Minnesota Voter Alliance v. Mansky

In November 2010, Andrew Cilek, the executive director of the Minnesota Voters Alliance, walked into his local polling venue to cast his vote for that election year. Upon entry, he was quickly turned away before he could vote because of the shirt he decided to wear that day. Mr. Cilek was wearing a “Don’t Tread On Me” t-shirt and a pin that said “Please I.D. Me” (1). Mr. Cilek was told he needed to cover up his shirt before he could come in to vote. He returned later with his lawyer and was able to vote, but not without being cited with a $300.00 fine. Why did it matter what shirt Mr. Cilek was wearing? Because Minnesota Statute §211B.II states that a person can not wear anything political at or around the polling place on primary or election days (2). Mr. Cilek filed a lawsuit against the state claiming that this was a violation of the First Amendment right of Free Speech, which was ultimately, the court dismissed the case, which was upheld by the court of appeals.

This case went up to the United States Supreme Court where it was argued for an hour by Mr. J. David Breemer for the petitioners and Mr. Daniel Rogan for the respondents (3). Mr. Breemer argued that the statutes is overbroad and unconstitutional (3). Mr. Breemer provides examples such shirts saying Chamber of Commerce and Moveon.org are prohibited from the polling venues. Other examples of  prohibited attire that was addressed was a shirt with a rainbow flag or a shirt that says “Parkland Strong” (3). Mr. Rogan stated that the shirt would not be prohibited, unless there was a gay rights or a gun control issue on the ballot. Mr. Rogan argued that the statute refers to “political” as anything that has a candidates name, any reference to a specific party, an issue that may be on the ballot for that election, and so forth. It was also revealed that the the election judge at each polling venue is to be the final decision on what is considered “political” within the venue. This gives a wide range of possibilities of what can be worn depending on who the election judge is. Also, every issue addressed on the ballot would have to be known by the election judge.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and concluded that the statute is overbroad and the term ‘political’ is not clearly defined making the statute unreasonable.

For easy reference, Minnesota statute 211.B.11 states:

            “A person may not display campaign material, post signs, ask, solicit, or in any manner try to induce or persuade a voter within a polling place or within 100 feet of the building in which a polling place is situated, or anywhere on the public property on which a polling place is situated, on primary or Election Day to vote for or refrain from voting for a candidate or ballot question. A person may not provide political badges, political buttons, or other political insignia to be worn at or about the polling place on the day of a primary or election. A political badge, politician buttons, or other political insignia may not be worn at or about the polling place on primary or election day. This section applies to areas established by the county auditor or municipal clerk for absentee voting as provided in Chapter 203B.

            Nothing in this subdivision prohibits the distribution or “I VOTED” stickers as provided in section 204B.49.” 

In reading this statute do you feel the Supreme Court ruled correctly? Is this statute unconstitutional and violate free speech? Why do you feel the way you do? 

(1) Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, Oyez, (Oct 23, 2019) http://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1434

(2) Minnesota Legislature, 211B.11 Election Day Prohibitions, (Oct. 24, 2019)  https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/211b.11
(3) Minnesota Voter Alliance, Et Al., Petitioners, v. Joe Mansky, Et Al., Respondents, Oral Arguemnt-February 28, 2018, (Oct 24, 2019) https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts8/oral_argument_audio/24561

(4) Minnesota Voter Alliance v. Mansky, Opinion Announcement – June 14, 2018 (Oct 24, 2019) https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts8/opinion_announcement_audio/24698

Juvenile Justice – Individualized Rehabilitative Justice or State Sanctioned Revenge? 

The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention states, “The juvenile justice system was founded on and guided by the concept of rehabilitation through individualized justice.” Is that what’s truly happening, or is the juvenile justice system punitive?

