Suits and Litigation (Civil)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares46 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Administration Said to Drop Lawsuit Over Toxic Chemical

      by

      The Trump administration plans to drop a federal lawsuit against a chemical manufacturer accused of releasing high levels of a likely carcinogen from its Louisiana plant, according to two people familiar with the plans.The government filed the lawsuit during the Biden administration after regulators determined that chloroprene emissions from the Denka Performance Elastomer plant were contributing to health concerns in an area with the highest cancer risk of any place in the United States.The 2023 lawsuit was among several enforcement actions taken by the Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of poor and minority communities that have disproportionately borne the brunt of toxic pollution.The Denka plant is located in the predominantly Black community of LaPlace, La., in a region so dense with industrial facilities that it is known as “Cancer Alley.” Chloroprene is used to produce neoprene, a synthetic rubber that is found in automotive parts, hoses, beer cozies, orthopedic braces and electric cables.The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment. The agency intends to ask the United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana this week to dismiss the lawsuit, according to the two people familiar with the decision, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the case.The lawsuit had given the neighboring community a measure of hope that pollution levels might finally come down, said Robert Taylor, a founder of Concerned Citizens of St John Parish, a community group.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares78 Views

      in Elections

      Maine Lobster Industry Can Sue Seafood Watchdog for Defamation, Judge Rules

      by

      A group of fishermen says that it lost business after Seafood Watch, a program run by the Monterey Bay Aquarium, advised consumers not to buy lobster from the state.Maine’s lobster industry can proceed with a defamation lawsuit that it brought against a seafood watchdog group, which had placed a do-not-buy designation on the crustaceans because of the dangers it said that the industry’s fishing nets posed to an endangered whale species.A federal judge last month denied a motion to have the case dismissed, drawing an appeal on Thursday from the group Seafood Watch, a nonprofit run by the Monterey Bay Aquarium that publishes seafood sustainability ratings.It has been nearly two years since the Maine Lobstermen’s Association and several other plaintiffs sued the nonprofit after it downgraded the sustainability rating for American lobsters caught off Maine from yellow to red in 2022. The nonprofit advised consumers to avoid those lobsters, saying that endangered North Atlantic right whales were at significant risk of becoming entangled in fishing gear.The fishermen blamed Seafood Watch in the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Maine, for damaging the reputation of the billion-dollar industry and prompting some of their customers to cancel contracts.“Reputation and goodwill cannot be adequately replaced through awarding damages and this injury lingers as long as the ‘red listing’ does,” Judge John A. Woodcock Jr. wrote in the 137-page order denying the motion to dismiss the case.The fishermen applauded the judge’s ruling in a statement, having argued in the lawsuit that the average price per pound of lobster dropped by 40 percent after Seafood Watch changed its sustainability rating.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares117 Views

      in Elections

      More Women File Lawsuits Against Brothers Accused of Sex Crimes

      by

      Tal Alexander and his brothers, Oren Alexander and Alon Alexander, who are twins, now face at least 24 civil lawsuits, as they await trial on federal sex-trafficking charges.Seven lawsuits were filed this week against one or more of the Alexander brothers, who are facing multiple accusations of sexual assault in both civil and criminal court. The newest allegations against Tal Alexander and his brothers, Oren Alexander and Alon Alexander, who are twins, came this week in a flurry of last-minute claims all brought against the men as a legal window for decades-old allegations is closing. Two of the lawsuits were filed on Friday night to meet a midnight deadline.The Alexanders are collectively now facing at least 24 lawsuits, deepening the legal troubles for the brothers once known for their jet-setting lifestyles fueled by the work of Tal Alexander and Oren Alexander in the luxury residential real estate. In the latest batch of lawsuits, the net of allegations has widened to include their parents; Douglas Elliman, the real estate brokerage where Tal Alexander and Oren Alexander once worked; the Alexander family business; and the owner of an estate in the Hamptons who frequently hosted parties that the brothers attended.The claims add new twists to the maze of sexual assault allegations against the brothers who were arrested in December in Miami Beach on federal sex-trafficking charges. Currently jailed in New York, they are scheduled to go to trial early next year. All three have pleaded not guilty.Just a few years ago, the brothers were fixtures of a social circuit in Miami and Manhattan, making their nightlife adventures part of their brand. Tal Alexander and Oren Alexander were among the country’s most prominent real estate agents, while Alon Alexander, who ran the family business Kent Security Services and did not work in real estate, accompanied them on the circuit.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares81 Views

