Suits and Litigation (Civil)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Utah Supreme Court Upholds a Block on a Strict Abortion Ban

      by

      Utah cannot enforce its near-total ban on abortion while a challenge to the law proceeds in the courts, the State Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. The Utah Supreme Court upheld on Thursday a suspension of the state’s near-total ban on abortion, meaning the procedure remains legal while a court challenge to the law proceeds. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade, it cleared the way for two Utah laws to come into force: a ban on most abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy, which was passed in 2019 and is currently in effect, and a near-total abortion ban passed in 2020 that would prohibit the procedure at any time during pregnancy, with very limited exceptions, including for cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.The near-total abortion ban took effect in 2022, but the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah almost immediately filed a lawsuit in the state seeking to block the ban. The organization argued that the ban violated several provisions in the State Constitution, including those that guarantee a right to determine family composition and a right to gender equality.A trial court issued a preliminary injunction in July 2022 blocking the state from enforcing the near-total ban while the case proceeded. Utah state officials appealed, but the State Supreme Court ruled against them on Thursday and left the injunction in place. Camila Vega, a staff attorney for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and one of the litigators on the case, said after the state’s appeal was filed last August that the organization would “once again make the case that the trigger ban violates the Utah constitution, which protects pregnant Utahns’ ability to make their own medical decisions and their right to determine when and whether to have a family.”In court filings, the state argued that the Utah constitution does not protect a right to abortion, and that the injunction imposed “severe irreparable harm on the State side of the balance, given the profound state and public interest at stake — the preservation of human life, both the mother’s and the unborn child’s.” The state challenged Planned Parenthood Association of Utah’s standing to file the lawsuit, and argued that the trial court had abused its discretion and erred in issuing the injunction. The State Supreme Court rejected those arguments on Thursday. Whether abortion up to 18 weeks will remain permanently legal in the state of Utah depends on the outcome of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the near-total ban. The ruling on Thursday did not decide that question; rather, it said that the lower courts were right to let the case proceed and to keep the state from enforcing the ban in the meantime. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Don Lemon Sues Elon Musk Over Canceled X Deal

      by

      The former CNN reporter said in a lawsuit that X had refused to pay him after a testy interview with its billionaire owner.Don Lemon, the former CNN anchor, sued Elon Musk and X on Thursday, arguing that the billionaire refused to pay him after a content deal with the social media platform fell apart.Mr. Lemon agreed in January to take his new show to X, which Mr. Musk owns, as part of the platform’s effort to create premium content to attract advertisers. Mr. Musk agreed to pay Mr. Lemon $1.5 million annually to produce videos exclusively on X, to give him a share of the advertising revenue from his videos and to award Mr. Lemon additional cash incentives as his account gained followers, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in California Superior Court in San Francisco.Mr. Musk also agreed to be Mr. Lemon’s first guest on the show. But the March interview quickly devolved as Mr. Lemon asked the billionaire about his drug use and politics. Shortly after, Mr. Musk canceled the deal.Mr. Lemon did not sign a contract cementing the agreement, which he believed would be a launchpad for his new show after CNN fired him last year, the lawsuit said. Mr. Musk told him during a phone call that there was no need to “fill out paperwork” and reassured Mr. Lemon that X would financially support the show even if he did not like the views Mr. Lemon espoused, according to the court filing.“X executives used Don to prop up their advertising sales pitch, then canceled their partnership and dragged Don’s name through the mud,” Carney Shegerian, a lawyer for Mr. Lemon, said in a statement.X and Mr. Musk did not immediately respond to requests for comment.After Mr. Musk bought X in 2022, advertisers fled in droves as he posted erratic messages to the site and researchers reported a surge of misinformation and hate speech on it.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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Oren Alexander, Top Real Estate Agent, Faces Another Claim of Sexual Assault

      by

      A fourth woman filed a lawsuit against Oren Alexander, once a star agent of luxury real estate.An actress and comedian says she was drugged and sexually assaulted by Oren Alexander, a top luxury real estate agent who is facing a string of accusations that he and his two of his brothers sexually assaulted women — allegations that had been whispered throughout the high-end real estate industry for years.Renee Willett, 31, filed a federal lawsuit on Friday accusing Mr. Alexander, 37, of attacking her in his apartment nearly nine years ago. She is the fourth woman to file a lawsuit this summer against Mr. Alexander. Two earlier lawsuits filed this year name Mr. Alexander and his twin brother, Alon, who does not work in real estate but often socializes with him. A third suit filed in June names Oren, Alon and their older brother Tal Alexander, 38, who is Oren’s longtime partner in real estate sales.Isabelle Kirshner, a lawyer for Oren Alexander, said she had no comment on the new allegation at this time. Oren, Tal and Alon have denied all previous allegations.Like other women who have said they were assaulted, Ms. Willett said she was prompted to file a lawsuit after reading articles about similar claims involving the Alexanders. Her lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York, came two days after The New York Times published an article with accounts from several women about the brothers.“I felt a responsibility to come forward,” she said. “I have to do this not just for myself, but for everyone else.”Ms. Willett is an actress and comedian who is now working on a screenplay. She came forward, she said, after learning about other allegations of assault against the Alexanders.Vivien Killilea/Getty Images For Idol RocWe 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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      City Illegally Fined Woman Over Profane Political Yard Sign, U.S. Judge Rules

