For those readers who were eagerly anticipating the arraignment of Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino, originally scheduled for this week, you must unfortunately wait even longer.  Reportedly, the arraignment has been delayed so that The Situation can film another reality TV show. For those unfamiliar with the case, The Situation and his brother allegedly falsified tax returns in order to avoid nearly $9 million in taxes. A Justice Department press release explains that The Situation and his brother “did not properly pay taxes on $8.9 million in income Michael Sorrentino received from promotional activities . . . .”  The press release goes on to explain that:

Michael Sorrentino is a reality television personality who first gained fame on “The Jersey Shore,” which appeared on the MTV network. Marc Sorrentino is Michael’s brother and manager. The pair conspired to fail to pay all federal income tax owed on approximately $8.9 million earned by Michael Sorrentino between 2010 and 2012. This income was largely received by two companies controlled by the brothers: MPS Entertainment, LLC and Situation Nation, Inc.

As part of the conspiracy, the brothers submitted or caused to be submitted to the IRS false documents which understated the gross receipts received by the brothers and the two companies. The brothers also submitted false personal tax returns which failed to report all of the income they received, and Michael failed to file a personal tax return in 2011, despite earning $1,995,757 that year.

As part of the conspiracy, the brothers also fraudulently claimed millions of dollars in personal expenses as business expenses, including payments for high-end vehicles and clothing, personal grooming expenses, and distributions – or direct payments – from the businesses to personal bank accounts.

The conspiracy count carries a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine; the filing false tax return counts each carry a maximum potential penalty of three years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The count charging Michael Sorrentino with failing to file a tax return carries a maximum potential penalty of one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

U.S. Attorney Fishman credited special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Larsen, with the investigation.

The prosecutors assigned to the case are Assistant U.S. Attorneys Evan S. Weitz and Jonathan W. Romankow of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division in Newark, as well as Trial Attorney Tino Lisella of the Tax Division of the United States Department of Justice. Weitz is no stranger to high profile financial cases, having handled the case against Karen Febles, who allegedly stole millions from an investment banker. Romankow was involved in the prosecution of reality stars Teresa and Joe Guidice and Lisella has been involved with the case of the New Jersey doctor who allegedly participated in an oxycodon distribution conspiracy.  Point is, the prosecution team is no stranger to high profile cases.   The Situation’s defense attorney, Richard Sapinski, may have his work cut out for him.

For more information, the indictment is located here.

Today, Abnormal Use continues its series, “Abnormal Interviews,” in which this site will conduct interviews with law professors, practitioners, and makers of legal-themed pop culture. As you might recall, we here at Abnormal Use have been fortunate to interview individuals in the entertainment industry who have participated in legally themed television shows and films.  We have interviewed Phil Morris, the actor who played the flamboyant attorney, Jackie Chiles, in “Seinfeld,” as well as the late, great James Rebhorn, who played, among many other roles, the FBI expert witness in My Cousin Vinny. We recently had the opportunity to speak with actress Roma Maffia, who has appeared in a spate of blockbuster films and television series, including Disclosure, Double Jeopardy, “Nip/Tuck,” “Boston Legal,” “Law & Order,” “Profiler,” and Nick of Time, to name just a few. She has played a lawyer or judge in many of these roles. A fun historical note: Today is the fifteenth anniversary of the release of Double Jeopardy, a film in which she played a jailhouse lawyer dispensing advice to Ashley Judd’s character.  (You remember the crazy premise: If she has been wrongfully convicted of a murder that never occurred, then double jeopardy would prevent her prosecution for later murdering the purported original victim.). Additionally, this December 4 will be the twentieth anniversary of the release of Disclosure, the Michael Crichton sexual harassment thriller in which she played a lawyer advising the Michael Douglas character in his dispute with his employer. The interview is as follows:

ON THE ANNIVERSARIES OF DISCLOSURE AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Kyle White: Were you aware that the anniversaries were coming up for those movies?

Roma Maffia: Well, I wasn’t. It’s pretty shocking. No, I wasn’t.

LEGAL EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO FIRST LEGAL ROLE IN DISCLOSURE

RM: None!  . . . [I]n New York, I didn’t do much television or film, but I acted the role of the character who would be arrested by the police, such as a prostitute or a drug addict, or some kind of felon as opposed to a lawyer.

