|
|
|
Mathys & Schneid File Charges over Infant Death
Law Firm News |
2007/12/12 12:03
|
LAW OFFICES OF MATHYS & SCHNEID today (Wednesday, December 12, 2007) filed a lawsuit (Case No. 2007 L 13860) against Jewel Food Stores, Johnson & Johnson, McNeil-PPC, Inc., Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and others for the death of a six (6) month old infant who died after being given prescription cough and cold medication.
The infant, six (6) month old Ashanti Webber, was recovering from pneumonia when her physician prescribed a prescription cough and cold medication, Rondec, along with an antibiotic and over the counter Infant Tylenol(R) Cold Plus. After giving the medications to her daughter for two days, Ashanti's mother, Takara Cabell found Ashanti having breathing difficulties in her crib at 5:30 a.m. on December 13, 2005. Takara called 911 and Ashanti was rushed to Rush-Copley Memorial Hospital where she later died of pseudoephedrine and dextromethorphan intoxication.
The lawsuit alleges that Jewel Food Stores, through its Jewel-Osco pharmacy, filled the prescription for Rondec with a non-generic brand called Carbaxefed DM RF, which contained three (3) active ingredients, pseudoephedrine, dextromethorphan and carbinoxamine that were never tested in infants and have been known to cause death and injury to infants in the past. The Infant Tylenol Cold Plus also contained the dangerous active ingredient, pseudoephedrine. The lawsuit alleges that Jewel-Osco, Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals (makers of Carbaxefed) and Johnson & Johnson/McNeil-PPC (makers of Tylenol) were negligent in marketing and selling infant cold medications that were never approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), were never shown to actually help infants with cough and cold symptoms and contained active ingredients that were known to cause death and injury to infants in the past.
"Do not give your child under two (2) years old any prescription or over the counter cough and cold medications that contain these ingredients," said Mark W. Mathys, a partner in the law firm. "These pharmaceutical companies have been preying on parents of sick children for decades. They knew all along these medications were not shown to be effective for infants, yet they marketed and sold these medications claiming they could help a child's symptoms, even as they knew these drugs could injure or even kill the infant."
"Even more disturbing," said Mathys "is that these medications have been marketed and sold for treating infant cough and cold symptoms for years even though the drugs have never been approved by the FDA for use with infants."
This follows in the wake of another lawsuit recently filed by Law Offices of Mathys & Schneid involving the death of a two (2) month old boy, Mauricio Trujillo, just eight (8) days before Ashanti Webber's death. Mauricio was also being given Carbaxefed DM RF, dispensed by Walgreen Co.
Recently, an FDA advisory committee recommended that all over the counter (OTC) infant cough and cold medications be banned from being sold. Additionally, in June of 2006, the FDA ordered that pharmaceutical manufacturers stop making prescription cough and cold medications for infants containing unapproved carbinoxamine-containing drugs, including those with pseudoephedrine and dextromethorphan. These active ingredients have been linked to numerous infant deaths since 1983.
Contact:
Mark Mathys of Law Offices of Mathys & Schneid, +1-630-428-4040, www.mathyslaw.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Portland Firm Fires Partner for Alleged Theft
Law Firm News |
2007/12/12 11:57
|
A longtime partner in one of Maine's most prominent law firms has been fired for allegedly stealing money from clients and the firm.
Portland-based Verrill Dana sent a letter of apology to clients of John Duncan and notified them that it has "severed its relationship" with him.
The letter said Duncan "misappropriated funds" from the firm and "misused client funds or billed clients improperly." The firm isn't saying how much money was allegedly involved.
Duncan, who has been with Verrill Dana for nearly 30 years, did not return phone messages seeking comment.
A report on his billing and accounting practices is being turned over to the Maine Board of Bar Overseers. State and federal prosecutors have also been alerted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
GOP Candidates Face off in Iowa
Politics |
2007/12/12 11:49
|
The financial situation is a major problem that must be addressed, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said at the start of the debate.