      by

      A federal judge in Tennessee said that it was unconstitutional for the City of Lakeland, Tenn., to fine Julie Pereira for the sign she posted expressing disapproval of President Biden and Donald J. Trump.A federal judge in Tennessee ruled this week that it was unconstitutional for a city to fine a woman who had displayed a sign in her yard that used profane language to express disapproval of both President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump.The woman, Julie Pereira, 40, of Lakeland, Tenn., who posted the sign, which said “Fuck Em’ Both 2024,” in January, was fined hundreds of dollars by the city. It told her that the political sign violated its municipal code because it was obscene.In June, Ms. Pereira sued Lakeland in federal court, arguing that she had a First Amendment right to post the sign in her yard.Judge Mark S. Norris of U.S. District Court in Memphis, said in an order issued on Tuesday that Ms. Pereira’s yard sign was not obscene, and that it was unconstitutional for the city of Lakeland to take action against Ms. Pereira over the sign.Judge Norris ordered the city to reimburse her for nearly $700 in fines and pay Ms. Pereira damages of $1 for violating her First Amendment rights, according to the order. Ms. Pereira was also awarded legal fees of $31,000. The judge also barred the city from taking any additional action against her.Julie Pereira’s sign in her yard in Lakeland, Tenn. She won her lawsuit against the city of Lakeland after they fined her hundreds of dollars for putting up the sign.Julie PereiraWe 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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Organizer of World Economic Forum in Davos Accused of Discrimination

      by

      A former employee sued the nonprofit, accusing it of denying professional opportunities because of her race and gender.A former employee of the World Economic Forum, the nonprofit organization behind the glittery annual gathering of business and political leaders in Davos, Switzerland, sued the group and its founder, Klaus Schwab, on Monday, accusing them of workplace discrimination.In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Topaz Smith, who is Black, said the organization embraced a “scofflaw approach to anti-discrimination laws” and oversaw a hostile atmosphere toward women and Black workers.She added that it denied her and other Black employees opportunities to advance professionally.The accusations are the latest black eye for the nonprofit, whose conferences — particularly the one in Davos in January — have become destinations for the global elite to meet and network under the auspices of saving the world. (The theme of this year’s forum in Davos was “Rebuilding Trust,” while last year’s was “Cooperation in a Fragmented World.”)An article in The Wall Street Journal last month, citing internal complaints and interviews with current and former employees, said workers had accused the organization of sexual harassment and racism.Those behaviors extended all the way to Mr. Schwab, the outgoing executive chairman of the organization, according to the article.The report was cited in the lawsuit by Ms. Smith, who said she had directly experienced discriminatory acts in her two years working for the group’s consulting arm. One executive told her to consider her boss “her master,” she said, and the organization did not pay for her to travel to the Davos conference to participate in panels she had organized. But, according to the lawsuit, it paid for white employees to do so.Ms. Smith accused the organization of essentially firing her this year after she returned to work from federally protected maternity leave, and of replacing her with a white woman who was not pregnant.In a statement, a representative for the World Economic Forum said, “While it’s disappointing to see such false claims being made, now that these matters are in court, the falsity of these claims will become evident.” More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Exxon Suit Over Activist Investor’s Climate Proposal Is Dismissed