On Monday, the Washington Post ran a story entitled, “A 9-year-old is facing five counts of murder. He didn’t even know what ‘alleged’ meant.”[1] On April 6, 2019, a fire broke out in a mobile home in Eureka, Illinois. Of the seven family members inside at the time, the boy and his mother were the only two to get out. According to the story, officials believe that the boy set the fire intentionally. On Monday, he appeared for arraignment on five counts of first-degree murder and three counts of arson. The judge had to explain to the boy what alleged and arson meant.

Juvenile Court Jurisdiction–Maximum Age 

Every state has a juvenile court system. However, with acts that would be crimes if committed by an adult, juvenile courts’ jurisdictions vary widely from state to state. Generally, a person is subject to the jurisdiction of a juvenile court for acts committed before reaching the age of majority, 18 in most states. In five states, any criminal act is charged in an adult court if the person is 17 or older.[2] In nearly all states, the juvenile court retains jurisdiction over an adult for an act committed as a minor.

Minimum Age 

What is the minimum age the state can charge a child with a crime? I was surprised to learn that 27 states and the District of Columbia have no minimum age.[3] A prosecutor can charge a child with a crime at any age. Utah and Illinois are two such states. Utah doesn’t publish statistics on juvenile court cases. I contacted the juvenile court administrator, but she didn’t get back with numbers in time for me to publish this.

Trying a Juvenile as an Adult 

All states have one or more mechanisms by which the state can transfer a case from the juvenile court and try a juvenile can as an adult.[4] Five states have no statute regarding the age of a juvenile and a transfer; 16 states and the District of Columbia have laws setting a minimum age (as young as 12) at which the state may charge juveniles as adults for any crime. The remaining states only allow a transfer for certain felonies. Iowa allows transfer to the adult court at ten years old.[5] In Utah, the prosecutor can request the juvenile court to transfer a 14-year-old to the district court.[6] If the juvenile is 16 and the crime is murder or aggravated murder, the district court has original jurisdiction.[7]

A quick search of the Salt Lake Tribune produced many stories of the state charging 16 and 17-year-olds and one 14-year-old in adult court for homicides. A look around the country shows: North Carolina charged a 13-year-old autistic boy as an adult; Pennsylvania charged a 10-year-old boy and housed him in an adult facility. Texas charged a 14-year-old girl, and Oklahoma, charge a15-year-old. In Mississippi, 12 and 14-year-old girls were arrested for murdering their mother. The 12-year-old will remain in the juvenile system while the state charged her 14-year-old sister as an adult. There are many more accounts of prosecutors charging young teens as adults in the last few years.

Punishment 

The boy in Illinois will not be incarcerated. The minimum age for incarceration in Illinois is ten. I was unable to find a minimum age for incarceration in Utah.

In Utah, if a juvenile is sentenced to confinement, that confinement can be home confinement, detention, or the state can commit the juvenile to one of six Juvenile Justice Services secure facilities.[8] A secure juvenile facility is different than detention. It is essentially a high-security prison for juveniles. A minor 14 years or older convicted as an adult will be incarcerated in a secure facility until age 18, at which time Juvenile Justice Services (JJS) transfers the person to the state prison. In extreme circumstances, a judge can send a juvenile to the state prison bypassing JJS.[9]

The judge sentenced the 14-year-old from Utah to a 15-years-to-life prison term. JJS transferred him to the Utah State Prison as soon as he turned 18. The Utah Board of Pardons and Parole set his first parole hearing for 2034.[10]

Only in 2005 did the U.S. Supreme Court rule that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death.[11] In 2010 the Court ruled that a judge or jury may only sentence a juvenile to life without parole (LWOP) for homicide.[12] In that ruling, the Court also said that the state must give the offender a meaningful opportunity for parole. Because the 15-year-old Utahn was convicted of murder, and because the board of pardons is notoriously parsimonious when people convicted of murder come to a parole hearing, he will probably never get out of prison.

Questions 

Keeping in mind that juvenile justice is supposed to be rehabilitative and individualized not punitive, should there be a minimum age to charge a juvenile with a crime, to incarcerate a juvenile, or to try a juvenile as an adult?
When would incarceration in an adult prison be appropriate?
Is LWOP ever appropriate?


1. Derek Hawkins, A 9-year-old is facing five counts of murder. He didn’t even know what ‘alleged’ meant, The Washington Post, (October 21, 2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/
nation/2019/10/21/year-old-is-facing-five-counts-murder-he-didnt-even-know-what-alleged-meant/.

2. National Conference of State Legislatures, Juvenile Age of Jurisdiction and Transfer to Adult Court Laws, http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/juvenile-age-of-jurisdiction-and-transfer-to-adult-court-laws.aspx (last visited October 24, 2019). 

3. The National Juvenile Defender Center, Minimum Age for Delinquency Adjudication–Multi-Jurisdiction Survey, https://njdc.info/practice-policy-resources/state-profiles/multi-jurisdiction-data/minimum-age-for-delinquency-adjudication-multi-jurisdiction-survey/ (last visited October 24, 2019).
4. National Conference of State Legislatures, Juvenile Age of Jurisdiction and Transfer to Adult Court Laws, http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/juvenile-age-of-jurisdiction-and-transfer-to-adult-court-laws.aspx (last visited October 24, 2019).
5. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Justice System Structure & Process, https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04110.asp?qaDate= 2016&text=yes&maplink=link1 (last visited October 24, 2019).
6. Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-602 (2018).
7. Utah Code Ann. §§ 78A-7-101 et. sec. (2017).
8. Utah Code. Ann § 62A-7-404 (2017).
9. Utah Code. Ann § 78A-6-705 (2015)
10. Pamela Manson, Utah parole officials set 2034 hearing for man who beat his girlfriend to death, Salt Lake Tribune, (July 29, 2016), https://www.sltrib.com/news/crime/2016/07/29/utah-parole-officials-set-2034-hearing-for-man-who-beat-girlfriend-to-death/.
11. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
12. Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010)

THE “DEPP” BLUE SEA: DEFAMATION SUIT INVOLVING HOLLYWOOD ICON

INTORDUCTION

        No matter who you are or what you say, everyone to a degree is allured by the scandals that occur in Hollywood; especially when the scandal involves two A-list actors. It is apparent that those in the limelight receive special privileges that the common folk are not privy to regarding the law. In a recent lawsuit between the captain of all captains, Johnny Depp (plaintiff) and his ex-wife Amber Heard (defendant), they went head to head in a defamation lawsuit alleging false claims Heard made in an opt-ed for the Washington Post which cost Depp his beloved role in the Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean movie franchise.

BACKGROUND

• 2015 Los Angeles, California, Amber Heard and Johnny Depp marry.1

• 15 months later 23 May 2016 Heard petitions for divorce2 in the Superior Court of California for irrefutable differences. Heard is granted by the judge a temporary restraining order 4 days after the filing after alleging domestic abuse by Depp prior to her filing the petition.

• Heard alleges domestic abuse by Depp. Upon police investigation during the incident, no evidence of abuse to Heard was found.3

•  In June 2016, People Magazine publish a photo4 of Heard with bruises on her eye and lip.

• Divorce settlement of $7 million is reached 16 August 2016. Heard retracts allegations of domestic abuse and dismisses the temporary restraining order against Depp5 after video surveillance, depositions and other evidence proves the allegations of abuse were false.

• Washington Post opt-ed of Heard is published 18 December 2018 insinuating Depp’s abuse of Heard during their marriage.6

THE CASE

03 March 2019 in the Circuit Court of Fairfax, Virginia, Johnny Depp filed a lawsuit against Amber Heard for Defamation.7 In the complaint Depp seeks $50M for compensatory damages caused by Heard’s false allegations in the Washington Post opt-ed which has prevented him from securing and retaining jobs and substantial damage to his reputation. He also seeks punitive damage for Heard’s willingness and malicious intent for her false implications. Depp alleged that the Washington Post opt-ed was a publicity stunt pulled by Heard surrounding the domestic violence claims against him in 2016. Depp also claimed that Heard was in fact the perpetrator of abuse and he the victim during their marriage. He stated that in Heard’s previous relationship in 2009 to her partner she was arrested for domestic abuse at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport but was not charged.

April 11 2019 Heard filed a motion to dismiss8 stating proposed venue was not convenient and that the right venue was in Los Angeles, California where both she and the plaintiff reside as opposed to Fairfax, Virginia. She combined her motion to dismiss with a plea in bar to dismiss the case for all time on defamation claims. 25 July 2019 the motion to dismiss was denied9 due to the establishment of the proper venue by plaintiff based on the fact that The Washington Post uploaded the publication online through Springfield, Virginia servers.

After insufficient production of documents were provided by Depp in her initial request to produce documents was served, Heard filed a motion to compel10 discovery 12 September 2019 requesting any documentation regarding Depp’s drug and alcohol abuse as well as any incident of domestic violence or abuse. Depp opposed11 the motion to compel discovery 11 October 2019 on the grounds that the motion was served to distract the court from what is actually at issue. Depp also objected that the scope of discovery is not unlimited, and the request is irrelevant to the case which is invasive and harassment by seeking privileged information.

           The court order on 18 October 2019 granted12 Heard’s  motion to compel Depp to disclose the documents requested. Depp must now produce all nonprivileged documents regarding his drug and alcohol abuse as well as any incident of domestic violence or abuse as well as execute a HIPAA waiver to allow Heard to subpoena all relevant medical documents.

FRCP RULE 34 REQUEST TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS:

Rule 34 permits requests to produce for “any designated documents or electronically stored information… stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into reasonably usable form.”13 This rule also requires a party to hand over any and all documentation that the party has in his/her possession, custody or control.

FRCP RULE 26 DUTY TO DISCLOSE

Rule 26 controls the scope of the request to produce documents. It permits the discovery of any “nonprivileged” matter that is relevant to any claim or defense.14 Required disclosures include the name, location or address and phone number of any person that has discoverable information. Proceedings exempt from initial disclosure are review of administrative records, a forfeiture action arising from a federal statute, a petition for habeas corpus or a proceeding ancillary to a proceeding in another court. Initial disclosures must be made 30 days after being served unless otherwise stipulated by writ. An unacceptable excuse for initial disclosure is that a party has challenged the sufficiency of another party’s disclosures or because another party has not made its disclosure.

FRCP RULE 37 FAILURE TO MAKE DISCLOSURES OR TO COOPERATE IN DISCOVERY

On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in effort to obtain it without court action.15 The motion must be made in the court in which the dispute arose. A motion to compel discovery can be made if the party fails to answer an interrogatory or if the party is evasive or provides an incomplete disclosure, answer or response. If the motion is granted, the party must pay attorney fees for the movant unless the movant did not in good faith make attempts to obtain the disclosure without seeking court writs. Or, the party’s reason for nondisclosure, response or objection was substantially justified.

CONCLUSION:

           A very private matter made very public can complicate a sensitive situation. The issue of Heard’s defense against the retracted allegations of domestic abuse seems to be altering the issue at hand. Though there may be some truth to Heard’s claims the admissible evidence that is being allowed into the defamation lawsuit could open a can of worms that neither A-lister could have anticipated.

QUESTIONS:

1. Do you agree or disagree with the Circuit Court Judge’s decision in granting Heard's motion to compel discovery for Depp’s medical records? Why or Why not?
2. Does Depp have the legal right to refuse to produce the documents Heard requested at this point in the litigation process?
   
3. Are there any other issues/ issues leading up to the case that could be questioned that you can recognize?
4. What is your favorite Johnny Depp Movie?