KW: Interesting.

RM: It’s after I did Disclosure . . . . Well, you know, you get type cast. So, because it was Disclosure, all of a sudden I became the lawyer. . . . . I did do research on the movie, but before the movie? No, I had nothing to do with law.

KW: So, you are saying that Disclosure was the first time you had been involved with acting as a lawyer or a judge?

RM: First time, absolutely, first time!

ASSISTANCE FROM THE LEGAL COMMUNITY IN PREPARING FOR ROLES

RM: On those roles as lawyers, any role, pretty much, I’m sure myself, like a lot of actors, do a lot of research. So, I’ve been very fortunate to have really great people. Also, when I did Disclosure, it was fantastic because it was the big case of the football player that was televised.

KW: The O.J. Simpson trial?

RM: Yes. So, I got to watch all day of the trial. So I got to watch Marcia [Clark], the female lawyer, sort of be my role model for Disclosure. For Double Jeopardy, I also had legal help and advice, [and I] went to a prison in L.A. So, I’ve been very lucky to have lawyers help me or forensic pathologists. Everyone in a specific field is very, very helpful. So, all the lawyers that have helped me have been very generous with their time and have taught me quite a lot.

KW: That’s great. Is there any lawyer in particular . . . who has helped you in preparing for your roles, or have you just sort of talked with a different lawyer each time?

RM: I’ve talked with different lawyers each time.

KW: That is interesting to know that you dealt directly with the legal community.

RM: Very much so, yes. I actually thought with the amount of lawyers I played, I was going to get some kind of degree or something. Is that possible?

KW: [Laughter] You should, you definitely should!

RM: I should!

IMPORTANT SOCIAL CONTEXT OF DISCLOSURE

RM: Well, I had done The Paper with Ron Howard before, where I played a reporter. But it was my first really large role, and I loved the subject matter because, at the time, it was a big hoo ha that sexual harassment had not been addressed in film. And then that it should be addressed with the man that is a victim caused an interesting stir. But, just that the topic was so – everyone on the set was so impassioned by this topic. It was also a time, when, you know, computers and how they were used in offices, and the mixture of a computer and send[ing] messages in code. It was very exciting. The whole concept of the sexual harassment; and, I think some people were like, “Oh I didn’t even realize man could be sexually harassed, even if he is the boss.” I think it addressed lots of elements that were surprising . . . .

SERVICE ON A REAL-LIFE JURY

RM: . . . I was on a jury . . . [I]t was the first time I really understood, or got an inkling, like I said, about how specific the law is to . . . that it was frustrating.

KW: That’s interesting. I’m curious, on what kind of jury did you serve?

RM: It was a mother who had killed her four year old daughter.

KW: Oh, wow, that’s a tough one to sit through.

RM: Oh, my god, I begged. You know, it was funny because the judge, it was in Los Angeles, and the judge recognized me from wherever. He sort of made fun, like is this the way you imagined it when you do your film or television? I was like, “No, no, no, it’s not!” I didn’t want to do that case, but just in that case, and I guess because it was real life, so the stakes were very different. How we couldn’t get what we wanted for the punishment for the mother to be. So, because of what seemed like minutia, but anyway, I know, it’s no. But that, I found very difficult and frustrating.

KW: . . . [W]hen did that happen in your professional career?

RM: It happened about seven years ago. When I was there, Pat Boone was also serving on a jury.

KW: Really?

RM: Yes, He was in court outside having lunch at the public lunch table. Which was pretty funny, I thought.

ADVICE TO LITIGATORS – “LESS IS MORE”

KW: Any legal roles you have played since your jury duty experience that the experience on the jury has shaped? If so, how?

RM: [T]he one thing is less is more. That’s the one thing I take away from my jury experience and also talking to lawyers about what a witness is to or not to say.

KW: . . . What exactly do you mean there? That sounds like good advice for practicing attorneys.

RM: I just meant that it’s, instead of going on, just answer the question, without leaving room for any interpretation of the answer. No interpretation, just the answer. Simple, “Yes,” “No.” You know, I think it’s human nature to go, “No, but I saw this,” and not realizing you’ve opened up another topic that you weren’t aware that you did. Now we go down another rabbit hole. Does that make sense?

