Category Archives: Legal News

Erin Brockovich appeals to Porter Ranch residents as law firms push gas leak suits

Alice Walton and Louis Sahagun Contact Reporters

Movie-famous activist Erin Brockovich stood in front of 400 Porter Ranch residents on a recent weeknight and told a disturbing personal story.

“When I first came to Porter Ranch I couldn’t believe it,” she said of her visit to the community closest to Southern California Gas Co.’s leaking well. “I was in somebody’s house and within 10 minutes, I started feeling kind of dizzy.”

She said she saw a doctor who told her she “had what they called a chemically induced kind of bronchitis.”

The message was clear. If Brockovich, 55, became ill after just 10 minutes, Southern California Gas Co.’s ruptured well must be harming anyone who breathes the fumes even for a short time — and for that, the victims should get compensation. Brockovich and the law firm she was advocating for, Weitz & Luxenberg, invited the residents to join their lawsuits against the gas company.

Across the region, other law firms are holding similar meetings and running advertising campaigns using a mix of dire warnings about health risks and reduced property values, promises of money and practical advice to try to persuade aggrieved Porter Ranch families to join lawsuits.

Since the leak began at the Aliso Canyon well nearly three months ago, at least 25 lawsuits have been filed seeking damages from the utility and its parent firm, Sempra Energy. The attorneys say their take could range from almost nothing to more than one-third of the awards, depending on the outcome of the cases.

A majority of the lawsuits have been filed by residents of Porter Ranch, a community of 30,000 people in the rolling hills of the north San Fernando Valley. The legal actions claim negligence, hazardous activity, nuisance and trespass and seek compensation for emotional and physical injuries, as well as for diminished property values.

Read Full Article – http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-porter-ranch-lawyers-20160119-story.html

Attorney General Defends Executive Actions on Guns as Legal

  • By ALAN FRAM, ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — Jan 20, 2016, 1:10 PM ET

Attorney General Loretta Lynch defended President Barack Obama’s executive actions curbing guns before Congress on Wednesday, telling lawmakers that the president took lawful steps to stem firearms violence that kills and injures tens of thousands of Americans yearly.

“I have complete confidence that the common sense steps announced by the president are lawful,” Lynch told the Senate Appropriations Committee panel that oversees the Justice Department. Early in an election year in which both parties seem ready to make guns a political issue, Lynch called Obama’s moves “well-reasoned measures, well within existing legal authorities, built on work that’s already underway.”

The modest steps Obama announced two weeks ago were immediately attacked by a top Republican, who said the measures were the latest of the president’s actions infringing on the constitutional right to own guns and exceeding his executive branch powers.

“The department is on notice,” Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., chairman of the subcommittee, told Lynch. “This subcommittee will have no part in undermining the Constitution and the rights that it protects.”

Some GOP senators on the panel mixed distaste for Obama’s unilateral moves with an openness to some of the details. That included his proposal to boost the number of FBI personnel who process background checks so the system can operate 24 hours daily instead of its current 17 hours.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., in whose state the background check system is based, said some of Obama’s proposals were “political messaging” but expressed support for buttressing the “overstressed” system.

Backed by the National Rifle Association, the GOP-led Congress is all but certain to take no action curbing firearms this year. But the gulf between Lynch and Shelby underscored that the issue will be part of the presidential and congressional campaigns.

Already, Democratic presidential candidates have backed Obama’s moves while GOP contenders have lambasted them as wilting gun rights and abusing his presidential powers. House Republicans have said they will create a task force to study “executive overreach” by Obama and other presidents.

Shelby, who faces a conservative challenger in his March 1 Senate GOP primary, criticized Obama’s response to recent mass shootings, including last month’s killing of 14 people in San Bernardino, California, by a Muslim couple that authorities say had been radicalized. Shelby said that instead of tightening screening for potentially violent immigrants or addressing “our law enforcement’s failures,” Obama has instead resorted to “grandstanding and engaging in anti-gun theatrics.”

Lynch said the actions were appropriate.

“As the list of tragedies involving firearms has grown, so has the American people’s belief that we must do more to stem the tide of gun violence, and this administration is committed to doing our part,” she said.

Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski, top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, backed Lynch’s remarks, saying, “We do need to change our nation’s culture of violence. We do need to stop guns from getting into the wrong hands.”

Obama’s actions include guidance on who the government will consider “in the business” of selling firearms — a phrase used to describe which dealers must obtain federal licenses and conduct background checks on buyers. Even those selling a few guns online or at gun shows can be required to get licenses and perform background checks, the administration said.

Other steps include hiring 230 more FBI background check examiners; adding 200 agents to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; boosting federal research on gun safety technology and asking Congress for $500 million to improve mental health programs.

Lynch said Obama’s 2017 budget, to be released in February, will seek $80 million for his gun proposals, largely for the additional FBI and ATF agents.

Gun violence has flared anew as a political issue following the San Bernardino killings. Obama failed to push gun curbs through Congress in the months following the 2012 killings of 20 children and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, and despite periodic mass shootings the GOP-led House and Senate remain opposed to restricting firearms.

Government statistics show that over 30,000 Americans die from firearms wounds yearly, two-thirds of which are suicides.

Read Full Article

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/lynch-obama-executive-actions-curbing-guns-legal-36398087

Popular celebrity-endorsed lip balm EOS subject of class-action lawsuit


A California law firm has received over 5,000 calls from around the world after it launched a class-action lawsuit Wednesday against EOS — a lip balm that’s been endorsed by celebrities like Kim Kardashian, Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears and Hilary Duff.

The lawsuit (which you can read in its entirety below) alleges the product can cause “devastating adverse reactions.”

Rachael Cronin, who launched the suit, claims her lips began cracking, blistering and bleeding within days of trying the product. Her condition reportedly lasted for 10 days.