SOURCES CITED:

1. https://people.com/celebrity/inside-johnny-depp-and-amber-heards-private-island-wedding-ceremony-photos/
2. http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0525_amber_heard_johnny_depp%20divorce.pdf
3. https://people.com/crime/amber-heard-and-johnny-depp-photos-show-alleged-domestic-abuse/
   
4. https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/2019/05/20/johnny-depp-v-amber-heard-depp-submits-photos-black-eye-scratches/3450310002/
5. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59nqv8/johnny-depp-forced-to-turn-medical-records-over-to-amber-heard
6. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ive-seen-how-institutions-protect-men-accused-of-abuse-heres-what-we-can-do/2018/12/18/71fd876a-02ed-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html?noredirect=on
7. https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/high-profile/depp%20v%20heard/cl-2019-0002911_complaint_8766635_03_01_2019.pdf
8. https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/high-profile/depp%20v%20heard/cl-2019-0002911_motion_8871369_04_11_2019.pdf
9. https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/opinions/cl-2019-2911-depp-v-heard.pdf
10. https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/high-profile/depp%20v%20heard/cl-2019-2911-defendant-motion-to-compel-plaintiff-to-produce-documents-9-12-2019.pdf
11. https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/high-profile/depp%20v%20heard/cl-2019-2911-plaintiffs-opp-to-mot-to-compel-10-4-2019.pdf
12. https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/high-profile/depp%20v%20heard/cl-2019-2911-order-on-compel-10-18-2019.pdf
13. Mauet, T. A., & Marcus, D. W. (2015). Pretrial (9th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer.(Pg 249)
14. Mauet, T. A., & Marcus, D. W. (2015). Pretrial (9th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer.(Pg 339)
15. Mauet, T. A., & Marcus, D. W. (2015). Pretrial (9th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer.(Pg 339)

Additional Sources:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/05/22/timeline-johnny-depp-amber-heards-ongoing-legal-battle/#comments-wrapper

•  https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2016/06/07/amber-heard-arrested-2009-charge-hitting-girlfriend/85563338/

• https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37

• https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26

• https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/johnny-depps-50m-defamation-suit-amber-heard-allowed-virginia-1227186

• https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/johnny-depp-amber-heard-defamation-lawsuit

• https://pagesix.com/2019/09/12/johnny-depp-wont-release-drugs-alcohol-documents-in-defamation-suit-against-amber-heard/

• https://www.courthousenews.com/johnny-depp-ordered-to-hand-over-medical-records-to-ex-wife/

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity vs. Title VII: Who is covered?

Issue:

The protection of sexual orientation and gender identity has been a hot topic the last two years. A lot of the focus was for individuals who identify as Transgender and the use of public restrooms. The focus has shifted recently and this last week the Supreme Court has been “divided in deciding if Title VII of the Civil rights act from 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. (which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate because of a person’s sex) also covers sexual orientation and transgender status”. [1]

Case:

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia is the case being argued in the Supreme Court. Oral arguments were scheduled to start October 8, 2019 in The United States Supreme Court. Gerald Bostock was the child welfare services coordinator for the Juvenile Court of Clayton County, Georgia. He was in a gay recreational softball league. It is alleged that in June 2013 “Bostock’s participation in the gay softball league and his sexual orientation were openly criticized by someone with significant influence in the Clayton County court system.”[5] Bostock’s employment was terminated for the reason of “conduct unbecoming of a county employee.” Bostock denies he engaged in misconduct and alleged he was terminated for his sexual orientation. Bostock filed charges against the county alleging his termination violated Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964. The county moved to dismiss the case arguing it does not violate Title VII and Bostock is not protected from discrimination due to his sexual orientation. A federal magistrate judge dismissed the case and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia affirmed that decision holding “the Eleventh Circuit has foreclosed the possibility of a Title VII action alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as a form of sex discrimination.” [5] On appeal the 11^th Circuit affirmed the U.S. district court’s judgment. [4]

Divided Opinions:

