Suits and Litigation (Civil)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Greenpeace Tries a Novel Tactic in Lawsuit Over Dakota Access Pipeline

      by

      The environmental group, which is being sued by the pipeline company in North Dakota, threatened to use new European rules to try to limit potential damages.The NewsGreenpeace recently unveiled a new strategy for fighting a costly lawsuit by an energy company that the group contends is designed to silence critics of the oil industry.The suit, first filed in federal court in 2017, alleged that Greenpeace had incited the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota in 2016 and 2017, and it sought $300 million in damages.Greenpeace disputes the claims. It says the lawsuit is designed to essentially force the environmental group to go out of business with an expensive legal fight.Its new tactic, led by Greenpeace International in Amsterdam, would use the European legal system to try to minimize the financial consequences of a potential loss in United States courts. In a letter to the company last month, lawyers for the group cited a new European Union directive aimed at curbing SLAPP suits, or Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation. Those are defined as meritless suits that seek to shut down civil society groups.The letter called on the company suing it, Dallas-based Energy Transfer, to drop its suit against Greenpeace International, and to pay damages for its legal costs, or risk a countersuit under the new European rules.The BackgroundAfter the Dakota Access Pipeline was approved in 2016, it became the target of high-profile protests by Native American tribes and environmental groups. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe argued that the pipeline encroached on reservation land and endangered the water supply. Thousands of its supporters joined a nearly eight-month protest encampment near the reservation, and tribal leaders mounted their own legal challenge to the project.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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Jury Finds Parents of Gunman Not Liable in 2018 Texas School Shooting

      by

      Jurors decided instead that blame rested with the gunman, who was 17 at the time, and the company that sold him ammunition used in the shooting.The parents of a gunman who was 17 when he killed eight students and two teachers at his high school in Santa Fe, Texas, in 2018 are not financially liable for his heinous actions, a jury found on Monday.The verdict, reached after a day of deliberations, followed an emotional three-week trial that was among the first attempts to hold parents accountable in civil court for the actions of their child in a school shooting.But instead of finding that the parents bore responsibility for the shooting, the jury decided that blame rested with the gunman and with the company that sold him ammunition used in the shooting. The jury awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to the plaintiffs, who included the relatives of several of those killed and others who were wounded.The trial came several months after a Michigan couple was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for a mass shooting carried out by their teenage son. In that case, prosecutors presented evidence that the parents had ignored warning signs and failed to lock up a handgun used by their 15-year-old son in an attack at Oxford High School in 2021.The Texas gunman’s parents, Antonios Pagourtzis and Rose Marie Kosmetatos, were not accused of any crime. The trial instead focused on whether they had been negligent in the storage of more than a dozen firearms in their home — two of which were used in the shooting — and had failed to notice that their son was struggling or take steps to help him.After the shooting, the gunman, Dimitrios Pagourtzis, was deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial in criminal court, and he remains in a state hospital for mental health treatment. In the absence of a criminal trial, many in Santa Fe, just north of Galveston along the Gulf Coast of Texas, looked to the civil trial as their first opportunity for accountability, six years after the shooting.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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Willie Brown to Donald Trump: Mention My Name Again and Get Sued

      by

      Willie Brown, the former mayor of San Francisco, had a message for former President Donald J. Trump on Saturday afternoon: Keep my name out of your mouth or get sued.He stood with his longtime lawyer, Joe Cotchett, on a sidewalk in downtown San Francisco, outside John’s Grill, the Saturday spot on Mr. Brown’s lunchtime rotation, and told reporters that he would sue Mr. Trump for slander and defamation if he repeated his concocted helicopter story one more time.“He’s never brought a lawsuit in his life,” Mr. Cotchett said of Mr. Brown. “But you know who’s pushing him to it? A guy by the name of Trump.”Mr. Trump and Mr. Brown have been verbally sparring since Mr. Trump falsely claimed at a news conference on Aug. 8 at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida that he had once nearly died in a helicopter ride with Mr. Brown.Mr. Trump also said that Mr. Brown, who dated Vice President Kamala Harris in 1994 and 1995, said “terrible things” about Ms. Harris just before they almost plummeted to their deaths.“He was not a fan of hers very much, at that point,” Mr. Trump said.Mr. Brown promptly called the tale a lie — saying he had never ridden in a helicopter with Mr. Trump and had never told him disparaging things about Ms. Harris. In fact, he repeatedly told reporters that he respected her and desperately hoped that she would beat the man with whom he had never ridden in a helicopter.Mr. Trump repeated his claims on his social media site, Truth Social, and threatened to sue The New York Times for reporting that the helicopter story was made up. “Now Willie Brown doesn’t remember?” Trump wrote.That’s when Nate Holden, a former Los Angeles city councilman and state senator, said he had taken a rocky helicopter ride with Mr. Trump in 1990 and speculated that the former president might have confused him with Mr. Brown. Both California politicians are Black.Mr. Trump has not spoken about the helicopter incident since Mr. Holden came forward. But Mr. Brown and Mr. Cotchett said they wanted to make sure that he stayed quiet.Asked whether he wanted an apology from Mr. Trump, Mr. Brown said he would rather not hear from him at all.“No, I don’t want his apology,” Mr. Brown said. “I don’t want him to mention my name.”When asked to comment, a spokesman for Mr. Trump pointed to the former president’s threat to sue The Times but did not address what Mr. Brown said.Mr. Holden on Saturday applauded Mr. Brown’s legal threat.“If he’s propagating a lie, he should be held accountable,” Mr. Holden said of Mr. Trump in a telephone interview on Saturday from his home in Los Angeles. “I’m 95 years old, and Willie is 90, and he made the assumption we wouldn’t be here anymore, and nobody would challenge it. Well, we’re alive and well.”Maggie Haberman More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      New Real Estate Rules Sow Confusion, at Least in Short Term

