Category Archives: Civil Rights

Read Civil Rights updates, alerts, news, and legal commentary from leading lawyers and laws. Providing news and information about Civil Rights Law for legal professionals.

Bankruptcy, Blog, Business Law, Civil Rights, Legal News, Supreme Court

50 Cent to Receive $14.5 Million in Legal Malpractice Suit

Rapper awarded payout after suing former legal team over botched headphones lawsuit; $14.5 million will go toward bankruptcy settlement

By Daniel Kreps

50 Cent was awarded $14.5 million stemming from a malpractice suit the rapper filed against a law firm that represented him in a headphones lawsuit.

However, it’s unlikely 50 Cent will see any of that award, as most of it will go toward satisfying the $23 million bankruptcy settlement he agreed to in July, pending approval, Forbes reports.

In a 2014 lawsuit, 50 Cent (real name Curtis Jackson) was ordered to pay headphone makers Sleek Audio $16 million after the rapper severed his deal with Sleek to produce his own brand of headphones that a court ruled was “basically the same designs” as his Sleek-branded pair.

Following that decision, 50 Cent filed a malpractice suit against Garvey Schubert Barer (GSB), the law firm who represented him against Sleek Audio, alleging that the firm “didn’t adequately represent his interests in licensing negotiations and arbitration disputes with Sleek Audio.”

“Among GSB’s numerous failures was its inexplicable decision not to call technical and damages experts to rebut expert testimony offered by Sleek — failures relied upon by the arbitrator in crediting Sleek’s experts and entering an eight-figure award in Sleek’s favor,” 50 Cent’s new legal representation alleged in their suit against GSB.

As part of 50 Cent’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan, agreed to in July after he filed for bankruptcy in July 2015, the rapper owed Sleek Audio $17 million, making them 50 Cent’s largest outstanding debt. 50 Cent also owes $7 million in damages after losing a privacy lawsuit over a leaked sex tape.

In a deleted Instagram post following the $14.5 million decision, the rapper wrote, “I just got 14.5 million back from one Law Firm For malpractice. They fucked up so bad, I don’t think they should be practicing Law.”

On Monday, 50 Cent replaced that post with a Photoshopped image of the rapper sitting on a stack of money and a caption that read, “I retract my earlier statements about the legal services provided to me by the law firm of Garvey Schubert Barer. The law firm and I have settled our dispute and I consider the issue closed.”

“With respect to Sleek Audio, the $14.5 million settlement represents significantly more than the $12.5 million payable to Sleek Audio under the Bankruptcy Plan and more than half of the total amount owed under Mr. Jackson’s reorganization plan,” Craig Weiner, one of 50 Cent’s lawyers in the malpractice said, said in a statement.

“We are informed that these proceeds, together with other funds contributed by Mr. Jackson should position the Estate to provide for the remaining obligations to be satisfied in connection with this successful Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan. This is a most significant achievement, especially considering that the Plan was approved less than six months ago and provided Mr. Jackson with up to five years to satisfy all debts. Mr. Jackson is eager to move forward in doing what is best for his estate and creditors, and this settlement brings us one step closer toward that end.”

Sourced From – http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/50-cent-to-receive-145-million-in-legal-malpractice-suit-w453975

Blog, Business Law, Civil Rights, Legal News, Personal Injury, Supreme Court

The 10 Most Ridiculous Lawsuits of All Time

Some people will try anything to make a million. Ever thought of suing someone because they look like you? Check out this and other frivolous lawsuits for a laugh, but don’t try them yourself! Frivolous lawsuits very rarely make it through the courts, and usually wind up costing the plaintiff.

  1. Do Beautiful Women Really Come to Life When You Drink Bud Light? 1991, Richard Overton sued Anheuser-Busch for false and misleading advertising under Michigan State law.  The complaint specifically referenced ads involving, among other things, fantasies of beautiful women in tropical settings that came to life for two men driving a Bud Light truck.  In addition to two claims of false advertising, Mr. Overton included a third claim in his complaint in which he claimed to have suffered emotional distress, mental injury, and financial loss in excess of $10,0000 due to the misleading Bud Light ads.  The court dismissed all claims.  For more information about this lawsuit, click here.
  2. If you can’t sue the system, sue yourself. 1995, Robert Lee Brock sued himself for $5 million. He claimed that he had violated his own civil rights and religious beliefs by allowing himself to get drunk and commit crimes which landed him in the Indian Creek Correctional Center in Virginia, serving a 23 year sentence for grand larceny and breaking and entering. What could he possibly have to gain by suing himself? Since being in prison prevented him from having an income, he expected the state to pay. This case was thrown out.
  3. Criminals need not bear the responsibility for their crimes alone when the real money is in Hollywood.1996, the family of Patsy Ann Byers sued Oliver Stone, Warner Brother, and others involved in the making and distribution of the movie Natural Born Killers for an unspecified amount. They claimed that the movie caused Sarah Edmondson and Benjamin Darrus to go on a crime spree which resulted in Edmonson shooting Byers during a robbery, leaving her paralyzed from the chest down. The lawsuit was originally filed in 1995, against Edmonson and Darrus, the actual perpetrators of the crime spree. Stone and the others involved with the film were added in 1996. The portion of the case aimed at Stone and his associates was dismissed in 2001.
  4. Since when were haunted houses frightening? 2000, Cleanthi Peters sued Universal Studios for $15,000. She claimed to have suffered extreme fear, mental anguish, and emotional distress due to visiting Universal Studios’ Halloween Horror Nights haunted house, which she said was too scary.
  5. When kids commit heinous crimes, who is responsible? The makers of every video game they’ve ever played, of course. 2001, Linda Sanders and other family members of Columbine High School shooting victims sued 25 movie and video game companies for $5 billion, in a class action lawsuit.They claimed that were it not for movies includingThe Basketball Diaries and videos games including Doom, Duke Nukem, Quake, Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil, Mech Warrior, Wolfenstein, Redneck Rampage, Final Fantasy, and Nightmare Creatures, the massacre would not have occurred, and that the makers and distributors of the movies and games were partly to blame for their loved ones’ deaths. The case was thrown out and the plaintiffs were ordered to compensate the video game and movie companies for their legal fees.
  6. Negligent security is a legitimate claim, when you’re the victim, not the perpetrator! 2002, Edward Brewer sued Providence Hospital for $2 million. He claimed that the hospital was negligent because it had not prevented him from raping one of its patients. The judge ruled that any damage Brewer suffered due to his crime was his responsibility for choosing to commit the crime, and that the hospital had no legal duty to protect him from that choice.

