JD Journal » US District Judge

26 States File Brief to Get Health Care Overhaul Struck Down

aostler — Thu, 05 May 2011 17:02:57 +0000

On Wednesday, May 4, 26 states filed a motion with the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is located in Atlanta, in order to try and uphold US District Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling that the main requirement of Obama’s new health care overhaul is unconstitutional.

The states argue in the that if the law was allowed to continue, it would set a bad precedent that “would imperil individual liberty, render Congress’s other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states.”

Although three federal judges that are Democrats have upheld the new health care law, two Republican judges, including Vinson, have ruled against it. The case will most likely end up at the US Supreme Court.

Vinson’s ruling was appealed by the US Justice Department about a month ago. They argued that it was within Congress’ power to require health insurance for most Americans with tax penalties given if they did not buy it, since Congress has power in the regulation of interstate business.

If the new health care law is able to survive these back and forth court battles, people who aren’t covered by their own policy, an employer, or a government program will face fines from the IRS starting in 2014, which is when the health care program will be in place.

$680 Million Settlement Reached between USDA and Native American Farmers

aostler — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 22:59:37 +0000

In a class action lawsuit that was filed more than 11 years ago, justice has finally been served to thousands of Native American farmers.

On Thursday, April 28, US District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted approval of a $680 million settlement for Native Americans from the USDA, known as the Keepseagle settlement. The USDA had allegedly been discriminating against Native American farmers and ranchers across the US by denying them low-interest loans, which has caused economic losses to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

As part of the settlement, the USDA is also required to forgive up to $80 million in unpaid loan debt and improve the farm loan options that it offers to Native Americans.

According to the lead plaintiffs’ attorney Joseph M. Sellers, who is with Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, “Under this settlement, Native American farmers and ranchers will finally receive the compensation and justice they deserve, and we will undertake a process to ensure that the USDA treats Native Americans equally and fairly.”

NFL Lockout Update: League Owners Request Denied by Judge

aostler — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:31:58 +0000

Late Wednesday, April 28, US District Judge Susan Richard Nelson denied the NFL owners request to stay her ruling to end the NFL lockout.

Nelson wrote that the NFL “has not met its burden for a stay pending appeal, expedited or otherwise.”

As a result of her rejecting their request, the NFL owners will appeal Nelson’s decisions in this case with the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is located in St. Louis. A ruling for the appeal with the court will probably take about 60 days.

NFL players are happy with the recent ruling by Nelson as well as her decision to deny to NFL owners request to stay her ruling.

In order to get a stay granted to them, NFL owners need to show that they are likely to win the case and that not granting a stay will cause irreparable harm.

The battle continues in this fierce case between NFL players and owners. So far the players are definitely winning, but much hope for the owners rests on what happens in the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals and the decision that is made there. The 8^th Circuit is generally seen as more friendly to businesses and the owners are hoping that the court sees their side. We’ll keep you updated in this ongoing legal battle as more events unfold.

NFL Lockout Halted by US District Judge – For Now

aostler — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:34:23 +0000

In the battle between NFL players and owners, the players are currently ahead in the game. On April 25, 2011, US District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson granted a preliminary injunction request by the NFL Players Association to end the lockout that was started by NFL owners this March.

NFL owners filed a notice of appeal with the court the night that the preliminary injunction was granted. The NFL is most likely going to request a stay in the implementation of Nelson’s ruling because of the chaos that will be caused if the lockout remains stopped. If Nelson declines to issue a stay, the NFL will then go to the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals.

After the ruling was issued, some players and agents stated that they were intending to show up at their respective team facilities, in order to earn offseason workout bonuses that are part of their contract. The reason that this could cause chaos is that the NFL is not open for business yet for this season. This means that the rules haven’t been set in place yet for this season by league owners. Most players are planning on waiting to see what happens before they decide what to do next.

According to Greg Aiello, league spokesman, “We do not intend to start the league year until we have had an opportunity to seek a stay.”

The NFL owners hope to be able to reach a collective bargaining agreement by the end of this dispute. We’ll keep you posted on what happens next in this ongoing battle.

SF Chronicle Outs Judge Walker

joshua — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:08:29 +0000

Judge Vaughn Walker, the presiding judge in the trial over California’s Prop 8, has been outed by the San Francisco Chronicle. “The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay”, says a column in Sunday’s edition.