      in Elections

      Paramount’s Shari Redstone Wants a Resolution on President Trump Lawsuit Ahead of Skydance Merger

      by

      Redstone, who controls Paramount, has been trying to close a merger with the Hollywood studio Skydance. President Trump’s lawsuit against CBS News is complicating matters.Shari Redstone, the controlling shareholder of the entertainment giant Paramount, delivered a crucial message to her board a few weeks ago.For months, Paramount’s lawyers had been jousting with representatives for President Trump, who had sued the company’s CBS News network over its segment on former Vice President Kamala Harris. Mr. Trump accused the network of deceptively editing the interview; CBS said Trump’s lawsuit was without merit.But when the board gathered this month, Ms. Redstone was clear: She was in favor of resolving the issue, two people familiar with the matter told DealBook’s Lauren Hirsch and The New York Times’s Ben Mullin.As Paramount executives weighed the best course of action, Ms. Redstone said she was in favor of moving forward in a way that would lead to some form of conclusion, including mediation.It was the first time that Ms. Redstone made her wishes known to the full board. Many at CBS News and “60 Minutes,” where Ms. Harris’s interview aired, strongly opposed a settlement.Further complicating the matter: The Federal Communications Commission is reviewing Paramount’s pending deal with Skydance. Some executives said that a settlement would smooth the way to closing the merger, even as others worried that a settlement could be interpreted as bribery for the F.C.C. to clear the Skydance deal. Mr. Trump, for his part, told reporters on Wednesday that the two were not linked.National Amusements, Paramount’s parent company, declined to comment, and Paramount has said that its legal battle with Mr. Trump is unrelated to its deal with Skydance.Ms. Redstone’s carefully written statement did not mention Paramount’s deal with Skydance — but it did underscore the fact that a pending multibillion-dollar lawsuit from the president made it difficult for Paramount to do business. She also said that she was removing herself from day-to-day discussions about the lawsuit.This week, The Times reported that Paramount had agreed to bring in a mediator.Any settlement could be perceived as the latest corporate concession to the White House, including Disney’s $15 million settlement in December and Meta’s $25 million settlement last month. The possibility of a settlement, which is likely to further embolden Mr. Trump’s crusade against the media, has been met with a strong backlash within the CBS ranks and outside the company.Though Ms. Redstone didn’t mention the Skydance deal in her remarks, people familiar with her thinking believe she’s focused on closing the deal.Paramount is also navigating the consequences of doing business under a retributive president. Beyond the Skydance deal, Mr. Trump has made clear his willingness to exact revenge when it comes to companies.“Corporations — particularly these days are often in the cross hairs of policymakers — and they have to navigate that,” Jill Fisch, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, told DealBook. “And that’s not easy.” More

    • 138 Shares132 Views

      in Elections

      Chief Justice Allows U.S. to Continue Freeze on Foreign Aid Payments

      by

      Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Wednesday night handed the Trump administration a victory for now in saying that the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department did not need to immediately pay for more than $1.5 billion in already completed aid work.A federal judge had set a midnight deadline for the agencies to release funds for the foreign aid work. The Trump administration, in an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court just hours before the deadline, said the judge had overstepped his authority and interfered with the president’s obligations to “make appropriate judgments about foreign aid.”Chief Justice Roberts, acting on his own, issued an “administrative stay,” an interim measure meant to preserve the status quo while the justices consider the matter in a more deliberate fashion. The chief justice ordered the challengers to file a response to the application on Friday, and the court is likely to act not long after.In another aggressive move on Wednesday to carry out President Trump’s Day 1 directive to gut U.S. spending overseas, lawyers for the Trump administration said that it was ending nearly 10,000 U.S. Agency for International Development and State Department contracts and grants.The administration actions stunned diplomats and aid workers already reeling from mass firings at U.S.A.I.D., which funds food, health, development and democracy programs abroad, and which the Trump administration has systematically dismantled. A former senior U.S.A.I.D. official said the cuts account for about 90 percent of the agency’s work and tens of billions of dollars in spending.The signage for U.S.A.I.D. in Washington, which has been covered up with tape, seen on Tuesday.Jason Andrew for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares132 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Wants Congestion Pricing Dead by March 21. Not So Fast, M.T.A. Says.