KW: Exactly. And you’ve touched on probably one of our frustrations encountered in the practice of law – getting witnesses to understand that; to simply answer the question.

RM: Yes, I think it’s a thing you think you’re talking to your parents or the principal and the more you talk, the more they are going to understand your dilemma without understanding the more you talk the more you are setting up a dilemma.

HER FAVORITE ROLE

KW: . . . You’ve played, some major characters in some huge television shows and other movies. You’ve been in “Boston Legal.” You’ve been in “Law & Order.” You’ve been in “The Sopranos.” You’ve been in “ER” and recently. You played in the hit series “Nip/Tuck” and played a huge role in that. Which one of your roles that you played in the past has been your favorite role and why?

RM: That’s such an interesting question. I think because. . . Each one has their own uniqueness that I will remember. But definitely, Disclosure, because it was an eye-opener into a whole other world of film. I learned a lot about film, which I had not known or been introduced to. But Liz on “Nip/Tuck” was being an anesthesiologist and learning all those things, a little like people generous to teach me was. That’s what it is. It’s just so fascinating to be able to enter into all these worlds and just learn just a little bit of something. So I have to say, Liz on “Nip/Tuck.” I’d have to say on “Profiler,” my character was a forensic pathologist. And, I loved that. It was fascinating; pathology and crime, and honoring the dead. So many of them. Yet, there are roles that I do that have been plays that are comedies that I enjoy. So, it’s hard to pinpoint because I could go through my resume and go “Oh, no, I love that one, too.” I’ve just forgotten what I did. So, for now, those ones pop out. Oh, and I loved the character in Nick of Time. She was fantastic. So, yes. It’s hard to say.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) has recently issued several rule changes, including the reporting requirements for workplace injuries.  The previous regulation required the employer to notify OSHA “[w]ithin eight (8) hours after the death of any employee from a work-related incident or the in-patient hospitalization of three or more employees as a result of a work-related incident.” 29 C.F.R. § 1904.39(a). Effective January 1, 2015, employers are required “to report all work-related in-patient hospitalizations, as well as amputations and losses of an eye, to OSHA within 24 hours of the event.” See Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements—NAICS Update and Reporting Revisions, 79 FR 56130-01.

The rule revision comes on the heels of the National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2013 (Preliminary Results) issued by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, on September 11, 2014.  The census found that while fatal work injuries were down from 4,628 in 2012, there were still 4,405 fatal work injuries in 2013. Following the census results, the Secretary of Labor, Thomas E. Perez, issued a statement expressing disappointment with the number of fatal work injuries. “We can and must do better. Job gains in oil and gas and construction have come with more fatalities, and that is unacceptable,” said Perez.

Other rule changes for employers to be aware of include:

All employers covered by OSHA, even those exempt from maintaining injury and illness records, are required to comply with the new OSHA severe injury and illness reporting requirements.

OSHA is developing an web-based option for employers to report incidents electronically in addition to the phone reporting options.

Based on the census, the list of industries exempted from the requirement to routinely keep injury and illness records has been updated. The previous list of exempt industries was based on the old Standard Industrial Classification system and the new rule uses the North American Industry Classification System to classify establishments by industry. (Note: Any employer with 10 or fewer employees, regardless of their industry classification, is exempt from the record keeping rule.)

For readers unfamiliar with OSHA, OSHA provides a number of helpful publications, including an “All About OSHA” brochure located here.

(Hat Tip: Claims Journal).

In recent years, there have been a growing number of lawsuits in which it is alleged that someone developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers transported into the home by a relative.  An increasing number of courts have held that a premises owner owed no duty as a matter of law to the relatives and spouses of the worker who brought home asbestos. See, e.g., Bootenhoff v. Hormel Foods Corp., CIV-11-1368-D (W.D. Okla. Aug. 1, 2014) (finding premises owner had no duty to spouse and granting motion for summary judgment).  In California, there is a split on the issue, and it is anticipated that the California Supreme Court may soon resolve the split.