It may have been an open secret in some circles, but for much of the country it will come as a surprise to find out that the judge presiding over a trial to determine the constitutionality of an initiative to ban gay marriage is himself gay. Judge Walker has refused to confirm or deny the story, and in fact has been viewed in the past with distrust by the gay and lesbian community for work he did as an attorney for the US Olympic Committee in challenging the Gay Olympics’ use of the trademarked word “Olympics”.

The question now is, assuming he is in fact gay, will that affect his decision in the case?

We are all colored by the events that compose our lives and it is difficult to imagine that Judge Walker isn’t similarly affected by his accumulated experiences. But in what way? Much ado was made in the trial about the persecution felt by gay men and women and the need for constitutional protections. Vaughn Walker is a federal judge, a position of authority and respect. Will he discount the notion that he needs special protections? On the other hand, he’s a private person who has never openly admitted to being gay – does he wish that he could be more open about who he is without fearing his career would be in jeopardy?

If the final outcome rests on he degree of persecution felt by gays, then it seems self evident that Judge Walker’s backgroun will bias him in one direction or the other. But would a straight judge be any less biased?

Law Firm Hirings & Firings

Erik Even — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:39:51 +0000

Recent laterals and layoffs in the legal sector:

US District Court Judge Bruce Kauffman is stepping down next week, and will join Philadelphia’s Elliott Greenleaf law firm. Kauffman will co-chair the firm’s executive committee. He is a former Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice.

Paul Battaglia joins Williams Kastner in Seattle as of counsel. He handles real estate, leasing, and collections matters. Battaglia earned his JD from the University of Washington School of Law in 1991.

Anthony F. Newton joins Seyfarth Shaw in Houston, from Franklin Cardwell & Jones. He joins as of counsel to Seyfath’s Corporate & Finance Practice Group. He earned his JD cum laude from the University of Houston Law Center, and his LL.M in Taxation from the Georgetown University Law Center.

Bar Shuts Down Three Offices of ‘Vexatious Litigant’

Erik Even — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:36:20 +0000

The State Bar of California has shuttered three Southern California offices of attorney Mitchell W. Roth, who was recently declared a vexatious litigant by a federal judge in Los Angeles.

Roth has been hospitalized due to severe depression since January 23rd.

On January 30th, US District Judge Manuel Real of the Central District of California declared Roth, who has filed dozens of lawsuits in recent months, a vexatious litigant.

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

The State Bar, using a court order, shut down Roth’s offices in Sherman Oaks, San Diego and Riverside.

A recording at his Sherman Oaks office said: “Due to the illness of attorney Mitchell W. Roth, this law office is temporarily closed.”

The State Bar will inventory the files of Roth’s law firm and notify clients of the developments.

Roth was an unsuccessful candidate for Superior Court Judge in 2004. He graduated from St. John’s University School of Law in New York.

Sexual Abuse Charges Mount Against Federal Judge

Erik Even — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:43:38 +0000

US District Judge Samuel B. Kent of the Southern District of Texas, who faces trial on in Houston on three federal criminal charges, pleaded not guilty Wednesday to three additional charges in a superseding indictment.

The indictment brings one count of aggravated sexual abuse, one count of abusive sexual contact and one count of obstruction of justice against Kent.

Kent, a longtime Galveston federal judge who has been hearing civil cases in Houston for the past year, is free on a personal recognizance bond.

Federal prosecutors were granted a 55-minute closed-court session on Wednesday. The prosecutors, and Kent’s attorney, Dick DeGuerin of Houston, cannot speak to the press under a gag order by presiding Judge Roger Vinson. DeGuerin has complained publicly and in court about the gag order.

In September 2008, Kent pleaded not guilty to the original three charges, which are two counts of abusive sexual contact and one count of attempted aggravated sexual abuse. Those charges stem from a complaint filed by Kent’s former case manager in Galveston, Cathy McBroom, but the alleged victim in the superseding indictment is only identified as “Person B.”

Here’s where the story gets a bit NSFW:

The government alleges that on one or more occasions, Kent, while at the US Post Office and Courthouse in Galveston, “did engage and attempt to engage in contact between his mouth and Person B’s vulva by force and did penetrate and attempt to penetrate the genital opening of Person B by a hand and finger by force with an intent to abuse, humiliate, degrade and arouse and gratify the sexual desire of any person.”

