NFL Players Cry Foul over Settlement Liens

May 5th, 2016. By LucyC

Attorneys behaving badly—or is it a case of consumer fraud?—or maybe it’s all fiction to begin with. Whatever it may be, it’s certainly an interesting twist on the client-attorney relationship.

Remember the massive concussion lawsuit filed by former National Football League (NFL) footballers against the league—which recently resulted in a massive $1 billion settlement? Well, the players are now suing their attorneys over liens placed or intended to be placed on the players’ individual cuts of the settlement.

Wow. What happened to sending an invoice?

The backstory—short version—in April the $1 billion settlement was upheld against the NFL. Approved by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the revised settlement deal will resolve thousands of lawsuits brought against the league, as well as covering over 20,000 retired NFL players for the next 65 years. According to estimates by the NFL, 6,000 former players, or nearly three in 10, could develop Alzheimer’s disease or moderate dementia.

In the lawsuit filed by Gale Sayers, Lem Barney, Thomas Skladany, Thomas Vaughn, Jerry Rush, Kenneth Callicutt and Eric Hipple, (FYI—Sayers and Barney are members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame) against their former attorneys, Hausfeld; Zimmerman Reed; Locks Law Firm; Bondurant Mixson & Elmore; and Pope McGlamry, the plaintiffs have asked the court to rule that their former law firms not be entitled to liens on the players’ recovery.

The players claim they terminated their respective firms’ handling of their individual cases because they weren’t happy with the representation they were receiving. Here’s the possible consumer fraud angle—not getting the goods as advertised. But how do you measure that?

According to the lawsuit, “Defendant law firms’ efforts on ­plaintiffs’ cases have been expended exclusively in furtherance of the NFL concussion class action litigation for which some of defendant law firms will be richly compensated.”  …”But, based on information and belief, defendant law firms have made no substantive efforts in furtherance of plaintiffs’ ­individual monetary award claims under the settlement agreement, which is why plaintiffs ­terminated the relationships with the defendant firms.” In plain English—their eyes were on the big payday. Not exactly surprising.

Of course, the lawyers have a different version of events. Managing partner of Locks Law Firm, Michael Leh, said in a statement, “Locks Law Firm had not asserted an attorneys’ lien against the former player in this complaint who we represented; although we did do work on the case we would never assert a claim for fees that was not justified.”

“No law firm represents more individual former players in this litigation than we do,” he continued, “and no other firm has spent more time, effort and money than Locks Law Firm in order to obtain the maximum award possible for each of our individual clients both under the terms of the settlement agreement and through every other available avenue.”

No word from the other law firms as of yet. Don’t know if anyone will make an end-run on this one.

 

Where do you go after you Die? Family Sues for Answer

April 13th, 2016. By LucyC

What’s that expression—don’t shoot the messenger? What about exceptional circumstances? Ok—maybe hire a lawyer instead—but you know where we’re going with this. Just for a moment, imagine getting a phone call from a funeral home you have hired for transportation purposes only, that goes something like “So sorry, your mother’s remains were accidentally cremated, and actually, we can’t find them now.”

Yup. It really happened. A funeral home in Manhattan mistakenly cremated the remains of Consuelo Rivera, a New Jersey resident, and then lost the ashes, according to her family, who yes, filed a lawsuit. Surprised? But it gets worse—you must have known that it would.

The bungling is on par with a Marx Brothers’ film, but this script ain’t funny.

The short version, according to Michael Lamonsoff, the family’s lawyer, goes like this: Mrs. Rivera passed away on March 22 and her body was taken to Biondi Funeral Home in Nutley, NJ. In preparation for burial. So far so good. However, the two sons were not impressed with the service they were receiving and requested that their mother’s body (key point here) be taken to a funeral home in Brooklyn, the RG Ortiz Funeral Home, for preparation. A relatively straight forward request, one would think.

Not so much. The Rivera brothers hired another funeral service company (so we’re now at three), First Avenue Funeral Services of Manhattan, to transport their deceased mother from Biondi (the first funeral home) to RG Ortiz (the second funeral home).

Apparently, there was a delay in transportation—who knows what that means—and the third company—First Avenue—ended up keeping Mrs. Rivera. Still with me?

Then came the phone call, March 27, from a staff person at First Avenue, telling Mrs. Rivera’s relatives that they had accidentally cremated Mrs. Rivera. And, according to the lawsuit, her family was also told that First Avenue could not find the urn containing her ashes. Nice one boys.

Not sure how one would react to that news. But now the hunt was on.

Rivera’s sons, absolutely desperate to find their mother, began searching. However, when they thought they had found her at the Rosemont Crematorium in Elizabeth, NJ, the director of the crematorium, in fact, gave them an urn containing someone else. The wrong urn. OMG. How the heck are you going to know who’s in the urn? Not to be dark here but one set of ashes have to look pretty much like the next.

To continue, following that rather major set-back, the boys began the search anew. But the pattern of mistakes continued. Once again, the Rivera’s thought they had found their mother’s remains at First Manhattan (the third funeral home) but that information also proved incorrect.

According to their attorney, Lamonsoff, the sons were given the wrong urn. Again. Seriously. More than a week later, Rivera’s remains were still missing, the attorney told the New York Post recently.

“To date the remains of Consuelo Rivera continue to be missing and a heartbroken and bewildered family is unable to say their final goodbyes,” Lamonsoff said in a statement.