Campbell – No Duty to Take Home Exposure Plaintiffs

In May of 2012, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, held that a property owner has no duty to protect family members of workers on its premises from secondary exposure to asbestos used during the course of the property owner’s business. Campbell v. Ford Motor Co., 206 Cal. App. 4th 15, 34, 141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 390, 405 (2012), as modified on denial of reh’g (June 19, 2012).

Kesner– Manufacturer has Duty to Take Home Exposure Plaintiffs

In May of 2014, the California Court of Appeal distinguished Cambpell and held that, while a premises owner has no duty to take home exposure plaintiffs, manufacturers do. Kesner v. Superior Court, 171 Cal. Rptr. 3d 811, 819 (Ct. App. 2014) review granted and opinion superseded sub nom. Kesner v. S.C. (Pneumo Abex LLC), S219534 (Cal. Aug. 20, 2014) (“in holding that a duty exists in this case, we emphasize the obvious—that the existence of the duty is not the same as a finding of negligence.”)

Haver – Campell Was Correctly Decided

In June of 2014, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, noted that “Campbell was correctly decided” and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal based on a premise owner having no duty to spouses and relatives in take home exposure cases.   Haver v. BNSF Ry. Co., 172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 771, 775 (Ct. App. 2014), review filed (July 15, 2014), review granted and opinion superseded sub nom. Haver v. BNSF R. Co., S219919, 2014 WL 4100140 (Cal. Aug. 20, 2014). In Haver, the court acknowledged the Kesner opinion, but noted that the issue before it involved only a claim of premises liability and that “Kesner expressly does not question the holding in Campbell in the context of a premises liability cause of action.”  Id.

The California Supreme Court is set to take up the issue, and we are anxious to see how the issue is resolved.

(Hat Tip: @Legal_Alerts and Sedwick).

In asbestos injury cases, plaintiffs typically advance the theory that any exposure, no matter how slight, is a substantial contributing factor in causing the plaintiff’s asbestos-related disease. This is known as the “any exposure” or “each and every exposure” theory. If this argument is successful, it allows the Plaintiff to pursue numerous defendants simultaneously without having to quantify the amount of asbestos to which an individual defendant’s product caused him to be exposed. Not too long ago, the Texas Supreme Court has joined the list of Courts which have rejected the theory.

The Texas Supreme Court previously held that the theory was insufficient to establish causation in asbestosis cases. Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 232 S.W.3d 765 (Tex. 2007). In response to attempts by plaintiffs to distinguish the holding to avoid its application in mesothelioma cases, the Texas high court has recently held that the theory is insufficient to show specific causation in mesothelioma cases. Bostic v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 10-0775 (Tex. July 11, 2014) (holding that “even in mesothelioma cases proof of some exposure or any exposure alone will not suffice to establish causation.”) (quotations omitted). In Bostic, the appeal followed a jury verdict of $11.6 million with an allocation of 75 percent of the fault to a joint compound manufacturer. Id. In affirming the ruling of the Court of Appeals, which reversed and rendered a defense verdict, the Texas Supreme Court found that the Plaintiff had not sufficiently established specific causation with respect to the joint compound manufacturer where the Plaintiff: (1) relied on experts who testified that any exposure to asbestos should be considered a cause of his mesothelioma; (2) failed to quantify the aggregate dose, (3) failed to quantify the dose attributable to the joint compound manufacturer, and (4) failed to show that the dose fairly assignable to the joint compound manufacturer “more than doubled [the plaintiff’s] chances of contracting mesothelioma.” Id. at *19 (“And even in a single-exposure case, we think that proof of dose would be required . . . ‘One of toxicology’s central tenets is that the dose makes the poison.’”).

The Bostic court joins the growing number of state courts which have struck down the each and every exposure theory. See, e.g., Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, 44 A.3d 27, 56 (Pa. 2012) (holding that the theory was inadmissible after finding that “Dr. Maddox’ any-exposure opinion is in irreconcilable conflict with itself”); Free v. Ametek, No. 07-2-04091-9 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct. King County Feb. 29, 2009) (applying the Frye standard and holding that the theory “is not a scientifically proved proposition that is generally accepted in the field of epidemiology, pulmonary pathology, or any other field relevant to this case.”); Butler v. Union Carbide Corp., 712 S.E.2d 537, 549 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011) (affirming the lower court’s ruling that the theory did not “properly utilize[] the scientific method to make scientifically valid decisions in reaching his specific causation opinions as required by Daubert.”).