As to the new abusive sexual conduct charge, the indictment alleges that during the same time frame, Kent “did engage in the intentional touching, directly and through the clothing, of the genitalia, groin, breast, inner thigh, and buttocks of Person B with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, and arouse and gratify the sexual desire of any person.”

The maximum punishment on the new abusive sexual contact charge is two years in prison. The maximum punishment on the new aggravated sexual abuse charge is life in prison and/or a $250,000 fine, and the maximum punishment on the new obstruction of justice charge is 20 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine.

Kent denies the charges.

Dewey & LeBoeuf Wants $100,000 a Day — Judge Says “No”

Erik Even — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 00:02:02 +0000

A federal judge, citing excessive hours and unreasonably high rates, ordered a 20% reduction in fees for a law firm helping to protect the assets of investment company WexTrust Capital.

Given a long-established principle that lawyers working in receivership situations should be awarded moderate fees, “the request for fees of $2,147,666 for 20 days of work is excessive,” said US District Judge Denny Chin in Manhattan.

Lawyers, paralegals and staff at New York’s Dewey & LeBoeuf logged over 5,500 hours on the WexTrust case, or more than 275 hours a day.

Chin determined that the law firm should receive $1.7 million for the work performed between August 11th and 31st. Dewey & LeBoeuf may apply for the difference between what it sought and what he awarded when the final distribution of WexTrust assets is made.

The law firm’s request was part of a joint application for compensation by Timothy Coleman, the court-appointed receiver for WexTrust and a partner at Dewey & LeBoeuf.

Chin approved the full amount of Coleman’s request for $57,300 in receiver’s fees. Coleman’s hourly rate had been cut to $250 specifically for the WexTrust case, from his standard rate of $850 to $950. The judge also approved a request of $66,640 in fees for the accounting and advisory firm Deloitte Financial Advisory Services.

Chicago-based WexTrust and two of its owners, Joseph Shereshevsky and Steven Byers, were charged by the SEC with defrauding investors by diverting $100 million of funds to unauthorized uses. Afterward, the court froze the defendants’ assets and appointed Coleman as WexTrust’s receiver.

Via PilotOnline.

Nader “Unlawful Litigation” Suit Against Kerry-Edwards Shot Down Again

Erik Even — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:59:42 +0000

The Legal Times Blog reports that a US district judge has dismissed Ralph Nader’s latest attempt to prove he was the target of a conspiracy by the Kerry-Edwards campaign to keep him off the presidential ballot.

In October 2007, as much of the country began turning its attention to a new and promising presidential showdown, Nader filed suit against the defunct ’04 Democratic ticket, accusing it of launching “a massive, nationwide unlawful litigation assault” on his campaign. The suit, originally filed in D.C. Superior Court, was eventually removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where it was finally dismissed this May on jurisdiction grounds.

Nader, represented by Center for Competitive Democracy founder Oliver Hall, filed a second version of the suit with the District Court. But in an opinion released today, Judge Ricardo Urbina determined that Nader’s second try was too similar to his first and dismissed the updated complaint.

According to Nader counsel Carl Mayer:

…this was the most massive anti-democratic campaign to eliminate a third-party candidate from the ballot in… recent American history. Not content with having all these laws and statutes on the book that make it difficult for third-party and independent candidates to run, the Democratic Party and their allies in over fifty-three law firms, with over ninety lawyers, were engaged in filing litigation in eighteen states. They were to remove Ralph Nader from the ballot. It was an organized, abusive litigation process.

The core of the lawsuit is that these lawyers, led by Toby Moffett and Elizabeth Holtzman, and something called the “Ballot Project,” which was a 527 organization, systematically went around the country and filed lawsuit after lawsuit, twenty-four in all, plus five FEC complaints, to try to completely remove the Nader campaign from the ballot and to, in effect, bankrupt the campaign, which they succeeded in doing. Not content with that, one of the defendants, Reed Smith, which is a large corporate law firm in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, they are now going after Ralph Nader’s personal bank account to make him pay some of the cost of this litigation.

Ralph Nader is an American attorney, author, lecturer, political activist, and perennial candidate for Presidency, as an independent candidate for President in 2004 and 2008, and a Green Party candidate in 1996 and 2000.