Read The Rest – http://www.the-injury-lawyer-directory.com/ridiculous_lawsuits.html

Blog, Civil Rights, Legal News, Supreme Court

Frivolous Lawsuit Over Sandy Hook Deaths Dismissed

The frivolous lawsuit filed by a minority of Sandy Hook Elementary school parents against Bushmaster and Remington Arms has been dismissed.

A Superior Court judge has thrown out the lawsuit against the gun maker brought by the families of the Sandy Hook tragedy.

In a 54-page decision filed Friday afternoon, Judge Barbara Bellis granted a motion to strike the entire lawsuit brought against the gun maker,Remington Outdoor Company, the dealer, Camfour Inc. and the company that owned the gun store, Riverview Sales where A___ L___’*s mother bought the assault rifle.

The judge ruled the lawsuit does not satisfy the exception to federal law preventing lawsuits against gun manufacturers for the actions of gun owners under either the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) or the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).

“Although PLCAA provides a narrow exception under which plaintiffs may maintain an action for negligent entrustment of a firearm, the allegations in the present case do not fit within the common-law tort of negligent entrustment under well-established Connecticut law,” the judge wrote. “A plaintiff under CUTPA must allege some kind of consumer, competitor, or other commcercial relationship with a defendant, and the plaintiffs here have alleged no such relationship.”

We commented on the sad absurdity of this case back in February.

The exploitative lawsuit filed by Koshoff, Sterling, and Mesner-Hage is based on the theory of “negligent entrustment.” The plaintiff’s argument is that the Freedom Group, which owns Bushmaster Firearms, the manufacturer of the XM15-E2S, marketed their guns in such a way as to encourage violent crazy people to buy them. Of course, the Sandy Hook murderer didn’t buy the carbine he used in his attack. He murdered his own mother to gain access to it.

But hey, reality be damned; lawyers wanna get paid.

Further, these shysters are arguing that AR-15s—the most common rifle sold in the United States year after year, used in more than a half-dozen kinds of formal shooting competitions, for informal target shooting, home defense, hunting, and simply for fun—is a “weapon of war” that no civilian should have.

The semi-automatic AR-15s sold to U.S. civilians, of course, are not used in combat by any known military on earth.

Militaries instead use selective-fire M16s and M4s, which American civilians have not been able to buy from manufacturers at any price since the Hughes Amendment passed as part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986.

The vultures of Koskoff Koskoff and Bieder are arguing that the most common rifle sold in the United States, which is, as a subset of rifles is one of the least likely instruments of murder in the nation, should be banned. Put bluntly, these attorneys appear to be hoping to find a way to sue gun companies out of existence, and get rich in the process.

The judge has a very simple choice in this case.

She can allow the continuance of an obviously frivolous lawsuit filed by unscrupulous attorneys, and set the stage for every company in the world to be sued out of their existence due to their choice of advertising, or she can throw this case out.

Let’s hope Bridgeport Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis is not among the world’s crazy people.

Clearly, Judge Barbara Bellis did not buy the argument made by lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Joshua Koskoff, who argued that the American people are “notoriously incompetent,” and unfit to own guns in common use.

Full Article – http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/10/14/breaking-frivolous-lawsuit-sandy-hook-deaths-dismissed/

Blog, Civil Rights, Family, Legal News

The big problems with the Obama administration’s new teacher-education regulations

By Valerie Strauss October 24 at 6:01 PM

The Obama administration recently published long-awaited regulations for programs that prepare new K-12 teachers.

The U.S. Education Department had attempted to do this several years ago, but that effort was notable for several controversies, one of them a suggestion that teacher-preparation programs be evaluated in part by the standardized test scores of the students being taught by program graduates. Now we have the final regulations — and critics of the original draft remain unsatisfied.

For one thing, the new regulations, as this story by my colleague Emma Brown explains, require states to issue annual ratings for teacher-prep programs, an effort, supporters say, to separate the successful programs from the failures. They still also require each state  to evaluate teacher-training programs based on student learning, but this time leaving it to the states to decide how to measure academic growth and how much it should weigh in an overall rating.  That means that the department will permit states to use test scores for evaluation — a method that is not used to evaluate any other professional preparation program.

 There are other problems with the new regulations, as well, as explained in this post by Lauren Anderson and Ken Zeichner. Anderson is a professor and chair of the Education Department at Connecticut College. Zeichner is a professor of teacher education at the University of Washington at Seattle who has done extensive research on teaching and teacher education.
Full Read  – https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/10/24/the-big-problems-with-obama-administrations-new-teacher-education-regulations/