The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently upheld a Spartanburg county jury’s award of actual and punitive damages against Wal-Mart in an interesting case involving negligence at the checkout counter.  Solanki v. Wal-Mart Store #2806, No. 2012-213247 (S.C. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2014).  In his dissent, Justice H. Bruce Williams references the trial court judge’s remark as to the “weirdness of the transaction” underlying the claim, and the transaction was weird, indeed.

The Plaintiff, Mr. Solanki, trekked to the Wal-Mart in Boiling Springs for a shopping trip.  When he attempted to checkout, the clerk tried three times unsuccessfully to charge the amount owed to Mr. Solanki’s credit card.  The clerk then manually stenciled the credit card and entered the credit card number into the computer.  Unfortunately, the number was entered into the computer incorrectly, and the number actually entered belonged to Ms. Martin. She noticed the apparently fraudulent transaction and reported it to the police department.  Wal-Mart provided the police department with the manually sketched credit card bearing Mr. Solanki’s signature, the surveillance tape, and various other information pertaining to the transaction.  Mr. Solanki was subsequently arrested in Georgia and spent almost a week in jail in Georgia before being extradited to South Carolina.  Everything was eventually sorted out, and the indictment was dropped. However, Mr. Solanki filed suit against Wal-Mart as well as the police department shortly thereafter.  Following a jury trial, the Spartanburg jury awarded $50,000 in actual damages and $225,000 in punitive damages.

Judgment was entered on the verdict, and post-trial motions were denied.

On appeal, Wal-mart argued that the evidence presented did not support an award of punitive damages, which in South Carolina requires the plaintiff to prove “by clear and convincing evidence the defendant’s misconduct was willful, wanton, or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.”  The Court of Appeals held that Mr. Solanki “presented sufficient evidence of Wal-Mart’s willful, wanton, or reckless misconduct to send punitive damages to the jury in two factual circumstances— the taking of the credit card information for the sale and the turning over of the credit card information to law enforcement.”  Regarding the taking of the credit card information for the sale, the Court took into consideration that “[a]t the end of the transaction, the receipt presented had Mr. Solanki’s signature but showed Martin’s credit card information.”  Regarding the credit card fraud investigation, the Court noted the trial court’s conclusion that “Wal-Mart was responsible for the creation and production of the evidence used to arrest Mr. Solanki and it was in the best possible position to point out the discrepancies to the police officers.”

This opinion is based on a unique set of facts, so its application to other contexts may be limited. However, it would appear at first glance that this holding imposes a heightened duty on retailers in the context of a criminal investigation, and eases the burden of proof for plaintiffs in punitive damages cases, either of which could create problems for defendants in the future.

At this point, everyone knows A&E’s hit television show “Duck Dynasty.”  The characters on the program have coined various catch phrases, including Uncle Si Robertson’s declaration that “My Favorite Color is Camo.”  The popularity of this quip led A&E to produce a line of camouflage clothing marketed to the show’s fans – a move which apparently generated “$400 million in revenues from sales of Duck Dynasty branded merchandise at Wal-Mart in 2013 alone,” according to a new lawsuit filed against the network.  The total revenues from the Duck Dynasty brand are unclear, but A&E reportedly also sells the clothing through merchandising deals with Sears, Kohl’s, Sports Authority, and Target. A Florida retail company, Hajn, alleges that it came up with the “My Favorite Color is Camo” trademark and began selling merchandise using the trademark in 2011, a year before “Duck Dynasty” first aired.  So, naturally, it has showed up to “quack some skulls in the duck call room,” legally speaking. Hajn sent a cease and desist letter to A&E asking that it stop selling the merchandise, but apparently the sales continued. So, on July 22, Hajn filed suit for willful trademark infringement and unfair competition in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida to prevent A&E from using its purported trademark. A&E has apparently declined to comment, and as of press time, it has not yet filed a response to the lawsuit.

We will say that we were impressed with the color images of advertisements – and even tweets – embedded into the complaint. Longtime readers may recall that back in 2010 we here at Abnormal Use remarked:

While it is customary to attach photographs as exhibits to memoranda in support of motions, rarely does the attorney actually embed the photograph into the pleading itself. (This is changing for the better, though.).

