Suits and Litigation (Civil)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Texas Man Drops Suit Against Women Who Helped Ex-Wife Get Abortion Pills

      by

      The suit had accused the three women of wrongful death. It was part of a heated battle over the use of such pills in states with abortion bans.A Texas man has dropped his lawsuit against three women who helped his ex-wife obtain abortion pills, a case widely seen as designed to discourage private citizens from aiding women in using the pills in states where abortion is all but banned.The move on Thursday by the plaintiff, Marcus Silva, was part of a settlement with the defendants, Jackie Noyola, Amy Carpenter and Aracely Garcia. The exact details of the settlement were not made public, but they did not involve any financial terms, according to lawyers for both sides. Ms. Noyola and Ms. Carpenter also dropped counterclaims they had filed.Mr. Silva filed his suit shortly after the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade and one year after Texas essentially banned most abortions with a law that also deputized private individuals to sue anyone who “aids or abets” a woman seeking an abortion.One of Mr. Silva’s lawyers is Jonathan Mitchell, a former solicitor general of Texas. The architect of the state abortion ban, he is considered a pioneer in using private lawsuits to deter the procedure. Abortion rights groups accuse him of filing the suits to attract publicity and intimidate people.Elizabeth Myers, a lawyer for Ms. Noyola and Ms. Carpenter, said the fact that Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Silva did not want to move forward with the case was “very telling.”“They live on the creation of fear,” she said. “They need the fear to ultimately lead to something real and it didn’t.” 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

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      F.A.A. Clears the Way for SpaceX to Hold Starship Launch on Sunday

      by

      The agency said the company had agreed to study the environmental impact of its launches in South Texas and ways to mitigate harm to wildlife.The Federal Aviation Administration issued a new license on Saturday allowing Elon Musk’s SpaceX company to launch its Starship rocket again from South Texas, and it included new requirements to limit the harm to birds’ nests and other wildlife in an adjacent state park and National Wildlife Refuge.The action by the F.A.A., which came after weeks of pressure by Mr. Musk on the agency to speed up its latest review, allows Mr. Musk to go ahead with his next test of Starship, with a launch now set to take place as early as 8 a.m. Eastern time on Sunday.So far, SpaceX has been required to obtain a license for each launch. With the latest license, the F.A.A. is allowing the company to launch more than once, unless it modifies its procedures.Starship, the largest rocket ever built, has not yet carried any humans into space, as its reliability is still being assessed. But this is the spaceship that Mr. Musk is under contract to use to land NASA astronauts on the moon — and that he hopes to someday use to take humans to Mars.But as prototypes and full-scale versions of the rocket have been tested at the company’s launch site at the edge of the Gulf of Mexico near the Mexican border in South Texas, there has been widespread evidence of environmental consequences to the region, as detailed in a New York Times investigation in July.The report in The Times examined, in part, damage that a Starship launch in June caused to the fragile migratory bird habitat surrounding the launch site, including destroying eggs in nearby nests.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

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Zantac’s Developer Settles Lawsuits Claiming Cancer Link

      by

      GSK, which developed and sold versions of the now-discontinued blockbuster heartburn drug, agreed to pay up to $2.2 billion.The British drug maker GSK said on Wednesday that it would pay up to $2.2 billion to settle most of the lawsuits filed against it by people who claim that they developed cancer after taking a now-discontinued blockbuster heartburn drug commonly known by the brand name Zantac.GSK, which developed the drug decades ago and sold a version of it until 2017, did not admit liability in settling the cases. The evidence is mixed on whether the drug elevates the risk of cancer, but the concern that the drug might was sufficient to get it removed from the market.An over-the-counter medication sold today as Zantac 360 by Sanofi has a different active ingredient from the withdrawn versions of Zantac and has not raised questions about a cancer link.In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration said it had detected low levels of a cancer-causing contaminant known as NDMA in samples of Zantac, which at that time was widely sold by prescription and over the counter. Manufacturers soon voluntarily withdrew their versions of the drug, and pharmacies pulled the products from their shelves.The next year, the F.D.A. recommended that the drug no longer be sold or used, saying that when stored for long periods its active ingredient can degrade and cause a buildup of NDMA, creating a danger of cancer.Other research has found that Zantac users were no more likely to develop cancer than people who took other drugs that suppress the production of stomach acid.Tens of thousands of Zantac users have filed product liability lawsuits against GSK and other makers of versions of Zantac. This year, juries in Illinois that heard the first few such cases sided with the manufacturers or failed to reach a verdict.Several other pharmaceutical companies that previously sold versions of the drug, including Sanofi and Pfizer, reached similar settlements this year. Boehringer Ingelheim, a former manufacturer that has not settled, is in court in California this week defending itself in a jury trial brought by a man who claims that over-the-counter Zantac caused his bladder cancer.GSK’s settlement on Wednesday will resolve claims by about 80,000 plaintiffs in the United States. The company said it had also agreed to pay $70 million to settle a whistle-blower complaint by an independent laboratory, Valisure, whose testing first raised the alarm about a link between Zantac and cancer. In that lawsuit, Valisure accused GSK of knowing that the drug elevates cancer risk and of keeping quiet about it.The suit was unsealed this year after the Justice Department declined to either join the suit or recommend that it be dismissed. The company denies Valisure’s allegations. More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Garth Brooks Names Woman Who Accused Him of Rape