      by

      A federal judge ruled that the case was moot after the investor, Arjuna Capital, withdrew the proposal with a promise not to try again.A federal judge in Texas on Monday dismissed a lawsuit that Exxon Mobil had filed against an activist investor, Arjuna Capital, over a shareholder proposal that called for cuts in the oil giant’s greenhouse gas emissions.Judge Mark T. Pittman of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that because Arjuna had withdrawn its proposal and had vowed not to submit similar proposals, Exxon’s claim was moot.“The trend of shareholder activism in this country isn’t going anywhere,” Judge Pittman wrote, but he added that “the court cannot advise Exxon of its rights without a live case or controversy to trigger jurisdiction.”Exxon sued Arjuna and another investor, Follow This, in January to stop their nonbinding resolution from going to a vote of shareholders. A month earlier, Arjuna had filed a proposal for the resolution, which called on Exxon to accelerate its plans to reduce its carbon emissions “and to summarize new plans, targets and timetables,” according to Exxon’s complaint. Follow This then joined in support, the complaint said.In its complaint, Exxon said the proposal “does not seek to improve ExxonMobil’s economic performance or create shareholder value.”“Defendants’ overarching objective is to force Exxon Mobil to change the nature of its ordinary business or to go out of business entirely,” the company said.Judge Pittman dismissed Follow This, which is based in the Netherlands, from the lawsuit in May but allowed the case against Arjuna to continue.Arjuna withdrew the proposal and moved for a dismissal of the lawsuit, which the judge denied “because the proposal’s withdrawal didn’t foreclose the same conduct moving forward.” Arjuna then promised not to put forth similar proposals and said its pledge “forecloses even the remotest chance of another proposal” related to Exxon’s carbon emissions.Judge Pittman’s ruling followed a hearing held on Monday to determine whether Arjuna’s promise made Exxon’s complaint moot.Alain Delaquérière More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Did You Buy a Disneyland ‘Dream Key’? Disney May Owe You Money.

      by

      Disney owes a total of $9.5 million to customers who bought a $1,400 Dream Key pass over the course of two months in 2021. The payments, about $67, are going out this month.People who paid nearly $1,400 for an annual pass to Disneyland will begin receiving checks in the mail this month from a $9.5 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit that accused Disney of misleading customers into believing that the program carried “no blockout dates.”More than 100,000 people who bought the Dream Key annual pass between Aug. 25 and Oct. 25, 2021, will each receive about $67.41, a small fraction of what they paid for the pass. The payments were to begin arriving by mail or electronically starting in mid-June, according to the settlement agreement.The lawsuit was filed in November 2021 by a California woman who said she purchased a Dream Key pass to Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif., under the impression that the pass would allow her to make reservations for any day of the year. But when she tried in October 2021 to make a reservation for dates in November, she found that she was unable to do so, according to the lawsuit.The lawsuit said Disney “appears to be limiting the number of reservations available to Dream Key pass holders in order to maximize the number of single-day and other passes” that it could sell to Disneyland visitors.In addition to park admission, the Dream Key pass, which has since been discontinued, offered up to 15 percent off “select dining” and up to 20 percent off “select merchandise.”The plaintiff, Jenale Nielsen, paid $1,399 for the pass, the lawsuit said. She will receive a $5,000 payment, according to the agreement. Her lawyer did not comment on the settlement.The two parties agreed to settle the lawsuit in July 2023 to avoid a trial. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts denied any wrongdoing or liability in agreeing to the settlement. Disney and Disneyland Resort did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Settlement administrators will automatically send checks to the last known mailing addresses for members of the class. Some pass holders may have elected to receive payment digitally; the process to elect payment type closed in January. More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Clearview AI Used Your Face. Now You May Get a Stake in the Company.

      by

      The facial recognition start-up doesn’t have the funds to settle a class-action lawsuit, so lawyers are proposing equity for those whose faces were scraped from the internet.A facial recognition start-up, accused of invasion of privacy in a class-action lawsuit, has agreed to a settlement, with a twist: Rather than cash payments, it would give a 23 percent stake in the company to Americans whose faces are in its database.Clearview AI, which is based in New York, scraped billions of photos from the web and social media sites like Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram to build a facial recognition app used by thousands of police departments, the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. After The New York Times revealed the company’s existence in 2020, lawsuits were filed across the country. They were consolidated in federal court in Chicago as a class action.The litigation has proved costly for Clearview AI, which would most likely go bankrupt before the case made it to trial, according to court documents. The company and those who sued it were “trapped together on a sinking ship,” lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in a court filing proposing the settlement.“These realities led the sides to seek a creative solution by obtaining for the class a percentage of the value Clearview could achieve in the future,” added the lawyers, from Loevy + Loevy in Chicago.Anyone in the United States who has a photo of himself or herself posted publicly online — so almost everybody — could be considered a member of the class. The settlement would collectively give the members a 23 percent stake in Clearview AI, which is valued at $225 million, according to court filings. (Twenty-three percent of the company’s current value would be about $52 million.)If the company goes public or is acquired, those who had submitted a claim form would get a cut of the proceeds. Alternatively, the class could sell its stake. Or the class could opt, after two years, to collect 17 percent of Clearview’s revenue, which it would be required to set aside.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