Suits and Litigation (Civil)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Chemical Makers Sue Over Rule to Rid Water of ‘Forever Chemicals’

      by

      Industry groups said the E.P.A. had exceeded its authority in requiring the drinking-water cleanup. The chemicals, known as PFAS, are linked to cancer and health risks.Chemical and manufacturing groups sued the federal government late Monday over a landmark drinking-water standard that would require cleanup of so-called forever chemicals linked to cancer and other health risks.The industry groups said that the government was exceeding its authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act by requiring that municipal water systems all but remove six synthetic chemicals, known by the acronym PFAS, that are present in the tap water of hundreds of millions of Americans.The Environmental Protection Agency has said that the new standard, put in place in April, will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses.The E.P.A.’s cleanup standard was also expected to prompt a wave of litigation against chemical manufacturers by water utilities nationwide trying to recoup their cleanup costs. Utilities have also challenged the stringent new standard, questioning the underlying science and citing the cost of filtering the toxic chemicals out of drinking water.In a joint filing late Monday, the American Chemistry Council and National Association of Manufacturers said the E.P.A. rule was “arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.” The petition was filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.In a separate petition, the American Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies said the E.P.A. had “significantly underestimated the costs” of the rule. Taxpayers could ultimately foot the bill in the form of increased water rates, they said.PFAS, a vast class of chemicals also called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are widespread in the environment. They are commonly found in people’s blood, and a 2023 government study of private wells and public water systems detected PFAS chemicals in nearly half the tap water in the country.Exposure to PFAS has been associated with developmental delays in children, decreased fertility in women and increased risk of some cancers, according to the E.P.A.At a public address ahead of the filing on Monday, Brenda Mallory, chair of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality, defended the Biden administration’s stringent standards. “Everyone should be able to turn on the tap and know that the glass of water they fill is safe to drink,” she said.At the same event, E.P.A. officials said the new standard was based on the best available science and was designed so that it “would be robust enough to withstand litigation.”The E.P.A. estimates that it would cost water utilities about $1.5 billion annually to comply with the rule, though utilities have said the costs could be twice that amount. States and local governments have successfully sued some manufacturers of PFAS for contaminating drinking water supplies,President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure law, passed in 2021, sets aside $9 billion to help communities address PFAS contamination. The E.P.A. said $1 billion of that money would be set aside to help states with initial testing and treatment. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Idaho Drag Performer Wins Over $1.1 Million in Defamation Suit Against Blogger

      by

      The jury unanimously sided with the performer in a case against a blogger who made false claims that the artist had exposed himself to a crowd at a pride event in 2022.A drag performer in Idaho won more than $1.1 million in damages on Friday in a defamation lawsuit against a blogger who falsely claimed that he had exposed himself to a crowd that included children at an event two years ago.The jury unanimously decided that the blogger, Summer Bushnell, had defamed the artist, Eric Posey, when she claimed in videos and comments online that Mr. Posey exposed his genitalia while dancing onstage during a pride event in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, even though he had not. It awarded Mr. Posey $926,000 in compensatory damages for defamation and another $250,000 in punitive damages, according to his lawyer, Wendy J. Olson.“Can this guy be arrested for exposing his genitals to minors?” Ms. Bushnell wrote in one Facebook post, according to Mr. Posey’s complaint. Mr. Posey claimed that Ms. Bushnell’s online viewership soared as a result of those posts, while he “was exposed to hatred, contempt and ridicule.”In an interview, Ms. Olson said that Ms. Bushnell’s false claims about Mr. Posey had a profound effect on his social life, employment prospects and mental health. “He was called names and racial slurs. He was harassed. He really shut down, emotionally,” she said.Ms. Olson added in a statement that the verdict and the damages sent “the clear message that truth matters, that facts matter, and that you can’t dehumanize and damage someone to suit your own purposes.”In recent years, far-right activists have increasingly targeted drag shows across the country. Protesters and conservative commentators have accused drag performers of targeting children, which has in many cases prompted angry demonstrations, harassment, abuse and threats of violence against drag artists. Some Republican-led states, including Florida and Tennessee, have sought to restrict the performances, though federal judges have not always been receptive to those efforts.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

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Sean Kingston Arrested on Fraud and Theft Charges After Raid at His Home

      by

      Mr. Kingston, a singer and rapper, best known for his 2007 hit single “Beautiful Girls,” was taken into custody on Thursday. His mother was also arrested.The singer and rapper Sean Kingston was arrested in California on Thursday, hours after a SWAT team raided his home in Broward County, Fla., and took his mother into custody, the authorities said.Mr. Kingston, 34, whose real name is Kisean Anderson, and his mother, Janice Turner, 61, both face “numerous fraud and theft charges,” the Broward County Sheriff’s office said in a statement.Search and arrest warrants were served at Mr. Kingston’s home in Southwest Ranches, Fla., on Thursday.Amy Beth Bennett/South Florida Sun-Sentinel, via Associated PressMr. Kingston was still in his teens when his debut single, “Beautiful Girls,” spent four weeks at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart in 2007. He has since collaborated with Justin Bieber, Nicki Minaj and Wyclef Jean, but he has kept a lower profile in recent years.Mr. Kingston, who was arrested in Fort Irwin, Calif., and his mother could not be reached for comment and it was not immediately clear if they had lawyers. Mr. Kingston’s representatives did not respond to a request for comment. It was not immediately clear on Friday if he and Ms. Turner were still in custody.“People love negative energy!” Mr. Kingston posted on Instagram before his arrest. “I am good and so is my mother!..my lawyers are handling everything as we speak.”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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      New Era Dawns for the N.C.A.A.: Paying Athletes Directly