      by

      In a court filing, lawyers for the country superstar portrayed him as “the victim of a shakedown” and asked for compensatory and punitive damages.Garth Brooks, the country superstar, has named the woman who, as Jane Roe, accused him of rape and sexual assault in a bombshell lawsuit last week.In a court filing in Mississippi on Tuesday, lawyers for Mr. Brooks portrayed the star as “the victim of a shakedown” and said the woman’s lawyers had “flouted” the authority of a judge in a related case.Litigation over the woman’s accusations began last month with a lawsuit that was filed anonymously — as John Doe v. Jane Roe — in federal court in Mississippi. The plaintiff, identified only as “a celebrity and public figure who resides in Tennessee,” said that lawyers for a woman had approached him in July with what he described as false allegations of sexual assault, and that they would sue Mr. Brooks unless he gave the woman “a multimillion-dollar payment.” The man asked the Mississippi judge to preserve the parties’ anonymity and declare that the woman’s accusations were false.In a response, lawyers for the woman said they intended to sue the man in California, saying that “Ms. Roe respectfully requests that she may commence her California action as she intended to do, and use Mr. Doe’s name, absent objection from this Honorable Court.”The court did not act, and two days later the woman filed her lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court, naming Mr. Brooks but not herself. The suit accused Mr. Brooks of raping her in a Los Angeles hotel room in 2019, and of subjecting her to repeated unwanted sexual advances for about two years. The woman described herself as a hair and makeup stylist who had worked with Mr. Brooks’s wife, the country singer Trisha Yearwood, since 1999, and had begun working regularly for Mr. Brooks in 2017.The suit drew wide coverage in the news media, and its portrayal of Mr. Brooks ran counter to the positive public image he had cultivated for decades.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      TikTok Faces Lawsuits From 13 States Around Teens and Mental Health

      by

      More than a dozen states sued TikTok on Tuesday for creating an app designed to be addictive to children and teens.Thirteen states and the District of Columbia sued TikTok on Tuesday for creating an intentionally addictive app that harmed children and teens while making false claims to the public about its commitment to safety.In separate lawsuits, a bipartisan group of attorneys general cited internal company documents to paint a picture of a multibillion dollar company that knowingly contributed to a mental health crisis among American teenagers to maximize its advertising revenue. They said that TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, has relentlessly designed features to prompt heavy, compulsive use of TikTok and that many children were using the app late at night when they would otherwise have been asleep.TikTok “knew the harms to children,” Rob Bonta, the Democratic attorney general of California, said in an interview. “They chose addiction and more use and more eyeballs and more mental and physical harm for our young people in order to get profits — it’s really that simple.”The lawsuits add to a rapidly expanding list of challenges for TikTok in the United States, which now counts 170 million monthly U.S. users. A federal law passed in April calls for the app to be banned in the United States as of January unless it is sold. A federal lawsuit against the company in August also claimed that TikTok allowed children to open accounts, gathered information about them and made it difficult for their parents to delete the accounts.TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The states, many of which started investigating the company’s harms to minors in early 2022, are generally claiming that TikTok’s conduct violates their consumer protection laws. The states say that TikTok plays videos in a manner that aims to make young users lose track of time and sends them round-the-clock notifications and ephemeral content like livestreams to compel them to keep checking in. The longer users stay on the app, the more targeted ads TikTok is able to show them.The attorneys general say that TikTok has misled users about its so-called 60-minute screen time limits for young people and other features that promise to curate the videos that they see.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      School Absences Rise as Special Education Fails Students, Suit Says