Whatever the case, we should all be patient to see where this one goes, or as Uncle Si says “America, everybody is in too big a rush. Lay back, take a sip of tea, mow a little grass. Then if you get tired, take a nap.”

The suit is Hajn, LLC v. A&E Television Networks, LLC, 2:14-cv-14291-KAM (S.D. Fla).

We recently blogged about troubled actress Lindsay Lohan’s lawsuit against a video game creator who allegedly misappropriated her likeness and used it for profit.  Apparently, she is not the only public figure who has been recently targeted by a video game company.  Reportedly, former Panamanian dictator, Manuel Noriega, has filed suit in California state court against video game creator Activision Blizzard for using his likeness in Call of Duty: Black Ops II.  Noriega is apparently the subject of various fictional missions within the video game that include historical footage and “real-life characters in Cold War scenarios, including Oliver North.”

Noriega, who is currently serving out a prison sentence in Panama for “drug trafficking, money laundering, and killing political opponents,” alleges in his lawsuit that, among other things, the defendant “damaged his reputation” by portraying him “as a kidnapper, murderer, and enemy of the state.”  For these alleged wrongs, Noriega seeks damages, to include a share of the profits from sales of the video game. He also demanded a jury trial!

Now, quite frankly, this is a deposition that we would like to see (assuming that the case makes it to the discovery phase and that Noriega, currently a prisoner in Panama, testifies in any way, shape, or form). We’re amused that in his Complaint, in the “Parties” section, Noriega mentions that he is “an individual residing in Gamboa, Panama,” without referencing that he is, in fact, in prison. If he is deposed, we would ask that defense counsel please question him about the punk rock and heavy metal music that was played during Operation Nifty Package back in the day. But that’s just us. Oh, and here is the complaint if you would like to read it.

An unrelated confession: The Activision game our editor played was Pitfall! for the Atari 2600.

Reportedly, the Chicago Cubs have filed suit against five individuals responsible for the “billy cub” mascot, which has interacted with fans around Wrigley field for the past seven years in exchange for tips.  Billy Club has no actual affiliation with the Chicago Cubs organization.  Apparently, the litigation was sparked by a bar fight between Billy Cub and a bar patron.  The incident drew extensive publicity after a video of the altercation was posted to YouTube.  According to witnesses, the video showed only a small portion of the harassment that Billy Cub had been receiving from the fan prior to the incident, and the removal of the head was the last straw.  So, why can’t the Cubs give Billy Cub a pass? According to the Cubs, this is not the first time Billy Club has acted mischievously.  The Cubs allege that Billy Cub has a history of bad behavior, including swearing and using racial slurs in connection with bad tips received from fans. So what do the Cubs want a court to do?  Among other things, they have asked that the Billy Cub mascot outfit be delivered for destruction. Delivered for destruction? How about that?

Famed actor John Wayne was born Marion Robert Morrison, but he was perhaps best known for his nickname, “The Duke.”  The Duke personified the American Wild West.  He shot and strung up bad guys, fought his way out of tight spots, and generally exhibited a level of awesome manliness that inspired generations of American men.  The Duke also enjoyed his whiskey, and his family recently launched a “Duke” brand whiskey, “inspired by bottles from John Wayne’s personal whiskey collection, preserved for over 50 years and only recently discovered.”  Sounds great, right?  Well, not to everyone.

Reportedly,  Duke University recently filed objections in the trademark office to prevent the whiskey from using the “Duke” name, alleging that doing so will “’cause confusion and dilution’ that hurts the school’s recruiting and reputation.”  The Duke’s family, which has filed a lawsuit of its own in California, denounces Duke University’s arguments as “ludicrous,” and argues that “[Duke University] ‘has never been in the business of producing, marketing, distributing or selling alcohol,’ [but the school] ‘seems to think it owns the word ‘Duke’ for all purposes and applications.”

It will be interesting to see how this one turns out, as both sides have some interesting arguments.  While the outcome is not clear, one thing is. Duke University should count its lucky stars that it is dealing with the family and not the Duke himself, because the Duke didn’t believe in lawsuits:  “Out here a man settles his own problems.”