past World Series of Poker champions Chris Ferguson, Greg Raymer, and Joe Hachem),who are suing World Poker Tour Enterprises, Inc. (WPTE). Antitrust litigation is always an interesting area of law, and this lawsuit is no exception.

If you are not familiar with this lawsuit, the 7 top rated poker players contend that the WPTE agreements are illegal and are violations of Federal Antitrust laws.

Troublesome to the 7 (and their lawyers) is the release in the agreement. The release contains the following:

Player...hereby irrevocably grants to WPT the right to film, record, edit, reproduce and otherwise use Player's name, photograph, likeness, signature, biographical information, appearance, actions (including without limitation, revealing Player's hole cards), conversations ... and/or voice ... in, and in connection with, the Programs and/or the "World Poker Tour" ... and any and all derivative, allied, subsidiary and/or ancillary uses related thereto (including, without limitation, merchandising, commercial tie-ins, publications, home entertainment, video games, commodities, etc.), in whole or in part, by any and all means, media, devices, processes and technology now or hereafter known or devised in perpetuity throughout the universe.

Since each player must buy in to the tour (pay to play), the release signs over the players’ rights to the WPTE for FREE!

No one can argue that the above release is “heavily restrictive”. The question for the court is whether it violates antitrust laws. Only time will tell how this ends, which is very much like every hand of poker ever played in history, and those to be played in perpetuity ….throughout the universe!

Continue reading "Los Angeles: Motion for Summary Judgement Filed in Antitrust Lawsuit Against World Poker Tour Entertainment (WPTE) " »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation

Bookmark:

Is California (specifically the Silicon Valley) to blame? Probably the most in demand area for lawyers is Intellectual Property (IP) litigation, more specifically, patent litigators. According to The American Lawyer, law firms are offering signing bonuses, partnerships and other expensive perks to attorneys with patent litigation experience.

Why? Simply stated, there is more work than experienced lawyers can handle in this field….and the billing rates are among the highest in the profession.

The median cost to move a patent case through trial is $5 million dollars. And that’s up from $2 million in 1996. Average profit per partner at one IP law firm in 2005 was $1.5 million.

Try not to get burned in this area of law!

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Intellectual Property

Bookmark:

The State of Florida has just opened its third court devoted exclusively to business lawsuits. Do specialized courts provide better service and/or results to parties?

The cases to be tried in this new Tampa Court involve litigation where the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000 between business persons or entities. They typically relate to the internal affairs or governance of the business, non compete agreements, intellectual property and trade secrets.

The goals of this Florida state court are to increase affiance and access, decrease litigants costs and improve the understanding of business litigation issues.

While this is one way to try to unclog the court system, Nevada is taking a different path. A few years ago, they implemented a short trial program designed to resolve cases with less than $40,000 at stake, quickly with virtually no cost to the taxpayer. The short trials are only one day long and presided over by local attorneys whose fees are paid directly by the litigants. There are only 4 jurors and the trials take place in courtrooms on “dark” days. The appeals are very limited which translates to most results being final almost immediately. Best of all, trials are calendared within 120 days from when the parties choose the Judge Pro Temp.

The program has been a huge success in Nevada and is about to become mandatory for all cases which fall below the $40K threshold.

In conclusion, I believe the litigants will win in the Florida program. A judge who hears only Business Litigation cases is very likely to be better than one who hears a wide variety of cases.

In Nevada, everybody wins; the litigants, the judges whose calendars are relieved from the volume of small cases, the lawyers and of course the jurors and the taxpayers.

We live in a wonderful country and it is truly refreshing to see our court systems changing with the times.

Continue reading "Business Lawsuits Heard in Their Own Court...Will California be next?" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation

Bookmark:

Lawsuits are time consuming. I know that some attorneys in Los Angeles, many throughout California and all the trial lawyers in our firm are focused on resolving lawsuits for our clients rather than stretching them out needlessly.

But whose fault is it if a lawsuit takes 31 years to resolve?

According to information from the Arizona Daily Star, tribal leaders from Arizona’s Tohono O’odham nation joined Governor Napolitano and Tuscon officials for a long overdue signing ceremony.

In the settlement, the tribe will be guaranteed 50-thousand acre feet of water each year at no cost, mostly from the Central Arizona Water project.

My opinion? This lawsuit just had too many players. Involved were City of Tuscon officials, State of Arizona officials, federal officials including the Department of the Interior and of course the Tohono O’odham tribal nation.

The moral of this story is simple. If and when considering litigation, remember to evaluate all the parties involved, as they will play a significant part in the outcome of your lawsuit. If time is of the essence, bureaucracies should be avoided.

Continue reading "Lawsuit finally settled…..after only 31 years of Litigation!" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation

Bookmark: