If there is one thing we here at Abnormal Use take seriously, it’s college football. Among our writers and contributors and fellow lawyers here at Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A., we boast fans of the University of South Carolina, Clemson, Notre Dame, and the University of Texas.  When the autumn arrives, you can rest assured that we are talking stats and plays when we are not otherwise toiling or blogging. But, dear readers, imagine our dilemma! We here are perpetrators of a legal blog dedicated to the discussion of products liability! Rarely, if ever, are we permitted to discuss football on these fair pages!  But the fates have smiled upon us! The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion dealing with the contentious issue of football stadium parking which, though not exactly related to products liability, is important enough to bring to your attention.

Last week, The State reported on a family of South Carolina Gamecock fans who sued the University of South Carolina after the university began charging them a hefty $595 for their three parking spots near the fabled Williams-Brice Stadium.  The family alleged that they were entitled to free parking by virtue of a $140,000 donation they made in 1987 for a Lifetime Silver Spur membership in the Gamecock Club.  The family had parked for free for nearly twenty years until the school began charging for the privilege in 2007.  The university attributed the change to its efforts to raise money in order to compete with the facilities of other Southeastern Conference members.

Enter the courts. Following the Rosens’ suit against the university, the trial court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the relevant written contract was not ambiguous and failed to identify any of its listed privileges as “free.”  The trial court also found that as lifetime members, the family, by virtue of its $140,000 donation, only received the “benefit” of maintaining their donor level with the Gamecock Club.  During the final week of June, in an unpublished opinion, the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the contract was ambiguous on the parking issue, primarily due to the family’s 20-year history of free parking. See Rosen v. University of South Carolina, No. 2011-UP-331 (June 27, 2011) (unpublished). In so doing, the Court of Appeals, in an opinion authored by Justice Huff, noted:

At oral argument, the University urged this court to consider that the Rosens paid for football tickets, including the increases in football ticket prices, as the “customs, practices, [and] usages” of the Gamecock Club.  In considering the payment of ticket prices, we must also consider that during the same time period, the Rosens were not required to pay for the parking spaces.  Exhibit A [of the contract, which listed the benefits and priorities the Rosens received] made no distinction in the language used describing the tickets and parking spaces.  It neither stated additional charges would apply or that the benefits would be free.  When considering “the customs, practices, [and] usages” of the Gamecock Club that despite similar language, the members paid for tickets but did not pay for parking, we find the contracts to be ambiguous as to the parking issue.

The unpublished opinion drew a concurrence and dissent from Justice Pieper, who agreed with the court on the parking issue but not on an unrelated – and far less interesting – beneficiary issue.

We here at Abnormal Use must commend our Court of Appeals.  If anyone is willing to pay $140,000 for the privilege of attending college football games, they probably deserve some benefit. (There’s got to be some equitable Latin phrase from jurisprudence echoing that sentiment, right?). Whatever the case, the college football season officially begins in just a month and a half, and we’ll have to resist the urge to blog about that most important of subjects when September arrives.

Two weeks ago, we here at Abnormal Use offered our review of Plaintiff’s attorney Susan Saladoff‘s anti-tort reform documentary, Hot Coffee, which discussed, in part, the infamous Stella Liebeck McDonald’s hot coffee case.   We were critical of the film, chastising Saladoff for her editorial choices and potential lack of objectivity, particularly in light of her past as a trial lawyer and affiliation with numerous Plaintiff’s lawyers organizations.  Tonight, at 10/9 Central on the ReelzChannel, filmmaker Brian J. Kelly premieres his own documentary and analysis of the courts, InJustice. This project was funded in part by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of Saladoff’s favorite targets in her own film.  Just as we warned you of Saladoff’s possible bias, so too must we advise you that Kelly’s documentary (which excoriates the legal system and the Plaintiff’s bar in particular) may not come from the most objective of sources.  Kelly was kind enough to grant us an interview regarding the film and its agenda.

InJustice purports to offer an in-depth look at the rise and fall of the so-called “kings of torts,” the wealthy and successful Plaintiff’s lawyers like Richard Scruggs, Melvyn Weiss, and William Lerach.  In so doing, Kelly seeks to illustrate the alleged faults of America’s litigation system.  Using interviews with lawyers, InJustice suggests that class-action attorneys have enriched themselves by perpetrating questionable asbestosis, silicosis, tobacco, and securities litigation, while their clients see little, if any, of the spoils.  The film also highlights how these kings of tort made their fortunes outside of the courtroom.  Specifically, the film digs up a quote by Scruggs, who apparently once remarked that the practice of law is a three-legged stool:  legal tactics, political pressure, and public relations.  The men used this hypothetical three-legged stool to perfection, pressuring corporate defendants into settling allegedly baseless claims without ever actually taking the cases to trial.  The men appeared invincible until their questionable tactics backfired on them.  InJustice closes with the story of how each man found himself facing his own judicial woes: judicial bribery (Scruggs), concealing illegal payments to clients (Lerach), and conspiring to improperly pay off plaintiffs (Weiss).