      by

      Court filings revealed that President Trump is seeking to end the New York toll program within weeks. Legal experts say the deadline is not enforceable.In the furor and confusion over the Trump administration’s move to kill congestion pricing in New York City, a major question remained unanswered: If the president had his way, when would the tolling program end?Federal officials, it turned out, had a date in mind: March 21.The battle over congestion pricing, which the state-run Metropolitan Transportation Authority is counting on to fund billions of dollars in mass transit repairs, is expected to play out in federal court in Manhattan. While many legal experts say that the March deadline is not binding, some question whether President Trump might resort to other tactics, including withholding federal funding for other state projects, to apply pressure.In a letter last week to New York transportation leaders, Gloria M. Shepherd, the executive director of the Federal Highway Administration, said they “must cease the collection of tolls” by that date. The letter was included in court papers filed on Tuesday in a federal lawsuit brought by the State of New Jersey seeking to stop congestion pricing.Ms. Shepherd requested that New York leaders work with her agency, which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, “to provide the necessary details and updates” regarding the halting of toll operations.In response, the M.T.A., which operates buses, trains and commuter rail lines in New York and manages the tolling program, vowed to keep collecting the tolls unless a federal judge instructs it otherwise.“We’re not turning them off,” Janno Lieber, the chief executive and chair of the M.T.A., said at a news conference on Wednesday. “In the meantime, everything is steady as she goes.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares86 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Day of Reckoning’: Trial Over Greenpeace’s Role in Pipeline Protest Begins

      by

      Energy Transfer, which owns the Dakota Access Pipeline, is seeking $300 million, a sum that Greenpeace says could bankrupt the storied environmental group.Lawyers for the pipeline company Energy Transfer and Greenpeace fired their opening salvos in a North Dakota courtroom Wednesday morning in a civil trial that could bankrupt the storied environmental group.The suit revolves around the role Greenpeace played in massive protests against construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline nearly a decade ago. The pipeline, which carries crude oil from North Dakota across several states to a transfer point in Illinois, was delayed for months in 2016 and 2017 amid lawsuits and protests.The trial commenced on Wednesday with opening arguments in a quiet county courthouse in Mandan, N.D. Greenpeace says Energy Transfer, which built the Dakota Access Pipeline, is seeking $300 million in damages.Energy Transfer, one of the largest pipeline firms in the country, accused Greenpeace of inciting unrest that cost it millions of dollars in lost financing, construction delays, and security and public-relations expenses. Trey Cox, its lead lawyer, told the nine-person jury that his team would prove that Greenpeace had “planned, organized and funded” unlawful protests. He called the trial a “day of reckoning.”Everett Jack Jr., the lead lawyer for Greenpeace, gave a detailed timeline to rebut aspects of that account, saying Greenpeace played a minor role in the demonstrations, which drew an estimated 100,000 people to the rural area.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares73 Views

      in Elections

      Trump and Paramount Seek Mediator for CBS News Lawsuit

      by

      The move is another indicator that the two sides are exploring ways to resolve the case, over the editing of a “60 Minutes” interview, out of court.Lawyers for Paramount and President Trump have agreed to appoint a mediator in his $20 billion lawsuit against CBS, according to two people with knowledge of the decision.The move to bring in a mediator is another indicator that the two sides are trying to resolve the case, over the editing of a “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, out of court. A mediator could help them reach a settlement, but whether they will do so remains far from certain.Paramount declined to comment. Ed Paltzik, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, said in a statement: “President Trump will pursue this vital matter to its just and rightful conclusion.”Mr. Trump sued CBS days before the 2024 election, accusing the company of deceptively editing the interview with his Democratic opponent. He later amended the suit to include Paramount as a separate defendant.Paramount, CBS’s parent company, began settlement talks with Mr. Trump this year. Those talks have created discord at Paramount, with employees at CBS News strongly opposed to any settlement. Bill Owens, the executive producer of “60 Minutes,” told the show’s staff this month that he would not apologize as part of any prospective settlement after The New York Times reported that the settlement talks with Mr. Trump were underway.The lawsuit has complicated Paramount’s merger with Skydance, a deal that would unite an up-and-coming media start-up backed by the tech mogul Larry Ellison with the gilded Hollywood studio behind “The Godfather” and “Rosemary’s Baby.” The multibillion-dollar deal, struck last year, would end the Redstone family’s decades-long run atop Paramount and anoint Mr. Ellison and his son, David, in their stead.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More