Author Archive

Eight-Legged Dream Home Tenants Create Nightmare for Homeowners

October 17th, 2014. By LucyC

When Winning Your Lawsuit Just Isn’t Enough…

Talk about Caveat Emptor. A couple who purchased an upscale home next to golf course in a suburb of St. Louise, MO, got more than the nest of their dreams—turns out it was also the dream home for some 6,000 brown recluse spiders—which, incidentally, are venomous.

The couple bought the house in 2007 for $450,000. Shortly after moving in they discovered the spider problem. After unsuccessfully trying to evict their unwanted tenants, through various strategies including interior and exterior pesticides, Brian and Susan Trost filed a claim with their insurer—State Farm, only to have it denied. So they sued the former owners for failure to disclose. They stated in their lawsuit that the spiders and their telltale webs were absent during the couple’s final walk-through.  However, shortly after moving in—ie the first day, the spider problem became apparent. In fact, Susan Trost stated that once when showering a spider fell from the ceiling and washed down the drain, narrowly missing her. Time to find a hotel!!!

In 2012, Mrs. Trost told St. Louis television station KMOV-TV the spiders “started bleeding out of the walls,” and at least two pest control companies were unable to eradicate the infestation. I see a movie script here…

In 2011, during a civil trial in St. Charles County, one of the county’s leading experts on brown recluse spiders, Jamel Sandidge, a professor of biology at University of Kansas,  estimated there were between 4,500 and 6,000 spiders in the home. Making matters worse, he said, those calculations were made in the winter when the spiders are least active. Really, really not what you want to hear.

The Trosts, not surprisingly, won their lawsuit against the previous home owners, but were unable to collect the judgement of $472,000, because, State Farm, the previous home owners’ insurers, claimed that the former owners’ policy lacked coverage and refused to pay. Then, the previous owners filed bankruptcy. Nice.

Although the Trosts have filed suit against State Farm for denying their original claim, they moved out of the house and allowed it to go into foreclosure. Because the previous owners filed bankruptcy—the Trosts, may never see their money.

According to the St. Louis Dispatch, the home, now owned by the Federal National Mortgage Association, was covered with nine tarps this week and workers filled it with a gas that permeated the walls to kill the spiders and their eggs. “There’ll be nothing alive in there after this,” said Tim McCarthy, president of the company hired to fix the problem once and for all.

I can’t help wondering about the neighbors—if I lived next door, I’d be really worried…

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See, Emerging Issues | No Comments »

Asbestos News Roundup: 10.15.14 – $10 Million Asbestos Research Program to Launch

October 15th, 2014. By LucyC

A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.

$10M Asbestos Research Program to Look at Causes, Cures of Asbestos Disease 

Researchers at the Center of Excellence in Environmental Toxicology (CEET), Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, have been awarded a $10 million grant from the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) over the next four years to study asbestos exposure pathways that lead to mesothelioma, the bioremediation of this hazardous material and mechanisms that lead to asbestos-related diseases. One of these, mesothelioma, a rare cancer diagnosed in about 3,000 patients each year, is caused almost exclusively by exposure to asbestos. The disease is usually fatal with very poor prognosis once diagnosed.

The Penn Superfund Research and Training Program (SRP) Center, which was established by this grant, evolved as a direct consequence of concerns from the community living near the BioRit Asbestos Superfund site in Ambler, PA, about 20 miles north of Philadelphia.

This award is the first NIEHS Superfund grant driven by problems identified in a community-academic partnership. CEET’s Community Outreach and Engagement Core (COEC) has facilitated bi-directional communication with the Ambler community for the last five years. The communities of West and South Ambler have long been active in studying the ramifications of their town’s long-closed asbestos factory.

Residents in these communities remain at risk for environmental exposure and a potentially increased risk of developing mesothelioma.

From the late 1880s through the present day, Ambler residents have had either occupational or environmental exposure to asbestos. As a result, both current and former residents of the area face potentially serious long-term health consequences. The Pennsylvania Department of Health, with the aid of the COEC, determined that there has been an increase in the rate of mesothelioma in the area compared to the adjacent zip codes, with women having a greater risk than men. The researchers are hopeful that continued investigation and education will yield more information about exposure pathways that led to these health risks.

The new Center will tackle two inter-related environmental science studies and four biomedical science studies. The six projects were designed to address a community-based question or concern that had been previously identified by the COEC:

• Can we remediate asbestos without moving it from the original disposal site?

• What do we know about the fate and transport of asbestos in the environment by water and air?

• What do we know about the exposure pathways that were responsible for the mesothelioma cluster in Ambler? And why is the incidence higher in women?

• Is susceptibility to mesothelioma genetic?

• Can asbestos-related disease be prevented?

• Is there a blood test to determine whether a person will get asbestos-related disease? 

Asbestos Lawsuits

Jefferson County, WV: The family of a man who recently died after exposure to asbestos have filed an asbestos lawsuit against his former employer Gulf Oil/Chevron in Jefferson County.

In their complaint, Dolores Belton, Carla Mahan and Myra Mitchell allege  their husband and father, Jack Belton, during the course of his employment with the defendant was exposed to toxic materials, including asbestos dust and fibers. “As a result of such exposure, Jack Belton, developed an asbestos-related disease, asbestosis, from which he died a painful and terrible death on March 6, 2014,” the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs allege Chevron is responsible for their loved one’s injuries, saying the company knew that the products could case asbestosis and other related cancers but still allowed their employees to work around the products. In their complaint, the plaintiffs seek unspecified exemplary and punitive damages plus costs. (wvrecord.com)

Jefferson County, WV: Rosemary Philmon, surviving spouse of Jesse Philmon, and Terry and Ryan Philmon, his surviving children, have filed an asbestos  lawsuit against Chevron USA Inc. alleging the company exposed Jess Philmon to asbestos during the course of his employment at Chevron. This exposure resulted in his developing lung cancer and subsequently dying from it.

According to the complaint, Jesse Philmon was was allegedly “exposed to toxic materials including asbestos dust and fibers,” while employed by Gulf Oil/Chevron in Jefferson County.

Philmon developed lung cancer “from which he died a painful and terrible death March 6, 2013,” the lawsuit states.

Philmon’s family alleges Chevron has known for decades that asbestos-containing products could cause asbestos-related cancers but still allowed employees to be exposed to it on the job. They accuse the company of gross negligence for allegedly failing to take the necessary precautions or provide adequate training for Jesse Philmon.

Rosemary Philmon and her sons seek an unspecified amount in exemplary and punitive damages. (wvrecord.com)

Tags: Asbestos, asbestos lawsuit, Asbestos Mesothelioma, asbestos risk, Asbestos Settlement
Posted in Asbestos Mesothelioma | 1 Comment »

Facebook Fake Case Filed: How far can the Government go?

October 10th, 2014. By LucyC

In addition to being very creepy—the allegations made in a lawsuit brought by a woman whose identity was used by federal agents to create a bogus Facebook page, really brings home the question—does the end justify the means?

Apparently not, according to Sondra Arquiett, whose former identify—i.e. her maiden name, a photo and personal history—were used by federal agents as part of a sting against drug buyers.

The story goes, according to the lawsuit, that DEA Agent Timothy Sinnigen used information and personal photos stored on Sondra Arquiett’s cell phone, which had been confiscated in a drug bust in 2010. At that time, Sondra Arquiett, then 28, went under her married name of Sondra Price. She was charged, found guilty and given probation for her minor role in a cocaine ring.

Sinnigen used the data on Arquiett’s phone to make a remarkably accurate “Sondra Price” Facebook page, according to her federal lawsuit. In fact, the page had accurate information on where she went to high school, what car she drove and her nickname—“Sosa”. Information taken from her confiscated cell phone and posted as part of the bogus identity also included the fact that she had at least one child, according to Buzzfeed, which originally reported the story. First question on this—what gives the feds the right to do this? Second question—are they putting her and her children at risk?

Arquiett’s lawyer, Donald Kinsella, told The New York Post “Agents of the government should not should not be doing this. The ‘capital-G government’ did this.” He said his client is no longer on probation and has led a crime-free life since that 2010 bust. Arquiett is suing Sinnigen and the US government for punitive and compensatory damages totaling a half-million dollars. I should think so.

According to Arquiett’s lawsuit, she was arrested on July 15, 2010, and the Facebook page was created the next month. It was operated for at least three months by Agent Sinnigen, who accepted “Sondra Price’s” friend requests. “Sinnigen then utilized the Facebook page to initiate contact with dangerous individuals he was investigating with regard to an alleged narcotics distribution ring,” according to the lawsuit

“She suffered fear and great emotional distress because, by posing as her on Facebook, Sinnigen had created the appearance that [Arquiett] was willfully cooperating in his investigation of the narcotics trafficking ring, thereby placing her in danger,” the lawsuit contends. Her lawyer wouldn’t say whether or not Arquiettt had faced any threats or had to deal with dodgy characters as a result of the FB page. And, it isn’t clear whether or not the page actually led to any arrests.

Kinsella declined to say whether his client ever met any shady characters or faced a threat because of it.

According to The Post, the DEA isn’t disputing the facts in the lawsuit, but insists Arquiett lost all rights to her cellphone data when her phone was confiscated. She “implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cellphone’’ and lost all control of how it was used, according to the feds’ legal papers. This sounds like identity hijacking—if you’ve got someone by the short and curlies—what choice do they have about surrendering their rights?

Apparently both sides have agreed on a mediator and hope to resolve the dispute instead of going to trial, Kinsella said.

In a way it would be good if this suit did go to court—it raises so many questions around the use of personal data in the digital age. Bottom line, not only is big brother watching—he’s using.

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See, Emerging Issues | No Comments »

NYC Million Dollar Condos with a Side of Garlic? That’s a Lawsuit Cookin’!

October 9th, 2014. By LucyC

Tenants from hell?

Residents of a luxury New York apartment block on the upper east side  are suing their tenant, a ground-floor high-end greasy spoon—not for noise violations, not for late night closings—but for stinking the building out. There is such a thing as too much garlic, it seems.

Just for context, three bedroom condos in The Isis (maybe they should sue for a name change while they’re at it, eh?) on East 77th go for $2.8 million. Not exactly chump change. But included in that price, now, is eau du steak et frites avec garlic, eau du boeuf burger avec garlic, and eau du garlic avec garlic, courtesy of the French-Italian bistro, Vella, the alleged tenant-from-hell on the ground floor.

Members of the board of The Isis, apparently thought they were getting an odor-restrained wine bar when they rented out the unit in 2012. No cooking, just reheating with menu items that involve nothing more complicated than a hotplate (sounds like my kitchen). At least that’s what they’re claiming in their lawsuit.

The Vella started serving hamburgers, chicken and bacon without proper venting or fire-safety devices, the lawsuit states. Wonder if they’re serving fish…now that could get ugly.

According to the lawsuit, “The prohibited cooking is causing strong odors that permeate the entire Isis building and is a nuisance to the residential-unit owners of the condominium.” Dr. Yariv Houvras, 44, who lives with his wife and three children on the third floor, said the stink of garlic and roasted meat has saturated their apartment. “Imagine your closet full of clothes smelling like really, really pungent garlicky food,” he said. Oh yeah baby! Nothing like putting on your best suit and knocking people out with panache and the stale smells of yesterday’s blue plate.

Ben Ahn and his family, who live on the second floor of the Isis, said there is a “constant smell in our master bedroom, bathroom and closet space.” No comment.

Marc Landis, who represents the Isis residents, said, “The restaurant owner should not be allowed to conduct its business so irresponsibly. Our clients and their families have the right to enjoy their homes, free of noxious smells, unreasonable noise and risk of fire.” Oh yes—risk of fire—forgot about that one.

Stuart Shaw, an attorney for the commercial unit’s owner, 168 Madison Ave. LLC, said there are no violations and a study by the board found that there isn’t an actual odor issue. And the manager of Vella, Pavel Srbecky said, “We’re all up to code. We didn’t breach anything.” I’m not sure being up to code negates violating people’s air space with noxious fumes, but the judge hearing the suit turfed the Isis board’s emergency bid to shut down Vella’s kitchen. He did, however, leave the suit for $50,000 in damages against the restaurant and the commercial unit’s owner standing.

In case you’re in the area and fancy a nibble—or are just plain curious, The Yorkville eatery serves a $31 filet mignon with gratin potato and $24 braised short ribs with seasoned mixed vegetables.

 

Posted in Emerging Issues, Totally Tortelicious | No Comments »

OH Jay Z! Two-Letter Word Sparks Infringement Lawsuit

September 25th, 2014. By LucyC

“OH” my god—are you kidding? It’s a copyright trolling lawsuit but it may be one for the books. BUT seriously folks—it’s over the use of one word. Set to be precedent setting—according to legal scholars—Rapper Jay Z is in a legal battle for the use of an “oh” shout allegedly taken from a 1969 recording made by Eddie Bo. (who?)

Yup. Our finest legal brains are at work here to make sure that no-one goes without. Jay Z uses the “oh” just once in his song “Run This Town.” According to the lawsuit, currently being duked out in New York, the “oh” is taken from the Eddie Bo’s song “Hook & Sling Part 1” recorded in 1969. That was last century and I’m betting Jay Z’s audience isn’t old enough to remember 1969.

The lawsuit against Jay Z accuses him of “wilful, wanton, and reckless tortuous conduct,” for his use of Bo’s recorded “oh,” according to court documents filed by lawyer Kelly D. Talcott of behalf of TufAmerican Inc—the plaintiff.

Jay Z’s legal team, who are not napping on this one, hit back by noting that the rapper barely uses the “oh”, and notably, plenty of people besides Bo have said “oh.”

“The snippet at issue consists solely of the shouted word ‘oh’ that appears once in Plaintiff’s Recording, at approximately the 0.03 mark of the introduction of Plaintiff’s Recording and lasts a fraction of a second,” write Jay Z’s lawyer Ilene S. Farkas, in her response to the lawsuit.

You try to hear that “Oh”…

So what do the experts think? According to Bobby Glushko, a communications and copyright librarian at the University of Toronto, in Canada, the case has a significance that goes far beyond the songs in question. Say what?

“Rap is so based on sampling,” Glushko said in an interview. He pointed out that rappers who don’t have Jay Z’s financial clout could benefit from any legal precedent he manages to set in this case. “There are plenty of people out there who just have to roll over because they don’t have the resources to fight it,” Glushko said. I’ll bet.

Ariel Katz, a law Professor also at U of T, weighed in stating that it was tough to say there was a substantial similarity between the ‘oh’ from Bo and the ‘oh from Jay Z. “Rap and many other forms of expression are based on taking parts of others’ works,” Katz said.

In Jay Z’s response to the lawsuit, Farkas argues that American courts have already tossed out similar lawsuits regarding sampling of the expressions, “Now I want y’all to break this down,” “you’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything,” “it’s the hottest thing,” “step up front,” “get down” and “holla back.”

If Jay Z loses the lawsuit, the court can’t award any money to Bo (real name Edwin Joseph Bocage), since he died in 2009 at the age of 78. “Oh” my god—do I feel old (could I get sued for that?)

So who stands to benefit from this? Answer—TufAmerican, Inc., a New York corporation that owns Tuff City Music Group, which bought up Scram Records, which owned the original song—“Hook & Sling Part 1”.

For the record, pardon the pun, Bo had a long and distinguished recording career, having laid down tracks with over 40 labels. TufAmerican, Inc is riffing on that, arguing that “The ‘Hook & Sling’ master is unique intellectual property subject to common-law copyright protection under the law of the State of New York.”

Well, yes, but…if we’ve gotten to the point where we copyright common usage monosyllables, we’re all in trouble.

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See | No Comments »