      by

      If approved by a judge, the $2.8 billion settlement of an antitrust lawsuit would allow for the first revenue-sharing plan for college athletes. The question now: How will it work?Since its founding, the N.C.A.A. has operated with a business model that defined the college athlete as an amateur. Over the years, as college sports evolved into a mega-enterprise, lawsuits and labor actions chipped away at that model, which came to be increasingly seen as exploitative in big-money sports like football and men’s basketball. But the N.C.A.A.’s $2.8 billion settlement on Thursday night in a class-action antitrust lawsuit represents the heaviest blow — and perhaps a decisive one — to that system. If approved by a U.S. district judge in California, the settlement would allow for the creation of the first revenue-sharing plan for college athletics, a landmark shift in which schools would directly pay their athletes for playing.This sea change, though, also carries its own questions, according to critics. Those include whether women would be compensated fairly, whether smaller conferences would bear a disproportionate burden of the settlement and whether this framework would do anything to limit the power of collectives — the booster-funded groups that entice players with payments to hopscotch from school to school. “It’s both a historic and deeply flawed agreement,” said Michael H. LeRoy, a law professor at the University of Illinois. “The idea that schools are paying millions of dollars to the people who are selling the TV contracts and filling the seats — that’s good. But it closes one Pandora’s box and opens four or five others.”In recent years, college athletes had already made significant strides in gaining the right to make money for their performances. Three years ago, they were allowed for the first time to individually market their name, image and likeness legally. And in March, the men’s basketball team at Dartmouth voted to form a union after a federal official ruled that players were employees of the school. Thursday’s settlement in the case of House v. N.C.A.A. was seen by many college administrators as an inevitable conclusion. 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

      U.S. Sues to Break Up Ticketmaster Owner, Live Nation

      by

      Accused of violating antitrust laws, Live Nation Entertainment faces a fight that could reshape the multibillion-dollar live music industry.The Justice Department on Thursday sued Live Nation Entertainment, the concert giant that owns Ticketmaster, asking a court to break up the company over claims it illegally maintained a monopoly in the live entertainment industry.In the lawsuit, which is joined by 29 states and the District of Columbia, the government accuses Live Nation of dominating the industry by locking venues into exclusive ticketing contracts, pressuring artists to use its services and threatening its rivals with financial retribution.Those tactics, the government argues, have resulted in higher ticket prices for consumers and have stifled innovation and competition throughout the industry.“It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster,” Merrick Garland, the attorney general, said in a statement announcing the suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit asks the court to order “the divestiture of, at minimum, Ticketmaster,” and to prevent Live Nation from engaging in anticompetitive practices.The lawsuit is a direct challenge to the business of Live Nation, a colossus of the entertainment industry and a force in the lives of musicians and fans alike. The case, filed 14 years after the government approved Live Nation’s merger with Ticketmaster, has the potential to transform the multibillion-dollar concert industry.Live Nation’s scale and reach far exceed those of any competitor, encompassing concert promotion, ticketing, artist management and the operation of hundreds of venues and festivals around the world.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

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Read the lawsuit against Live Nation

      by

      Case 1:24-cv-03973 Document 1 Filed 05/23/24 Page 32 of 128
      64.
      Ticketmaster restructured how ticketing companies get paid for their services.
      Venues used to pay ticketing service companies to ticket events. But in the early 1980s,
      Ticketmaster started passing more ticketing costs onto consumers (who effectively have no
      choice in selecting the ticketer) in the form of fees, and then sharing some of the additional
      revenue with venues. Second, Ticketmaster began paying venues large upfront advances in
      exchange for the exclusive, multi-year right to sell and distribute their tickets.
      65. On February 10, 2009, Live Nation (then known as Live Nation, Inc.) and
      Ticketmaster (then known as Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc.), agreed to merge. At the time,
      Live Nation was an emerging direct competitor to Ticketmaster in primary ticketing services:
      after spending nearly two years evaluating, licensing, and developing its own ticketing platform,
      Live Nation had rapidly become America’s second-largest primary ticketer at major concert
      venues.² Alleging the merger would likely substantially lessen competition in the provision and
      sale of primary ticketing services for major concert venues, the United States and nineteen states³
      filed a case challenging the merger under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.4 The
      parties agreed to a consent decree, entered as a final judgment in the Section 7 case on July 30,
      2010, allowing the merger to proceed subject to certain conditions.
      2 Amended Complaint at 5 ¶ 3, 13–14 ¶¶ 34–37, United States et al. v. Ticketmaster Ent., Inc., et al., No. 1:10-cv-
      00139, Dkt. No. (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 2010), ECF No. 5.
      3 Specifically, the States of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada,
      Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Washington and the Commonwealths
      of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. Id. at 1.
      4 Id. at 1746.
      5 Final Judgment, United States et al. v. Ticketmaster Ent., Inc., et al., No. 1:10-cv-00139 (D.D.C. July 30, 2010),
      ECF No. 15.
      28
      28 More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Blocks Attempt to Sell Graceland, at Least for Now