InJustice features interviews with defense lawyers who practiced with Scruggs, Weiss, and Lerach; however, the most compelling interview probably comes from attorney Charles Merkel, Jr., who described Scruggs’ use of the three-legged stool analogy.   Through these interviews, the film aims to demonstrate how well-trained plaintiff’s lawyers can manipulate the system and make millions of dollars without ever seeing the inside of the courtroom.  The story is intriguing and well-told; however, we here at Abnormal Use question whether these so-called kings of tort are a representative sample of the civil litigation system.

Like Hot Coffee before it, InJustice advances an agenda, and Kelly does so well.  Those who watch the documentary will likely be disgusted with the way the kings of tort are portrayed as manipulating the legal system for their own pecuniary gain.  Certainly, the extrajudicial tactics, coupled with the criminal consequences, of the film’s subjects may leave many viewers believing corporations are often the victims in trumped up class action lawsuits.  However, as noted above, InJustice is crippled by one major problem – films funded and promoted by special interests groups can never paint the whole picture or be relied upon as an objective account of a societal problem.

Unlike Saladoff, Kelly is not a lawyer.  Prior to making his new documentary, he made films about such things as the Blue Angels and the Cuban Missile Crisis. However, just like Saladoff, Kelly uses the documentary medium to promote his own opinions about the faults of the legal system. Like Saladoff before him, Kelly acknowledges that there are two sides to every story.  In an interview with Abnormal Use, Kelly insisted that he “tried to look at the other side that’s not typically covered.”  Unlike Hot Coffee, which Kelly believes is “based on opinion,” Kelly told us that with InJustice, he was looking at “right and wrong.”  In a sense, Kelly is correct – InJustice does focus on fully adjudicated cases and leaves much of the speculation up to the viewers themselves.  However, InJustice, like Hot Coffee, is an opinion piece, using stories of a few to draw categorical inferences on the system as a whole. In fact, it was Kelly own bad experience with the legal system that prompted his desire to make the film.  In a recent interview, Kelly told The Blog of Legal Times that he decided to pursue the project, in part, due lawsuit filed against him by a prior tenant.  Kelly prevailed in the suit, but only after amassing $80,000 in expenses defending against the plaintiff’s claims.

Not only does Kelly exhibit a potential bias against the legal system due to that suit, so too does the film’s principal sponsor, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its Institute for Legal Reform.  In our interview , Kelly noted that he initially pitched the film to cable network channels such as the Discovery Channel but received little interest.  A business associate in Washington, DC connected Kelly with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which ultimately invested in the project. Kelly insists that he accepted their support only upon the precondition that he would maintain editorial control.  Says Kelly: “We were able to work out a deal where they knew what we were out to do.  They really had to let us go and trust us to do what we set out to do.”  However, in the screener of the film we saw, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is never specifically acknowledged as a producer or funding source in the film’s credits (although it is promoting the film and noting its support on its websites here and  here). Accordingly, it will be very difficult for InJustice to maintain its sense of independence and credibility, particularly in light of recent criticism by people like Saladoff who contend that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is mounting a secret campaign to influence public opinion on the judicial system. In fact, InJustice may play right into their hands.

Indeed, we here at Abnormal Use were initially contacted about the film by a Washington, DC consulting firm, Hamilton Place Strategies.  On its website, Hamilton Place bills itself as a bipartisan policy and communications firm, an odd entity to be promoting a television documentary film.  The firm’s public policy advisory unit, HPS Insight, was founded by two alumni of the George W. Bush administration.  Further, that firm’s partners include members of President George W. Bush’s staff and advisers to Senator John McCain and Representative Paul Ryan.  If the firm has any members affiliated with the Democratic Party or more liberal groups, it was not readily apparent on the website.

