|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals Court Upholds Patriot Act Ruling
Breaking Legal News |
2007/12/11 06:22
|
| A federal appeals court ruled that some portions of the U.S. Patriot Act dealing with foreign terrorist organizations are unconstitutional because the language is too vague to be understood by a person of average intelligence. The ruling released Monday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco affirms a 2005 decision by U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins, who ruled on a petition seeking to clear the way for U.S. groups and individuals to assist political organizations in Turkey and Sri Lanka. Collins said language in the Patriot Act was vague on matters involving training, expert advice or assistance, personnel and service to foreign terrorist organizations. Her ruling prevented the federal government from enforcing those provisions as they apply to the terrorist groups named in the lawsuit. Without clear language, the plaintiffs argued, those who provide assistance to foreign terrorist organizations could be subject to prison terms of up to 15 years. Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said his agency was reviewing the ruling to determine a response. In its 27-page decision, the appeals court said that to survive a vagueness challenge, a statute "must be sufficiently clear to put a person of ordinary intelligence on notice that his or her contemplated conduct is unlawful." The language covered by the ruling remained unconstitutionally vague despite Congressional amendments to the Patriot Act meant to remedy the problems, the appeals court ruled. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Vendors Accuse Prestigious Law Firm Of Piracy
Court Watch |
2007/12/11 04:25
|
A Philadelphia law practice recently ranked among the nation's top 200 firms has been accused by a software industry group of stealing business applications made by Adobe, Symantec, and other vendors, InformationWeek has learned.
In a lawsuit filed last week on behalf of the vendors by the Software Information Industry Association, the firm of Fox Rothschild is alleged to have "engaged in the unauthorized reproduction and use" of software made by Adobe, Corel, Sonic Solutions, and Symantec. The vendors claim that Fox Rothschild's alleged "copyright infringement" is causing them "repeated and irreparable injury." The suit, filed in federal court in Northern California, does not specify which specific software products the firm is alleged to be using without authorization, or their estimated value. Fox Rothschild chief information officer Brook Lee did not immediately return a message left on his voice mail seeking comment. Adobe, Symantec, Corel, and Sonic are asking the court to prohibit the firm from continuing to use their software, and are seeking unspecified damages. They're also asking the court for an order that would prohibit Fox Rothschild from erasing the software from its networks or destroying any electronic documentation related to its use or installation. SIIA litigation counsel Scott Bain said Fox Rothschild's alleged software misappropriation came to the group's attention through a whistleblower program it operates. Talks aimed at settling the matter out of court went nowhere, Bain said. "They took a particularly aggressive stance toward us so we decided to sue," said Bain. "We were disappointed. You'd think that a law firm would know better." Fox Rothschild appeared last year on American Lawyer magazine's list of the nation's top 200 firms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
San Jose weighs limits on class-action claims
Class Action |
2007/12/11 03:27
|
| The San Jose City Council today will consider new rules for filing claims that a prominent local lawyer says is an attempt to block class actions. "It's very interesting that this proposal is coming to the council while we've got this suit looming on the horizon," said James McManis, who in September filed a $1 million claim against the city seeking refunds on behalf of thousands of motorists who were ticketed under a controversial city program. The proposal by City Attorney Rick Doyle states that "no claim may be filed on behalf of a class of persons unless verified by every member of that class." Doyle said the new claims policy "is not really related to" the McManis claim or to class-actions in general. Instead, he said it's an attempt to help the city council better calculate the city's potential exposure to damages. Requiring all participants in a class-action to approve the claim filing, Doyle said, makes sense so that the city can determine in advance who has a valid claim. McManis filed his claim on behalf of San Jose motorist Jorge Luis Ramirez and "others similarly situated." The claim says thousands of motorists paid fines ranging from $99 to $350 under the city's now-defunct Neighborhood Automated Speed Compliance Program, or NASCOP. The program involved a city traffic engineer who sat in an unmarked van with a radar gun and digital cameras to snap speeding motorists as they drove past. The registered owner of the vehicle would then receive a ticket in the mail. City officials saw the program as a way to curb speeding without further taxing San Jose's thinly stretched police force. The city sent 7,000 violation notices in 2006 alone. The program also proved popular with many residents frustrated by speeding on neighborhood streets. City officials claimed the program reduced speeding 8 percent overall and cut the number of motorists who exceeded the posted limit by more than 10 mph by 62 percent. But Police Chief Rob Davis and the city's transportation director in February advised the council to convert the program to a warning-only system, citing growing concerns that the tickets could not stand up in court. They noted that since the program was enacted, the state Legislature had declared that photo radar could not be used for speed enforcement. Ramirez said he got two tickets for driving 28 mph and 30 mph in a 25 mph zone. He paid the fines but later was told by police officer friends that it is highly unusual to be ticketed for driving less than 5 mph over the posted limit. Claims are a step toward filing a lawsuit against a government agency. The purpose is to give the government a chance to pay the claim without being dragged into court. Peter Keane, a law professor at Golden Gate University, said Doyle's proposal "seems to go against the whole nature of what a class action suit is all about." He added that the purpose of such lawsuits is to appoint a representative for the entire class because it's virtually impossible to gather the whole group. "Whether the courts would look at it as something the city can or cannot do, I just don't know," Keane said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
