|
|
|
Wal-Mart pleads guilty in hazardous waste
Business |
2013/05/29 09:46
|
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will pay $81.6 million after pleading guilty on Tuesday to criminal charges of improperly disposing of fertilizer, pesticides and other hazardous products that were pulled from stores in California and Missouri because of damaged packaging and other problems.
The retail giant entered the plea in federal court in San Francisco to misdemeanor counts of violating the Clean Water Act and another environmental law regulating pesticides. The fine also settled Environmental Protection Agency allegations.
In Kansas City, Mo., the company pleaded guilty to improperly handling pesticides.
The plea agreements ended a nearly decade-old investigation involving more than 20 prosecutors and 32 environmental groups that has cost Wal-Mart a total of $110 million.
Court documents show illegal dumping occurred in 16 California counties from Del Norte to Orange between 2003 and 2005. Federal prosecutors said the company didn't train its employees on how to handle and dispose hazardous materials at its stores.
The result, prosecutors say, was that waste was tossed into trash bins or poured into sewer systems. The waste also was improperly taken to one of several product return centers throughout the U.S. without proper safety documentation, authorities said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court date set for case involving dress code
Court Watch |
2013/05/29 09:46
|
A federal judge has set a trial date for a case challenging how three school administrators enforced the dress code at a Sumter County middle school.
The Item of Sumter reports that U.S. District Judge Joseph Anderson has set the trial for March.
In the lawsuit, Charles Smith alleges the enforcement of the dress code at Furman Middle School was arbitrary and caused humiliation for students.
The lawsuit alleges Smith's son was targeted by administrators after Smith started a petition campaign to have the school's principal removed. The lawsuit says the boy, who now attends a private school, was suspended for wearing a jacket with a Columbia logo.
The suit names the principal and two assistants. The district says the dress code enforcement was proper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court stays out of Planned Parenthood funding case
Law Center |
2013/05/28 09:36
|
Indiana will likely stop defending a law that stripped Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood after the Supreme Court declined to hear the case Tuesday, an attorney who represents the nation's largest abortion provider said.
Indiana is among more than a dozen states that have enacted or considered laws to prevent taxpayers' money from funding organizations that provide abortion. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Oct. 23 that the law targeting Planned Parenthood went too far because it denied women the right to choose their own medical providers.
"I assume at this point the state will give up in its claim that that portion of the statue is valid under the Social Security Act," said Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. The case now returns to U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, who granted the initial preliminary injunction to temporarily block the law, precipitating the state's appeals.
Neither the state senator who sponsored the bill or the Family and Social Services Administration - the agency tasked with enforcing the law - had immediate comment.
"My office always contended this is ultimately a dispute between the state and federal government, not between a private medical provider and the state," Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said in a statement. Zoeller's office handled the state's appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court denies second hearing on Medi-Cal rate cut
Class Action |
2013/05/25 09:10
|
A federal appeals court on Friday denied a second request by California doctors, pharmacists and hospitals seeking to undo the state's 10 percent provider rate cut for treating the poor.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied an appeal from medical providers to rehear their case, which allows Gov. Jerry Brown to begin implementing the cuts retroactively. A three-judge panel had ruled against them in December on the grounds that trial courts cannot block the state from making cuts that were approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Health providers vowed they will continue to press lawmakers to restore the 10 percent reimbursement rate cut to the state's Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal.
"While we are not surprised by the 9th Circuit Court ruling, we are certainly disappointed, as the 10 percent cut to Medi-Cal will have devastating effects on California's poorest and most vulnerable patients," said Paul Phinney, president of the California Medical Association, in a statement.
Phinney said the state needs competitive Medi-Cal payments as the state prepares to get millions of Californians health coverage under the Affordable Care Act. The association, which represents 35,000 doctors, says ongoing cuts have left doctors with little option but to stop taking qualified patients because the reimbursements do not meet the cost of overhead and supplies to treat them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil leasing dispute heads to federal court
Court Watch |
2013/05/24 09:07
|
Attorneys for the government and the oil industry will square off against environmental groups Friday in federal court in Montana in a dispute over greenhouse-gas emissions from oil and gas drilling.
The Montana Environmental Information Center and two other groups want U.S. District Judge Sam Haddon to cancel Bureau of Land Management oil and gas leases covering almost 80,000 acres in Montana.
They argue the agency did not fairly consider that greenhouse gas emissions from drilling activities could make climate change worse.
The BLM counters that the emissions from machinery and the venting of excess natural gas are insignificant.
Several industry groups have intervened in the case. They say the environmentalists behind the 2011 lawsuit cannot prove they suffered any specific harm from the lease sales.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge OKs class-action settlement over Skechers
Court Watch |
2013/05/23 09:06
|
A federal judge approved a $40 million class-action settlement Monday between Skechers USA Inc. and consumers who bought toning shoes after ads made unfounded claims that the footwear would help people lose weight and strengthen muscles.
U.S. District Judge Thomas B. Russell in Louisville approved the deal, which covers more than 520,000 claims. About 1,000 people eligible for coverage by the settlement opted not to take part.
Those with approved claims will be able to get a maximum repayment for their purchase _ up to $80 per pair of Shape-Ups; $84 per pair of Resistance Runner shoes; up to $54 per pair of Podded Sole Shoes; and $40 per pair of Tone-Ups.
Russell also awarded $5 million for the attorneys in the case to split. Russell ordered that the money cannot come from the $40 million settlement fund set aside for consumers.
Two people that served as the lead plaintiffs in the case will receive payments of $2,500 each.
Russell considered multiple factors in deciding to approve the settlement and found it provides just compensation to the plaintiffs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court strikes down Arizona 20-week abortion ban
Breaking Legal News |
2013/05/23 09:06
|
A federal court in San Francisco Tuesday struck down Arizona's ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law violates a string of U.S. Supreme Court rulings starting with Roe v. Wade that guarantees a woman's right to an abortion before a fetus is able to survive outside the womb. That's generally considered to be about 24 weeks. Normal pregnancies run about 40 weeks
Several states have enacted similar bans starting at 20 weeks. But the 9th Circuit's ruling is binding only in the nine Western states under the court's jurisdiction. Idaho is the only other state in the region covered by the 9th Circuit with a similar ban.
A trial judge had ruled that the ban could take effect. U.S. District Judge James Teilborg ruled it was constitutional, partly because of concerns about the health of women and possible pain for fetuses.
But abortion-rights groups appealed that decision, saying the 20-week ban would not give some women time to carefully decide whether to abort problem pregnancies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