Rep. Duncan Hunter of California called the budget deficit and the trade loss a threat to national security.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul agreed, saying, "It's absolutely a threat to our national security because we spent too much, we taxed too much, we borrowed too much, and we print too much."
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said the best answer for economic woes is to "make sure we have good jobs for our citizens, good schools for our kids, good health care for everyone and that we have policies that promote the growth of the nation."
The debate, sponsored by The Des Moines Register and Iowa Public Television, marks the last time the GOP presidential hopefuls will appear on the same stage before the crucial Iowa caucuses on January 3.
When asked what his plan is for keeping foreign markets open while protecting American jobs, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said excessive taxation "penalizes the productivity of a company."
"You add to that excessive regulation, which means that you've got more red tape than is possible to get through," he said. "I can't part the Red Sea, but I believe I can part the red tape."
When asked to raise their hands if they believed global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson said he wasn't "doing hand shows today."
Other candidates agreed. Thompson asked if he could answer the question instead, but was told no.
The Democratic candidates will face off at 2 p.m. on Thursday.
The battle to win Iowa has increasingly come down to Romney and Huckabee, who has surged to the top of the polls largely due to the support of evangelical Christians.
A McClatchy-MSNBC poll conducted earlier this week had Huckabee leading the GOP field with the support of 32 percent of likely caucus-goers. Romney, who had been leading in Iowa for months, was at 20 percent in that poll, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
Romney has sharpened his attacks on Huckabee, particularly on immigration, the issue the Romney camp views as one of his rival's biggest vulnerabilities, after the Arkansas Republican began rising in the polls. Huckabee was only at 12 percent in Iowa in September, according to the McClatchy-MSNBC poll. Video Watch Huckabee respond to Romney's latest attacks »
While Iowa's population is overwhelmingly white, the state's agricultural industry is attracting an increasing number of both legal and illegal Hispanic immigrants. The influx of these new workers has created a backlash among certain segments of Iowa's electorate, and is a hot button issue in the Republican presidential nominating contest.
Some GOP candidates are not only airing television ads touting their personal positions on illegal immigration, but they are also criticizing their opponents for being weak on the issue.
On Tuesday, Romney, who has lost his front-runner status in polls to Huckabee in Iowa, began airing an ad, titled "The Record." The ad compares the candidates' conservative stands on social issues but draws a sharp contrast on their track records on immigration policy, particularly the fact that Huckabee supported in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants in Arkansas while Romney opposed a such a measure in Massachusetts. Video Watch Romney's ad »
During an event Tuesday in Council Bluffs, Iowa, Huckabee called the ad "desperate" and said he thought it would backfire.
"I'm somewhat flattered in that I seem to be the recipient of the first negative attack ad in the Republican primary," Huckabee said. "That's usually the kind of desperation on the part of an opponent who feels that his only way of winning is to attack and destroy."
Tensions between Romney and Huckabee also picked up Wednesday over an article scheduled to appear in Sunday's New York Times Magazine.
In it, Huckabee asks "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"
Romney, who would be the nation's first Mormon president if elected, said Huckabee's question was out of bounds.
"I think it is totally appropriate to contrast their own record with the opponent, to talk about their differences on issues," Romney said in an appearance on NBC's Today show Wednesday. "But attacking someone's religion is really going too far."
"It is not the American way," he said.
In a statement, a Huckabee senior adviser, Charmaine Yoest, said Huckabee "believes this campaign should center on a discussion of the important issues confronting our nation and not focus on questions of religious belief."
While Romney and the other Republican candidates may continue to attack Huckabee during Wednesday's debate, CNN commentator Roland Martin said the sharp Huckabee could backfire on him and turn off Iowa voters.
"They're going to go after Mike Huckabee in their debate," Martin said, "but I think they must be very careful because he's been able to play this sort of role of being the nice, well-liked guy.
"If you attack him, he may see it as a badge of honor," Martin said.
But Cheri Jacobus, a Republican strategist said the other candidates have to aggressively, if carefully, differentiate themselves from Huckabee if they want to do well in the Hawkeye State.
advertisement
"This is the last chance really for folks to get to really take a good close look at these candidates," Jacobus said. "I think you will see the arrows pointed at Huckabee," she said. "The problem and the way these folks have to finesse during this debate is they have to be able to draw the contrast without going negative.