We’re somewhat troubled by the arrival of two documentaries arriving with weeks of each other both attacking the judicial system from different perspectives. If Hot Coffee and InJustice were screened together, many viewers would probably leave the theater believing that the denizens of our judicial system – from the Plaintiffs lawyers suing corporations to the corporate defendants themselves – are corrupt and dominated by parties only out to protect their own self-interests by whatever means necessary. As officers of the court, we’re not sure that’s the best message to send, nor do we believe that the system is beyond repair (or even as disabled as Saladoff and Kelly contend).  Hot Coffee and InJustice both fail in one key aspect – they focus on exceptions rather than rules.  Saladoff’s selective presentation of the cases in Hot Coffee does not mean that tort reform is unnecessary, nor does Kelly’s highlighting of the ill-advised tactics of Scruggs and Weiss offer proof that all trial lawyers are somehow sinister and corrupt.  The cases presented in these two films are sensationalized exceptions, not the judicial norm.  In the end, though, InJustice is an opinion piece no better or worse than Hot Coffee.

Yesterday, a federal jury in Houston, Texas rejected Plaintiff Jamie Leigh Jones‘ claims against Halliburton subsidiary KBR that she was raped and fraudulently induced into entering into an employment contract with the company.  See Jones, et al, v. Halliburton Co.,  et al, 4:07-cv-02719 (S.D. Tex.). Jones sought damages against the company in the amount of $145 million, claiming that KBR created a hostile sexual work environment at her barracks in Iraq.

The Houston Chronicle reports:

Jurors in a federal courtroom on Friday rejected a former Conroe woman’s claims that she was drugged and raped by several Kellogg Brown & Root firefighters while working for the company in Iraq in 2005.

The jury also rejected Jamie Leigh Jones’ claims that the former Halliburton subsidiary committed fraud by “inducing her to enter into an employment contract.”

By answering “no” to those two questions, the jurors rendered the other 12 questions in the jury charge moot, bringing an end to the month-long trial of Jones’ lawsuit.

We mention this verdict today because the Jones lawsuit was prominently featured in Susan Saladoff’s recent documentary, Hot Coffee, which we reviewed previously here. Specifically, the film chronicled Jones’ inability to have her claims heard by a jury due a mandatory arbitration clause in her employment contract (although we here at Abnormal Use did not explore the Jones case in our review because our interest in the film was prompted primarily by its discussion of the Stella Liebeck McDonald’s hot coffee case).  In 2009, the Fifth Circuit ruled that Jones did have the right to have her case heard by a jury. See Jones v. Halliburton Co., 583 F.3d 228 (2009).

Above, you’ll find the cover of Wolff & Byrd, Counselors of the Macabre #4, published sometime in the mid-1990s before the series’ name was changed to Supernatural Law. Note the tagline: “Beware The Creatures of the Night – They Have Lawyers!”  We must confess a general unfamiliarity with this series and the characters who appear therein, though according to Wikipedia, they’ve been around since the 1970s. Who knew?

PHM at The Civil Procedure & Federal Courts Blog feels compelled to “put anything that includes the phrase ‘tort reform’ in quotation marks,” including The American Tort Reform Association. Sure, it’s an advocacy group, but we don’t put the Plaintiffs’ bar group, the “Association for Justice” in quotation marks because that’s what they’re actually called.  It’s like using the phrase “so called” when something is actually called that. Oh, well.

We don’t discuss constitutional law much here at Abnormal Use, but after learning of last week’s ruling in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, in which the Supreme Court struck down a California state law restricting the rental or sale of violent video games to children, we may have at least one comment on the subject. Like most, our first thought was, “How many sitting Supreme Court justices have actually played a video game?” And then we skimmed the opinion. But today, we direct you to this article by friend of the blog and Pennsylvania lawyer Jay Hornack (a/k/a Panic Street Lawyer), who analyzes the ruling in far more detail.

We here at Abnormal Use have been called many things, but it’s been a while since someone said we were silly. Alas, Ronald V. Miller, Jr. at the Drug Recall Lawyer Blog did so last week, chiefly because he didn’t like our recent post calling for Reed Morgan, the Plaintiff’s lawyer in the Stella Liebeck McDonald’s hot coffee case, to release the transcript. Ouch! Oh, well. All we want to do is read the transcript! Is that so wrong? McDonald’s isn’t talking (nor have they done so much on this case since ’94), and the courts sure aren’t likely to have a 17 year old trial transcript. So, that leaves us with the the Plaintiff’s lawyers who represented Liebeck. Considering that many, many Plaintiffs’ lawyers spent much of last week praising Susan Saladoff’s “Hot Coffee” documentary and clamoring for the real “truth” behind the Liebeck case, we thought Liebeck’s lawyer might naturally want to serve that interest and release the transcript for posterity. What better way to expose the truth? But I guess that’s just silly. (In other news, the ABA Journal referenced some of our work on the hot coffee case, as well. You can see that piece here.).