      by

      A class-action lawsuit argues that the New York City school system falls short in helping students with emotional disabilities, leaving them to miss too many school days.New York City “regularly fails” to provide special education services to students with disabilities, leading to chronic absences, according to a class-action lawsuit filed Tuesday by the Legal Aid Society.The suit seeks to confront a pervasive problem in the city’s school system, the nation’s largest. Tens of thousands of children may struggle to attend class because of anxiety, clinical depression and other emotional disabilities, the suit says. These students have the right — enshrined in federal law — to have their needs accommodated by their public schools.But the city’s Education Department “has a pattern and practice” of falling short in providing evaluations, support services and robust plans to help these children attend class, according to the complaint. This failure results in a “systematic, wholesale denial of access to education,” the suit argues.H.B., a 16-year-old sophomore who is identified by his initials in the lawsuit to protect his privacy, says his anxiety makes it feel like he is watching his classes on “a really old TV” with the signal going in and out.When he was in sixth grade, his mother sought a special education plan — a legal document that outlines the support services and other accommodations to which a student is entitled. But it took almost the entire school year for him to receive one, the suit says.In the meantime, administrators at his middle school told him that if he needed to leave class to collect himself, he could sit with the guidance counselor. The counselor later reported his mother to child services for neglect, in a case that was eventually dismissed.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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Instructor at Troubled Skydiving Spot Gets 2 Years After Faking Credentials

      by

      The facility near Lodi, Calif., where he trained people in tandem jumping, has come under scrutiny amid more than two dozen deaths since 1985.A skydiving instructor who used someone else’s credentials to train people in tandem jumping at a troubled facility near Lodi, Calif., was sentenced this week to two years in prison.The instructor, Robert Pooley, 49, was convicted in May of wire fraud after using another instructor’s digital signature on paperwork that allowed him to train and certify students in tandem skydiving, which involves an experienced sky diver jumping with a novice, the authorities said. In 2016, one of Mr. Pooley’s students died along with a first-time sky diver, after their parachutes failed to open.That episode placed renewed scrutiny on the center where he worked, which is now known as the Skydive Lodi Parachute Center. The facility, about 30 miles south of Sacramento, in San Joaquin County, has been the site of more than two dozen deaths since 1985, including the 2016 deaths of Yong Kwon, 25, Mr. Pooley’s student, and Tyler Turner, 18, a first-time jumper who died in a tandem leap with Mr. Kwon.Mr. Pooley has not been charged in connection with either man’s death. He has also not been alleged to have had any involvement in the other deaths at the facility. In an emailed statement, lawyers for Mr. Pooley told The New York Times that the court had made it clear during the sentencing hearing on Monday that it did not find Mr. Pooley legally responsible for the deaths.Mr. Pooley’s arrest in 2021 came several years after the deaths of Mr. Kwon and Mr. Turner.Mr. Turner’s mother, Francine Turner, said in a telephone interview that it was “significant” to see Mr. Pooley, who she believed played a role in her son’s death, go to prison. Ms. Turner, who filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against the Parachute Center, said in the interview that she wished that the authorities could have also gone after the facility’s founder, William Dause, who she said had largely escaped responsibility despite the many deaths at his skydiving outfit.Francine Turner with her son, Tyler, who was killed in 2016 while skydiving. Francine TurnerWe 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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How Google Defended Itself in the Ad Tech Antitrust Trial

      by

      The tech giant, which wrapped up its arguments in the federal monopoly trial, simply says it has the best product.Over the past week, Google has called more than a dozen witnesses to defend itself against claims by the Justice Department and a group of state attorneys general that it has a monopoly in advertising software that places ads on web pages, part of a second major federal antitrust trial against the tech giant.Google’s lawyers wrapped up their arguments in the case on Friday, and the government will now offer a rebuttal. Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, who is presiding over the nonjury trial, is expected to deliver a ruling by the end of the year, after both sides summarize their cases in writing and deliver closing arguments.The government last week concluded its main arguments in the case, U.S. et al. v. Google, which was filed last year and accuses Google of building a monopoly over the technology that places ads on websites around the internet.The company’s defense has centered on how its actions were justified and how it helped publishers, advertisers and competition. Here are Google’s main arguments.How Google claims its actions were justifiedThe Justice Department and a group of states have accused the tech company of abusing control of its ad technology and violating antitrust law, in part through its 2008 acquisition of the advertising software company DoubleClick. Google has pushed up ad prices and harmed publishers by taking a big cut of each sale, the government argued.But Google’s lawyers countered that the ad tech industry was intensely competitive. They also accused the Justice Department of ignoring rivals like Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon to make its case sound more compelling.Visa, Google, JetBlue: A Guide to a New Era of Antitrust ActionBelow are 15 major cases brought by the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission since late 2020, as President Biden’s top antitrust enforcers have promised to sue monopolies and block big mergers.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