"It's a pretty tricky thing, but they have to do it," she added. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
California Wins Emissions Battle with Automakers
Environmental |
2007/12/12 11:42
|
California won a major legal battle Wednesday in its fight to implement a global-warming law that would lead to steep increases in motor vehicle fuel economy.
A federal judge in Fresno tossed out a lawsuit filed by the world's major automakers that tried to overturn AB 1493, a law that requires a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2016.
The automakers had said the law was unconstitutional because it mandated a big jump in mileage standards - a matter that is under the authority of the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. They further argued that the California standards would raise vehicle prices by as much as $6,000 per vhicle, leading to fewer sales and tens of thousands of auto-plant layoffs.
But U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii rejected those claims, ruling that the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and arresting climate change must go forward.
The judge's decision doesn't mean the law automatically takes effect. California still needs a waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to implement AB 1493.
Last month the state sued the EPA to force a decision on its waiver request. On Wednesday EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said the federal agency will rule on the request by the end of December. If the EPA turns down California's request, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other state officials have vowed to sue the government again.
The Fresno decision came as climatologists and policymakers, including many from California, convened in Bali, Indonesia, to hammer out a worldwide treaty on curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
State officials and environmentalists have said AB 1493 can be implemented using largely off-the-shelf technology. They say the additional cost per vehicle is probably no more than $1,800.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, responding to the decision, continued to criticize the California law, saying, "We need a consistent national policy for fuel economy, and this nationwide policy cannot be written by a single state or group of states - only by the fedeal government."
The alliance noted that leaders of Congress, working on a new federal energy bill, recently agreed to raise fuel economy standards for all vehicles from an average 25.3 mpg to 35 mpg by 2020. The bill has passed the House but not the Senate, and may run aground because of issues not related to fuel economy.
The judge's decision was greatly influenced by two earlier court cases. Last spring the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal EPA had the duty to regulate greenhouse gases. More recently, a federal judge in Vermont threw out the automakers' lawsuit over a copycat law.
Vermont is one of 11 states that have adopted California's standards; five others are considering doing so. But all are on hold pending the EPA's decision on California's waiver request.
Environmentalists hailed Judge Ishii's ruling. "We keep winning," said David Bookbinder, a lawyer with the Sierra Club, which participated in the case. "The courts are simply not buying (the automakers') arguments."
He said he wouldn't be surprised if the automakers file an appeal, adding: "Sooner or later they're going to have to stop throwing lawyers at the problem and start hiring engineers." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nazi Era Picasso's Prompt Legal Battle
Court Watch |
2007/12/12 11:32
|
The Museum of Modern Art and the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation asked a court yesterday to declare them the rightful owners of two Picasso paintings that a Jewish scholar claims were the rightful property of a relative persecuted in Nazi Germany.
The two institutions said they took the step to fend off an expected lawsuit from Julius H. Schoeps, a German who has been waging a legal fight to recover artwork and property once owned by his great uncle.
Schoeps demanded on Nov. 1 that the museums hand over both works, "Boy Leading a Horse," which is in MoMA's collection, and "Le Moulin de la Galette," in the Guggenheim's collection.
MoMA director Glenn D. Lowry and Guggenheim Foundation director Thomas Krens said in a joint statement they are confident the paintings were not obtained under Nazi duress.
"The Museum of Modern Art and the Guggenheim Museum take the issue of restitution very seriously," they said. "Evidence from our extensive research makes clear the museums' ownership of these works and also makes clear that Mr. Schoeps has no basis for his claim."
Schoeps' lawyer, John J. Byrne, declined to comment on the museums' suit, filed in US District Court in Manhattan.
Both paintings were originally owned by Paul von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, an aristocratic German banker and descendent of composer Felix Mendelssohn. Mendelssohn-Bartholdy died in 1935, two years after Adolf Hitler came to power.