“She describes not being able to eat food because it was so painful,” said Ben Meiselas, an attorney at Geragos & Geragos.

Cronin approached the law firm in December after going to a doctor and doing some research online, where she reportedly found similar complaints from people on message boards.

In the lawsuit, the potential side-effects of using the lipbalm include:

  • rashes
  • dryness
  • bleeding
  • blistering
  • cracking
  • loss of pigmentation

The latter symptom can allegedly last anywhere from a few days to a few months, according to the lawsuit.

EOS bills its lipbalm as 99 per cent natural, gluten and paraben-free.

“Poison ivy is 99 per cent natural and organic,” Meiselas said of the claim. “Stating something is natural, organic or gluten-free — that doesn’t tell you what’s in it.”

Cronin’s legal team believes certain ingredients in the product are problematic. At least one, Meriselas claims, is apparently a major nut allergen and not labelled as such. Meiselas says another has allegedly been known to cause hemorrhaging and bleeding, and medical literature reportedly says you shouldn’t apply it to your face or lips.

“When you go to the website, there’s absolutely no warnings,” he said, adding there are also no warnings on the packaging.

Read Full Article – http://globalnews.ca/news/2453993/popular-celebrity-endorsed-lip-balm-eos-subject-of-class-action-lawsuit/

Drug smugglers busted after disguising more than a ton of marijuana as fresh carrots

BY

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Wednesday, January 13, 2016, 8:40 PM
carr

These green-minded drug smugglers tried hiding more than a ton of marijuana as carrots while crossing the border through Mexico.

Ehh… what’s up, pot?

Drug smugglers were busted trying to hide more than a ton of marijuana disguised as carrots while crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, officials said.

Hiding their green bud among the orange vegetables, the smugglers tried driving through the Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge on Sunday, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection said.

After an image scan, officers brought out a canine team to sniff out the drugs.

Disguised among the cargo of fresh carrots were 2,817 packages of marijuana, wrapped into carrot shapes with orange plastic.

The drugs were wrapped in carrot shapes around orange plastic and hidden among the fresh vegetables.

“Once again, drug smuggling organizations have demonstrated their creativity in attempting to smuggle large quantities of narcotics across the U.S./Mexico border,” said Port Director Efrain Solis Jr. “Our officers are always ready to meet those challenges and remain vigilant towards any type of illicit activities.”

Officers seized 2,493 pounds of marijuana, worth about $499,000, police said.

This isn’t the first time smugglers have tried hiding marijuana using salad ingredients at that border checkpoint.

On Dec. 2, 2015, at the same bridge, police stopped drug dealers from bringing in $1.7 million worth of narcotics, which were disguised as cucumbers and carrots again.

About two weeks after that, officers found $479,000 worth of marijuana hidden among fresh tomatoes.

Read Full Article – http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/drug-smugglers-busted-disguising-marijuana-carrots-article-1.2496306

Time for J&J to pay up in $124M Risperdal case as SCOTUS deflects final appeal

January 11, 2016 | By

Johnson & Johnson ($JNJ) fell short Monday in its final effort to escape a Risperdal marketing penalty in South Carolina. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up J&J’s last appeal in the case, putting the company on the hook for a $124 million penalty.

J&J had cited the Eighth Amendment in arguing against the penalty, saying it qualified as an “excessive fine.” As Reuters notes, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had backed the drugmaker in seeking Supreme Court review.

J&J’s Janssen unit has been fighting South Carolina’s deceptive trade practices court win since 2011, when a jury ordered the drugmaker to pay $327 million for Risperdal marketing violations. The company succeeded in lowering the judgment twice, first to $136 million and then, last year, to the final $124 million.

The lawsuit centered on promotional materials Janssen used to market the antipsychotic drug. Key to the case was a letter sent to South Carolina physicians, which overstated Risperdal’s benefits compared with other drugs in its class and downplayed side effects, the jury found. The trial court judge ordered Janssen to pay about $4,000 for each of the more than 7,000 letters mailed.

The original $327 million judgment dwarfed other similar rulings in drug-marketing lawsuits, including sizable decisions and settlements in other Risperdal-related litigation, but it fell far short of a $1.2 billion verdict in Arkansas. The Arkansas Supreme Court struck down that judgment in March 2014, and the company later negotiated a settlement of $7.5 million.

The South Carolina decision survived that state’s top court in a ruling last year, in which Justice John Kittredge backed the decision at trial, but lowered the $327 million penalty to $136 million.

In affirming the judgment against the company, Kittredge echoed the trial judge’s “profit-at-all-costs” characterization of Janssen’s marketing efforts. “Janssen’s desire for market share and increased sales knew no bounds, leading to its egregious violation of South Carolina law,” Kittredge wrote in the February 2015 ruling.

Janssen had argued that it did not intentionally deceive doctors with the now-notorious “Risperdal letter” that has featured in several state-court lawsuits. The drugmaker also contended that South Carolina’s attorney general didn’t prove patients were actually harmed by the drug. It was on that point that Kittredge lowered the judgment.

The “Risperdal letter” lawsuits compose only part of the mountain of litigation J&J has fought over the antipsychotic drug. The company agreed to pay $2.2 billion in a marketing settlement with the U.S. Justice Department and a group of states.

And the litigation isn’t over yet. The company now faces more than 1,000 lawsuits over Risperdal’s ability to trigger breast development in boys. J&J lost the first court battle last February, as a Philadelphia jury ordered J&J to pay almost $2.5 million to a young man who developed breasts while using Risperdal. In November, another jury awarded $1.75 million in a similar case.

Read Full Article – http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/time-jj-pay-124m-risperdal-case-scotus-deflects-final-appeal/2016-01-11