      by

      Changes in how real estate commissions are advertised and paid went into effect this weekend. Buyers and even some agents aren’t sure what they mean.An hour before the open house on Saturday afternoon, a real estate agent paced across the dark bamboo floors, straightening the throw blanket, fluffing the pillows and lighting a scented candle.The last-minute sprucing at the $1.2 million condo in Jersey City, N.J., was exactly what agents have done at open houses for decades before this weekend.The difference now is the information they are required to disclose and where they can disclose it when it comes to real estate commissions — a charge that had hovered between 5 to 6 percent of the sales price, and until now was typically paid by the seller and split between the seller’s agent and the buyer’s agent.The changes that went into effect this weekend decouple the two commissions: Sellers are no longer expected to pay buyers’ commissions, though they can still choose to do so, and the proposed commission split can no longer be advertised on the online database commonly used to sell homes, the M.L.S.The new rules went into effect across the United States as part of a $418 million settlement agreement with the National Association of Realtors, a powerful real estate trade group that was successfully sued by a group of homeowners in Missouri who argued that the longtime practice requiring them to pay agents’ commissions led to inflated fees. Brokerages have spent months trying to educate agents and consumers on the looming changes.But when they were implemented nationwide this Saturday, buyers remained befuddled.Sarthak Jain, left, and his wife, Aditi Maheshwari, touring a duplex in Jersey City alongside their Realtor.Andres Kudacki 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

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Transfers and Pay Cuts: Pregnant Officers Accuse Border Agency of Discrimination

      by

      Under a $45 million settlement, Customs and Border Protection agreed to adjust its policy around pregnancy. Some women say the agency has instilled a culture of shame and perpetuated a fear of retaliation.When Roberta Gabaldon was ready to share news of her pregnancy with her colleagues at Customs and Border Protection in 2015, she brought in pink and blue doughnuts with a sign that read: “Pink and blue. Pink and blue. Somebody’s pregnant, guess who?”But her palpable excitement, particularly after a miscarriage months earlier, quickly dissipated.“My boss came into my office and he’s like: ‘You have to leave. You have to get a note about your pregnancy, and you have to go on light duty,’” Ms. Gabaldon, an agriculture specialist in the El Paso office, recalled, describing how she was told she needed to be reassigned to a post with fewer responsibilities regardless of whether she or her doctor believed it was necessary.Her experience reflects that of hundreds of female employees at the agency who have filed suit against Customs and Border Protection, saying that since at least 2016, they were denied equal treatment once they disclosed they were expecting. No matter the physical demands of their jobs, many were transferred to another post, typically centered on administrative or secretarial work and usually unrelated to what skills they had developed in their existing roles. The policy, they say, hurt their opportunities for advancement, and others add that they weathered pay cuts because light duty meant no more overtime.But under a $45 million settlement reached on Monday, Customs and Border Protection agreed to adjust a practice that some employees say has instilled a culture of shame and perpetuated a fear of retaliation as women try to hide their pregnancies at work for as long as possible.The agreement, which is not final until the end of September, requires C.B.P. to draft a new policy for pregnant women, and lawyers representing the women will monitor the agency’s compliance for three years. C.B.P. will also be required to train all managers and supervisors about the rights of pregnant employees.C.B.P. declined to answer questions about its policy toward pregnant women as described in the lawsuit and in interviews, citing its practice of not commenting on pending litigation. The terms of the settlement agreement state that the agency does not admit wrongdoing.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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Family of Titan Crew Member Sues OceanGate