At the time of his death, Mendelssohn-Bartholdy had been engaged in a series of maneuvers that Schoeps said were intended to protect his estate and an incredible art collection that also included nine paintings by Vincent van Gogh.
The family sold the two paintings, now owned by the museums, in 1934 or 1935 to Jewish art dealer Justin Thannhauser, who himself fled Germany and spent much of the war in Switzerland. Thannhauser kept "Le Moulin de la Galette" until 1963, when he gave it to the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. He sold "Boy Leading a Horse" to former MoMA chairman William Paley in 1936.
In a recent lawsuit involving a third Picasso, Schoeps argued that his great uncle only parted with the paintings because he expected his estate to be plundered by the Nazis.
Schoeps is the director of the Moses Mendelssohn Center for European-Jewish Studies at the University of Potsdam in Germany.
Over the years, he has also battled to recover the family's estate in Germany. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barry Bonds Ready for Legal Battle
Breaking Legal News |
2007/12/12 11:30
|
For former San Francisco Giants superstar Barry Bonds, a man accustomed to controlling his own agenda and fortunes, life is now in the hands of his flotilla of lawyers.
A seemingly calm Bonds appeared in a San Francisco federal courtroom Friday, pleading not guilty to five felony charges of lying to a federal grand jury about using steroids at the zenith of his career. Major League Baseball's all-time home run leader, who came and went from the federal building without a peep to the media mob, is now unlikely to return there for months. His case, celebrity in nature or not, will grind slowly through the justice system like hundreds of felony cases on the local docket.
Bonds may have been silent, but he is giving every sign that he is ready for a pitched battle with the federal government. He is charged with four counts of perjury and one count of obstructing justice in connection with his December 2003 testimony to a federal grand jury probing the Balco steroids scandal.
The 43-year-old Bonds, dressed in a snazzy dark suit and striped blue tie, appeared in court with a newly assembled powerhouse defense team, led by Silicon Valley star lawyer Allen Ruby and East Bay defense specialist Cristina Arguedas. Ruby said immediately he expects to move to dismiss the indictment because it contained legal, technical flaws he did not specify.
Outside court, Ruby also told reporters that his client is prepared to go to trial. Doing so would force the strapping left fielder to directly address allegations that he used performance-enhancing drugs as he mounted his assault on baseball's home run record.
Bonds was equally defiant on his personal Web site, where he predicted he'll be "vindicated" of the charges, which could bring him one to three years in federal prison if convicted.
With legal wrangling a foregone conclusion, a trial is unlikely to take place before the next baseball season begins - and it may be doubtful before the World Series.
World-class cyclist Tammy Thomas, indicted on allegations of perjury in the Balco case, was charged nearly a year ago - and her case still awaits trial. Thomas was among a host of athletes, from baseball to track to football, caught up in the Balco probe, which exposed a Peninsula laboratory's link to the distribution of steroids in sports.
Meanwhile, Bonds' return to the same federal building where he testified in the Balco case four years ago lasted only about a half hour and demonstrated how much attention his legal troubles will attract. He arrived at about 8:30 a.m., making his way through a sea of television cameras into the courthouse, where he was escorted to a 19th floor private attorney conference room.
Outside court, a modest group of supporters, as well as a peculiar mix of other demonstrators, gathered. Only three Bonds supporters in their black and orange Giants gear bothered to get passes for the courtroom to show their support.
Rich Archuleta, 43, a lifelong Giants fan who drove 150 miles from his home near Sacramento, called the government's case a "witch hunt."
Perhaps the oddest spectacle was a pair of women representing People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who used the media attention to get some of their own.
Clad in bikinis made of rhinestone-studded lettuce cups, they handed out tofu sandwiches. "If people are concerned with athletes pumping themselves with growth hormones, they should consider that the meat industry is doing the same thing every day to animals," said Nicole Matthews, a PETA staff member shivering in the chilly morning air.
The legal spectacle was more somber. Flanked by his wife, Liz, Bonds entered the courtroom with an entourage of six lawyers, striding past his nemesis, IRS agent Jeff Novitsky, the lead investigator in the Balco case. As U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria Elena-James outlined the procedures, Bonds stood at the lectern, at one point fumbling with the microphone. He said little - Ruby entered the 'not guilty" plea for him.