The last two years the Trump administration “has argued that current federal civil rights laws do not provide protections for employees who are fired or discriminated against because of their LGBTQ status, and that Congress would need to change the law to extend protections to that group.”[2] Many human rights activist and the LGBTQ community feel that the Trump administration has gone backwards in regards to protection and equal rights for the LGBTQ community and the rhetoric of the Trump administration has increased hate crimes and violence within their communities. These same groups feel it is up to the Democrats to step up and undo what the Trump administration has done. It appears the Supreme Court has been divided in their arguments this week. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito said, “People will say that whether Title VII should prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a big policy issue, and it is a different policy issue from the one that Congress thought it was addressing in 1964.”[3] Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated “that Congress wasn't thinking about sexual harassment then, either, but the courts later ruled that it is also prohibited by the civil rights law.” [3] And Justice Sonia Sotomayor who is considered another court liberal asked “At what point does a court continue to allow invidious discrimination? We can't deny that homosexuals are being fired just for who they are." [3] With the Supreme Court so divided the deciding vote may lay in the hands of Justice Neil Gorsuch who was appointed by Trump. Gorsuch appears to be “receptive to the argument that no matter what Congress had in mind in 1964, the words of the law would apply to sexual orientation, if not transgender status as well.” [3]

Questions

1.   Should sexual orientation and gender identity fall under the protected class of a person’s sex under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

2.   Or should this be something that is handled at the State levels? If you feel it should be handled at the State levels, what is your reasoning for this? (you may also be undecided and explain why)

Sources: 

1.      https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/10/politics/lgbtq-2020-issues/index.html

2.      https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-appears-divided-over-lgbtq-job-discrimination-n1063886

3.      https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/central-figures-supreme-court-lgbtq-discrimination-cases-speak-out-n1064391

4.      Supreme Court of the United States, "Questions presented: 17-1618 Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga," accessed October 09, 2019

5.      https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1618/48357/20180525170054025_36418%20pdf%20Sutherland%20br.pdf

Liebeck v. McDonalds Case:The Coffee Lawsuit

                  Liebeck v. McDonalds

Background

In 1992,  Stella Liebeck went through a drive-through at McDonald's and ordered a cup of hot coffee. When she removed the lid to add cream and sugar, the coffee spilled and caused 3rd-degree burns on her groin, inner thighs and buttocks. The jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages (1). 

How did this happen? What happened during the pretrial and the process of obtaining a settlement? And how did this case set a precedent over holding corporations responsible for the rights/safety of consumers?

Pre-Trial

Before Ms. Liebeck even filed her lawsuit, she asked for compensation for her medical bills of $11,000, which later increased to $90,000. In return, McDonald offered nothing more than $800 for the debridement, skin graphing and scarring left from the incident. On January 21, 1994, the defendants moved for summary judgment and the motion was denied. A hearing was conducted on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Then on July 29, 1994, Judge Scott denied the Plaintiff’s motion as to liability. As we have read from M&M, Judges often use pretrial conferences to facilitate or even force settlement discussions as a case nears trial. That’s what Judge Robert Hayes Scott tried to do. He ordered the parties into a mediated settlement conference where the mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald’s settle for $225,000 (2). McDonald’s refused all attempts to settle the case. In their effort to avoid settling, they wound up having to pay alot more.

Trial

The case went to court and after seven days of evidence, testimony, and arguments of counsel, The jury found that McDonald’s was liable on the claims of product defect, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.  The jury found that Ms. Liebeck was 20% at fault, so their initial $200,000 award was reduced to $160,000. In addition, the jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s reckless and malicious conduct. Following the jury verdict and the trial court’s reduction of the punitive damages award, both parties appealed. Before the case was heard on appeal, the parties settled out-of-court for an undisclosed sum. When the settlement was announced, McDonald put out warnings on its coffees as well as other fast-food chains (3)

Aftermath

When word of this case went mainstream, there were misconceptions that frivolous cases could allow an individual to manipulate the legal system. Ms. Liebeck’s intent, however was to hold big corporations accountable for the injuries of their consumers. That McDonald’s coffee was unreasonably dangerous because it was excessively hot (4). In the media’s attempt to condense the case, new versions of the truth began to arise and villanize Ms. Liebeck. It even brought about the Common Sense legal reform act of 1995 and had become part of cultural discourse.    