      by

      Elvis’s granddaughter, the actress Riley Keough, had filed a lawsuit seeking to stop what her lawyers said was a fraudulent auction off her family home.Graceland will not be sold at auction, at least for now.On Wednesday, a Tennessee judge deferred ruling on an apparent attempt to sell Graceland, Elvis Presley’s former home in Memphis, but kept a temporary injunction in place that would prevent the property from going to auction imminently.The bizarre case came into wide public view this week when a lawsuit surfaced that had been filed by Mr. Presley’s granddaughter, the actress Riley Keough. In it, Ms. Keough sued to prevent what her lawyers described as a fraudulent effort to auction the home by a company claiming that Lisa Marie Presley — Ms. Keough’s mother and Mr. Presley’s daughter — had borrowed $3.8 million and put Graceland up as collateral before she died in 2023.At Wednesday’s hearing at Chancery Court in Shelby County, Tenn., the judge, Chancellor JoeDae L. Jenkins, said he needed to continue the case, in part because no one showed up in person to represent the defendants and in part because he said lawyers for Ms. Keough needed to present additional evidence.The defendants included a company, Naussany Investments & Private Lending LLC, which had scheduled a sale of Graceland for Thursday, according to court papers. The court said it had received a filing on Wednesday morning from a man named Gregory Naussany who had asked the court to continue the case.It was not clear when the next hearing would take place.Lawyers for Ms. Keough had argued that the company appeared to be a “false entity.” They also claimed that the company had presented fake documents purporting to show that Ms. Presley had borrowed the money and put Graceland up as collateral.Several attempts to reach Naussany Investments through the email addresses and phone numbers listed for the company in the court documents have not been successful.Graceland, a popular tourist attraction, is a major source of income for Elvis Presley Enterprises and the family trust, which Ms. Keough controls. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Riley Keough Sues to Block Sale of Graceland, Charging Fraud

      by

      His granddaughter, the actress Riley Keough, claims that a company is fraudulently planning to auction off Elvis’s home in Memphis.Lawyers for the actress Riley Keough, the granddaughter of Elvis Presley, have sued to stop what they say is a fraudulent scheme to sell Graceland, the family’s cherished former home in Memphis.Court papers that Ms. Keough’s lawyers filed this month claim that a company planning to auction off Graceland is fraudulently claiming that her mother — Elvis’s daughter, Lisa Marie Presley, who died in 2023 — had borrowed money and put Graceland up as collateral. The papers say that the company, Naussany Investments & Private Lending LLC, “appears to be a false entity” and that the documents it presented about the loan were also fake.“There is no foreclosure sale,” Elvis Presley Enterprises, which operates Graceland, said in a statement, in which it also said that the lawsuit had been filed to “stop the fraud.”Graceland, a popular tourist attraction, is a major source of income for Elvis Presley Enterprises and the family trust.A representative for Ms. Keough, who controls her family’s trust, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday. A lawyer representing Keough in the case also did not respond.Months after Lisa Marie Presley died, Naussany Investments presented documents claiming that she had borrowed $3.8 million from the company and “gave a deed of trust encumbering Graceland as security,” according to court papers filed in Shelby County, Tenn. Copies of the documents were provided to The New York Times by Elvis Presley Enterprises.Naussany Investments had scheduled a sale of Graceland for Thursday, the court papers say. But after Ms. Keough’s lawyers argued that the deed was fraudulent, the court issued a restraining order barring any sale, according to the documents. The documents say a hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday.Attempts to reach Naussany Investments through the email addresses and phone numbers listed for the company in the court documents were not immediately successful. One listed phone number was said to be no longer in service.Last year, Ms. Keough and her grandmother Priscilla Presley engaged in a monthslong legal battle that eventually left Ms. Keough as the sole trustee of the financial instrument established by her mother, the Promenade Trust.Even as bills have sometimes mounted, the family has held on to the main house at Graceland — an eight-bedroom, eight-bath Colonial revival home in Memphis that served as Elvis Presley’s personal home from 1957 until his death, in 1977, at the age of 42. The house was appraised at $5.6 million in 2021.But Graceland has become worth far more as a tourist attraction. In 2022, operations at Graceland generated at least $80 million, most of which supports Elvis Presley Enterprises. The family trust retains 15 percent of Elvis Presley Enterprises. More