Inside the courtroom, James rejected the government's bid to restrict Bonds from leaving the United States to travel after Ruby argued that such a restriction could hinder Bonds' ability to resume his baseball career.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, who has presided over the entire Balco affair, then took over from James, setting the next routine court date for Feb. 7.
The lead prosecutor in the case, Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Parrella, said the government may raise questions about whether some of Bonds' lawyers could have a conflict of interest. Parrella didn't specify, but Arguedas has represented six athletes who have appeared before the Balco grand jury. Bonds' defense lawyers said they do not expect the issue to present serious problems.
Bonds left the courthouse again without speaking to reporters, but stopped to hug his aging aunt, Rosie Bonds Kreidler, who was waiting for him in the lobby. They chatted for a few moments, Bonds flashed a smile, and he disappeared from the building into an awaiting sport-utility vehicle.
Bonds just finalized his defense team this week, after searching for a top-flight defense lawyer to replace Michael Rains, an East Bay lawyer who has represented Bonds since the early stages of the Balco investigation, but has little federal criminal trial experience. Rains was relegated to a bit part Friday.
Ruby, considered Silicon Valley's leading trial lawyer, appeared to take on the lead role for Bonds. Ruby has handled high-profile cases for decades, most recently getting San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales off the hook on public corruption charges related to the Norcal garbage scandal. Arguedas has a blue-chip list of clients. Bonds also added San Francisco attorney Dennis Riordan to his team.
Riordan has handled blockbuster cases ranging from the Phil Spector murder trial to the infamous San Francisco dog mauling trial. And, in a sign that there will be plenty of legal wrangling before and after the trial, he specializes in crafting legal motions and handling appeals.
Bonds is accused of lying to federal prosecutors in four separate exchanges when he testified before the grand jury investigating Balco. That probe has produced a number of indictments.
Prosecutors spent several years on the investigation into whether Bonds perjured himself before the grand jury, delayed in part by the refusal of Bonds' friend and personal trainer Greg Anderson to testify. Anderson spent the better part of a year in federal prison after a judge found him in contempt.
Anderson, who pleaded guilty in the original Balco case and is suspected of supplying Bonds and other athletes with steroids, could be called again to testify if Bonds goes to trial. Anderson's lawyers insist he'll never testify against Bonds.
Perjury cases are notoriously hard to prove, and likely witnesses include Bonds' former girlfriend, Kimberly Bell; his former doctor; and other athletes implicated in the Balco scandal. The indictment also revealed for the first time that prosecutors obtained evidence that Bonds tested positive for steroids in a 2000 drug test. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court turns down PG&E appeal
Breaking Legal News |
2007/12/11 06:24
|
The Supreme Court on Monday, without comment, turned down an appeal by PG&E Corp.'s Pacific Gas and Electric Co. in a case that centers on whether federal energy regulators have authority over municipalities. At issue in the dispute is whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can order municipal government entities that aren't public utilities -- but that buy and sell electricity -- to issue refunds. The agency can order utilities to pay such refunds if it determines they sold power at 'unjust and unreasonable' prices.
Prices for electricity soared in California's auction markets during the 2000-2001 energy crisis. FERC eventually imposed price caps and ordered sellers to pay refunds to utilities, such as PG&E, that were forced to purchase power at inflated prices.
Municipalities, such as the California cities of Burbank, Pasadena and Palo Alto, among others, argued that FERC didn't have the authority to order them to pay refunds.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the municipalities and ruled against PG&E in 2005.
The Bush administration, meanwhile, urged the Supreme Court to reject the case. The Justice Department's Solicitor General said that energy legislation approved by Congress in 2005 gave FERC limited authority, going forward, to order refunds in some cases from municipalities. As a result, the issues raised by the case are 'of minimal ongoing importance,' Peter Clement, the Solicitor General, wrote.
The court's decision lets the appeals court ruling stand.
The case is Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. Bonneville Power Administration, 07-155. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