      by

      Paul-Henri Nargeolet, a French explorer, died along with four other crew members when OceanGate’s Titan craft imploded on its journey to the Titanic.The family of a French explorer who was aboard the Titan submersible, the vessel that imploded last year during its failed mission to explore the Titanic wreckage, killing all five people aboard, has filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against the craft’s manufacturer, OceanGate Expeditions.Paul-Henri Nargeolet, a French explorer whose deep knowledge of the sunken ship earned him the nickname “Mr. Titanic,” was hired to assist OceanGate, a Washington State-based ocean exploration company, during the Titan’s journey to the Titanic.But the company and its founder, Richard Stockton Rush III, who also died aboard the vessel, misled Mr. Nargeolet about how the submersible was built, according to the lawsuit filed in King County, Wash.“Mr. Rush confessed to a ‘mission specialist’ on one Titanic voyage that he had ‘gotten the carbon fiber used to make the Titan at a big discount from Boeing because it was past its shelf life for use in airplanes,’” according to the lawsuit, which the Houston-based law firms Buzbee Law Firm and Schecter, Shaffer & Harris said was filed on Tuesday.The French deep sea explorer and Titanic expert Paul-Henri Nargeolet with a miniature version of the sunken ship.Joel Saget/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe lawsuit also accuses Mr. Rush of negligence for a variety of reasons, including falsely advertising a “crackling noise” that was said to be an advanced “safety” feature to alert crew members when to abort a mission. In reality, the lawsuit says that sound “is nothing more than the detection of a possibly imminent failure of the carbon fiber hull.”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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Maui Wildfire Plaintiffs Reach $4 Billion Settlement as Anniversary Nears

      by

      Hawaiian Electric is expected to pay the largest share — nearly $2 billion — but avoided a heftier price tag that could have forced the utility into bankruptcy.Nearly a year after a ferocious wildfire on Maui killed 102 people and leveled the historic town of Lahaina, Hawaii’s largest utility has agreed to pay the largest share of a legal settlement totaling just over $4 billion and compensating more than 10,000 homeowners, businesses and other plaintiffs.The proposed agreement was filed late Friday in a Maui-based state court, six days before the anniversary of the disaster. Fire victims and insurers have spent months in court-ordered mediation with the state, Maui County, large private landowners and utilities within the fire zone to resolve more than 600 lawsuits brought in state and federal courts by survivors of the catastrophe.The settlement, which remains subject to court approval, will cover less than half of the overall cost of the disaster — estimated at nearly $12 billion — which cut a path of destruction through one of the world’s most spectacularly beautiful destinations. More than 3,000 homes and other structures were damaged or destroyed, and thousands of residents were killed, injured or displaced.Gov. Josh Green had pushed for a single global agreement among all the parties to litigation to swiftly compensate fire victims, rather than extending negotiations for years without payment. State officials had also hoped to ward off a potentially devastating financial hit to Maui County and the bankruptcy of Hawaiian Electric, which provides electricity for more than nine in 10 of the state’s residents on Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai and Hawaii Island.“Settling a matter like this within a year is unprecedented,” Mr. Green said on Friday. “And it will be good that our people don’t have to wait to rebuild their lives as long as others have in many places that have suffered similar tragedies.”Under the proposed terms, which do not include any admission of liability, the utility is expected to pay a little less than half of the $4.037 billion settlement, $1.99 billion, a considerable amount but less than the potential $4.9 billion liability that the investment research firm Capstone estimated last year would most likely bankrupt the company.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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      N.F.L. Sunday Ticket Verdict Is Thrown Out by Judge

      by

      The decision, five weeks after a jury awarded $4.7 billion in damages in an antitrust case, is a reprieve for the league.The $4.7 billion verdict against the National Football League for colluding to raise prices for its Sunday Ticket television package was overturned late Thursday by a federal judge, who disqualified expert testimony used by the jury to determine damages.The judge, Philip Gutierrez of U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, ruled a day after lawyers for the N.F.L. had asked him to exclude testimony from key witnesses for plaintiffs representing thousands of customers who bought Sunday Ticket, a season-long package that showed all out-of-town games and was sold by DirecTV.The jury’s verdict five weeks ago in favor of those plaintiffs threatened to upend the league’s strategy of selling exclusive television packages to broadcasters.In his 16-page decision, Judge Gutierrez said the plaintiffs’ two economic witnesses had used flawed methodology in their attempts to show that the league overcharged Sunday Ticket customers. The jury’s calculations of damages were thrown out because they were based on the witnesses’ testimony, which included comparisons to how college games are broadcast and unsubstantiated speculation on how the N.F.L. might sell games individually, the judge said.“The court finds that the jury’s damages awards were not based on the ‘evidence and reasonable inferences’ but instead were more akin to ‘guesswork or speculation,’” he wrote.Judge Gutierrez also said the jury had not followed his instructions for calculating damages, which in antitrust cases like this one are tripled and would have led to a $14.1 billion verdict against the league.“We are grateful for today’s ruling in the Sunday Ticket class action lawsuit,” the league said in a statement. “We believe that the N.F.L.’s media distribution model provides our fans with an array of options to follow the game they love, including local broadcasts of every single game on free over-the-air television.”Calls and text messages to Bill Carmody, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, were not immediately returned.Before the judge’s decision, the N.F.L. said it was prepared to appeal the jury’s verdict. The plaintiffs can potentially appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.The monthlong trial featured testimony from the N.F.L.’s commissioner, Roger Goodell; Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys; and Sean McManus, who recently retired as the chairman of CBS Sports.Last season, the N.F.L. ended its relationship with DirecTV and sold the rights to the Sunday Ticket package to YouTube for as much as $2.5 billion annually. More