By now, you have all seen the infamous motion for summary judgment filed by Mark Cuban in the law suit brought by a company alleging that Cuban had mismanaged the Dallas Maverick basketball franchise.  The four page motion – which can be found here – is brief and amusing, as it uses imagery in the body of the motion to suggest that the claims against Cuban are baseless. (Apparently, because of its novelty, some law professors are already teaching the motion in class.). On its second page, the motion includes a large photograph – which takes up nearly half the page – of Cuban and the Mavericks celebrating their recent national championship win.

Cuban’s motion reminds us of a post we did late last year encouraging the use of such tactics.

Back then, in a post on modernization of judicial opinions, we noted that attorneys haven’t traditionally included images in motions and wrote as follows:

[T]his is a product of tradition, and attorneys – as authors of briefs which are predominantly prose – are equally at fault. While it is customary to attach photographs as exhibits to memorandum in support of motions, rarely does the attorney actually embed the photograph into the image itself. (This is changing for the better, though.). Thus, the Court, or the reader of the brief, is required to flip from the particular page being read back to the exhibit index and then back to the argument again. It seems that in 2010 this is unnecessary in both written submissions to the Court as well as in the resulting opinions themselves.

These days, with so much information on the Internet, with so many visual learners, with so many maps, photographs, schematics, images, and so many other types of non-prose information, we believe that embedding images into one’s motions is a growing trend and may in fact help and simplify issues.  In a products case in which the product at issue is relatively obscure, a photograph accompanied by a brief description can speak volumes more than a lengthy technical treatise.  If location is an issue in the case, then a photograph of a scene might be appropriate, provided that the photograph is, of course, favorable to your argument.  If the distance between two sites is at issue, then a Google map screen capture can be input into the motion itself to showcase the distance at issue. There are many, many options.

We as lawyers use words by trade, but often we use far too many of them.  The readers of our motions and briefs have much to do and many other items to review.  We suspect that they, most of all, would appreciate efforts to simplify the briefing process.  After all, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Just ask Mark Cuban.

For defendants in products liability actions, the issue of distributor liability is a maddening, state-by-state patchwork of different rules and laws.  The same conduct by one distributor of a product across many states may make it liable for any injuries caused by the product in one state, yet immune from liability in another.  Not only can the role of the distributor be crucial from a liability perspective, but it often has jurisdictional implications as well.  This was the case in Martin v. Medtronic, Inc. and Saracare Corp., 5:11-CV-144/RS-CJK, 2011 WL 2473318 (N.D. Fla. June 22, 2011). The issue was the plaintiff’s motion to remand, i.e. whether the Northern District of Florida had jurisdiction to hear the case at all based on diversity of citizenship.  The plaintiff had sued Medtronic, Inc. and Saracare Corporation on products liability theories, including strict liability, after the death of her decedent allegedly caused by a defective insulin pump.

For diversity purposes, the plaintiff was considered to be a citizen of Florida; Medtronic was a citizen of Minnesota; and SaraCare a citizen of Florida.  No diversity, right?  For all of you with recent memories of law school (which are, alas, distant memories for us), you will understand that the correct answer is always, “Well, it depends!” (For all of you readers who do have recent recollections of law school, be forewarned:  This is also always the right answer in “real life” legal situations, as well). Whatever the case, the jurisdictional question hinged on whether or not SaraCare was a “sham defendant,” in which case the Court would not consider its citizenship for diversity purposes (meaning that there would be diversity after all).  And, since SaraCare was alleged to be a distributor of the insulin pump, the Court’s jurisdictional analysis focused on the potential liability of SaraCare as a distributor. As the Court summarized:

On June 29, 2011, a panel of the Food and Drug Administration rejected the drug Avastin for use in the treatment of end-stage breast cancer.  Manufactured by Genentech, a subsidiary of Roche, the drug has been approved for the treatment of other types of cancer, but as recently reported by NBC Nightly News, the panel believed that the drug is not effective, and the side effects too serious, for the treatment of breast cancer.  A final decision will come from the FDA in a few months.

As can be imagined, this action has brought a firestorm of criticism of the FDA.  Because the drug will still be on the market, it will be possible, perhaps, for doctors to prescribe the drug “off-label” for breast cancer, but of course, insurance companies won’t pay for it if it’s not approved for the specific disease for which it is prescribed.