Question

Even if a product was not handled properly, does it give corporations a pass if their product is dangerous and could potentially injure someone when and if used properly? Basically, was this just another frivolous lawsuit or a case that held some validity in the way corporations dismissed customers' rights/safety for the sake of industrial production?

1) https://www.caoc.org/?enableMobile=0&pg=facts

2) http://www.jtexconsumerlaw.com/V11N1/Coffee.pdf

3)  http://abnormaluse.com/2011/01/stella-liebeck-mcdonalds-hot-coffee.html

4)http://www.gwblawfirm.com/liebeck-v-mcdonalds-restaurants-original-coffee-product-liability-case/

How to Gamble in Vegas

The Background

Almost two years ago to the day, the deadliest mass shooting in American history took place in Las Vegas. 58 people were killed and hundreds wounded (1). The setting was a country music festival, Route 91 Harvest Country, located on the Vegas strip directly across the street from the Mandalay Bay casino. On October 1, 2017, Stephen Paddock opened fire from the 32nd floor of the casino and shot randomly into the festival crowd.The MGM Grand, owner of both the festival’s land and the Mandalay Bay hotel, immediately began receiving lawsuits.

MGM’s reaction to the lawsuits was both surprising and aggressive. Under Article III of the Constitution and Rule 57 of the FRCP, they filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief against the victims that were suing them (2).

On what basis?

MGM’s pre-emptive strike was based on a statute from 2002 that had never before been litigated called the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act or SAFETY Act (3). The law was created in the aftermath of September 11th to put damages caps on products and services designed to protect American citizens including things like cybersecurity measures and airport security equipment. The Department of Homeland Security decided who qualified for the list and therefore who would receive these protections. 

The security company organization for the Route 91 Harvest Country music festival was CSC and they were on this specific list. MGM argued that the CSC should be held liable for the shooting because it was a terrorist attack and the Department of Homeland Security endorsed the CSC. In short, MGM argued that the shooting should be covered under the SAFETY act.

Other than garnering some very bad press (4) MGM did not receive a minimized risk of litigation. Also, the Department of Homeland Security has still never declared the shooting an actual “terrorist” event. It was estimated that the litigation between MGM and the victims’ families would take an approximate 15 years (5).

Conclusion

As a result, MGM entered mediation with the victims families. Eight months later, a settlement was reached awarding $751 million dollars to the victims’ fund, the third- largest payout next to the September 11th fund and BP Oil. MGM’s insurance will cover the cost. Payouts are expected to begin in May 2020.(6) It has been only two years since the shooting, making this one of the fastest settlements for a victims fund in modern American history (7).

Questions

Do you believe MGM is at fault? Who should be held responsible for a victims fund? Do you think the same outcome in mediation would have happened without MGM’s aggressive first move?

Sources

1. https://www.law.com/natioallawjournal2018/12/26/mgms-fight-for-safety-act-protection-paused/
2. MGM Resorts International v. Acosta, No. 2:18-cv-01288 (D. Nev. filed Jan. 2, 2019).
3. https://www.safetyact.gov/
4. www.abajournal.com/news/article/mgm_resorts_uses_an_obscure_law_to_sue_las_vegas_mass_shooting_victims
5. https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/mgm-resorts-sues-victims-of-las-vegas-shooting
6. lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c94c1815-673f-491e-95c0-8c42503f76ce
7. https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2019/10/07/mgm-settles-with-the-victims-of-the-las-vegas-mass-shooting