But, as FiercePharma reports, it appears that Avastin will not be dropped from Medicare coverage, no matter what the FDA decides down the road, and the decision could have grave consequences for the FDA down the road:

What better way to celebrate the Fourth of July than the patriotic cover to Superman #53, depicted above and published way back in 1991? (It’s a good one, although it’s emotive impact is lessened a bit by Superman’s recent renunciation of his U.S. citizenship!) Whatever the case, we here at Abnormal Use and Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A. wish you a fun and safe holiday. Let’s all pause a moment today and reflect upon those Founding Fathers – many of them lawyers themselves – who signed the Declaration of Independence way, way back in 1776.  Then we can grill out some burgers and have a beer.

And be certain to check out this far more substantive post on July 4th over at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog.

(Last but not least, click here to see last year’s Fourth of July post, complete with Greenville, South Carolina fireworks).

We’re not entirely certain why Captain America was on trial, or whether this was the same Captain America from the good old days of comics. Nevertheless, depicted above is the cover of Captain America #613, published only a few months ago in February of 2011.  The secret identity of the Captain America we all knew growing up was Steve Rogers.  Apparently, somewhere along the way, that Captain America’s sidekick, Bucky, replaced the original Captain America, but not before moonlighting as a Russian hitman during the Cold War when the original Captain America thought he was dead.  It’s his actions as a Soviet agent that caused him to be on trial.  That’s confusing (although we wonder if there was a motion in limine on whether he could wear his costume at trial).

We’ve received a number of responses regarding last week’s tribute to the late sax player Clarence Clemons of Bruce Springsteen’s famed E Street Band.  Friend of the blog Steve McConnell of the Drug & Device Law Blog emailed us: “You guys did a great post on the passing of Clarence Clemons. For a guy like me who grew up in Jersey in the ’70’s, the Big Man’s death is traumatic. It really feels like a body blow and is, of course, yet another grim reminder of mortality. I’m a neolithic fan of the Boss. For me, it never got better than Born to Run. That album reached operatic heights, and Clarence was a big reason why.”

The Ernie the Attorney blog has an interesting post about the mobile practice of law and the perils of simplicity and security. Says he: “I wouldn’t use free WiFi at a coffee shop to do anything related to client matters. Maybe I shouldn’t have back then, but in 2005 we didn’t have as many hacking incidents as we do now. When you see hackers attacking major companies like Sony and Sega, and even major governmental agencies like the Department of Defense, then you become aware that it’s a little dangerous to be cavalier about how you use the Internet. What’s a mobile simplicity-seeking lawyer to do?”

Congratulations to our own Stuart Mauney, who was recently designated the state chair of the Council on Litigation Management. You can see the news coverage here, and you can follow Stuart on Twitter at @stuartmauney.

We recently reported here that a South Carolina family-owned tomato farm had sued the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in South Carolina federal court in Beaufort, alleging that the agency was negligent in its issuing of a 2008 nationwide tomato recall.  Seaside Farm, Inc. v. United States, C.A. No. 9:11-cv-1199-CWH (D.S.C. May 2011).  The FDA issued that recall over fears that tomatoes were the source of salmonella contamination, though, ultimately, the outbreak was traced to a source other than tomatoes.  Well, another tomato farm has since joined in filing suit.

Law360.com reports that Williams Farms Produce Sales, Inc., which grows more than 500 acres of tomatoes in South Carolina and Florida every year, filed suit alleging that it lost $11 million as a result of the recall that later proved to be unnecessary.  The latest suit, which was filed less than one month after the Seaside Farm’s complaint, was filed in federal court in Charleston.  Williams Farms Produce Sales, Inc. v. United States, C.A. No. 2:2011-cv-1399 (D.S.C. June 2011).  Lexology.com reports hat the latest complaint includes causes of action of negligence, defamation, slander of title, product disparagement, unconstitutional taking, and violation of unfair trade practices law, for which the tomato grower seeks actual damages in excess of $11 million, special damages, compensatory damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

These two lawsuits could be the firsts of many, and they certainly demonstrate that the amount of potential damages alleged against the FDA could be staggering.  MiamiHerald.com and FloridaFarmers.org have reported that Florida farmers estimated they lost $60 million as a result of the recall, and that national numbers could be $140 million or more.  They also report that previous attempts in 2008 to acquire voluntary compensation from the government to offset the losses failed, and as such, litigation was almost certain to follow.