Rivera’s sons, Emilio and Juan Irizarry, who by this point must be quite traumatized by these events, are quite understandably suing all three funeral firms for damages, citing extreme negligence. I would think, however, that bungling on this level puts a whole new spin on “extreme negligence,” not to mention, “rest in peace.”
© 3drenderings | Dreamstime.com – Marble urn for ashes

Lawsuit: All Because Some Bananas went Kaflooey

March 2nd, 2016. By LucyC

Bananas flambé—so flambé in fact they’re the subject of a lawsuit. Well, it’s not just the bananas…

Business owners in Seekonk, PA, whose business was burnt to the ground by an allegedly overloaded and subsequently out of control truck full of Chiquita bananas that overturned, ruptured a gas line and sparked a fire that destroyed the Old Grist Mill Tavern—are suing. No surprise there. What is surprising, however, is Chiquita’s response to the lawsuit—but we’ll get to that in a minute.

According to the owners’ attorney, David Salvatore, Chiquita banana trucks have been involved in wrecks all over the country. Is it some kind of plot? No, not according to Salvatore, who cites improper loading of the produce trucks. He wants Chiquita and four other defendants to be held responsible.

“It is not accidental that banana truck accidents are a thing of legend and song,” Salvatore said, in an article by the Sun Chronicle. He was referencing Harry Chapin’s 1974 song called “30,000 Pounds of Bananas” which recants the story of an out-of-control banana truck that crashed in Scranton, PA, killing the driver. No comment.

Backing up his lyrical reference, Salvatore claims a recent crash in Freetown bears a striking resemblance to the rollover in Seekonk, which took place on June 24, 2012. He claims trucks carrying containers piled high with bananas can overturn, especially on long curves where trailers heavily loaded with fruit—they tend to tip. Any child playing with toy trucks (if children still do that), would know—you put too much in, over it goes.

The owners of the Grist Mill, Greg and Suzanne Esmay, are suing Chiquita Fresh North America and Columbia Gas of Massachusetts, along with the owner and driver of the truck and a freight company. Seems a reasonable approach to compensation for an event they really couldn’t have caused.

Oh no, not so, claims Chiquita Fresh North America. Not only have they denied any negligence and/or responsibility associated with the destruction of the Grist Mill and likely the largest bananas flambé event in that part of the world has ever seen, according to court papers, its attorneys sought to lay the blame for the fire on the Esmays.

“The sole proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, if any, was their own negligence, either standing alone or combined with the negligence of others over whom Chiquita exercised no control and for whose conduct it bears no responsibility,” the company wrote in court filings. According to the Sun Chronicle, Chiquita’s statement did not elaborate on its claims. It’s mystifying logic indeed. Needless to say, mediation went sideways. (Just like the bananas.)

Greg Esmay said he’s baffled by Chiquita’s allegations. “I don’t know what we possibly could have done wrong,” he said. Quite. One minute you’re serving burgers to your patrons and the next it’s the big bang.

As for Columbia Gas, they’re keeping quiet about the whole mess, stating: “We value our business relationship with The Old Grist Mill, and are involved in a continuing effort to effect a successful resolution of the pending matter,” Columbia spokeswoman Sheila Doiron said.

I’m betting bananas are not on the menu at The (new) Old Grist Tavern.

Poetry in Judgment: Inmate’s Case Tossed…Poetically

February 16th, 2016. By LucyC

Well here’s one for the books. A poetic response (literally) to a rather frivolous lawsuit. A judge in Franklin County, Ohio handed down his judgment by writing a 5 stanza poem. Suffice to say, the suit didn’t get the green light.

What was it all about? Darek Lathan, a 47-year old inmate at the Correctional Reception Center in Orient (Ohio) attempted to sue the state after a guard at the center refused to let him use an open restroom during recreation time. Lathan said he soiled himself and was ridiculed as a result. Not pretty. Not very nice, either. But—worthy of a $2 million lawsuit?

Apparently not. At least not according to Franklin County Judge David Cain, who concluded Lathan didn’t have a case. “You know, if he is going to file something that frivolous, he can’t expect me to be too judicious in how I respond,” Judge Cain told The Columbus Dispatch. “He can’t expect me to take it seriously.”

Judge Cain, who had a former career as a journalist, summed it up quite nicely when he penned:

“Claiming loss and shame to boot

the plaintiff filed the present suit,

but the law provideth no relief

from such unmitigated grief.”

“We have to have some fun every once in a while in this job,” Cain told the Dispatch.

Apparently the judge dashed off the entire 5 stanzas in an hour. Well done. As for the plaintiff? He is now incarcerated “elsewhere”.  He didn’t have a lawyer apparently, and made no comment.

Lathan filed his lawsuit in October last year, claiming that while he warned the officer he was struggling with a cold and diarrhea from taking cold showers in the prison, he was refused permission to get out of line. He suffered “harassment, embarrassment, ridiculing (sic) and emotional distress” when other inmates began laughing at him after the bathroom accident, he wrote.

Here’s the poem:

“Cold showers caused his bowels to malfunction

Or so the plaintiff claims

A strict uncaring prison guard

Is whom the plaintiff blames.

While in line for recreation

And little time for hesitation

His anal sphincter just exploded

The plaintiff’s britches quickly loaded.

It made the inmates laugh and play

To see the plaintiff’s pants this way

The foul, unsightly, putrid mess

Caused the plaintiff major stress.

Claiming loss and shame to boot

The plaintiff filed the present suit

But the law provideth no relief

From such unmitigated grief.

Neither runs nor constipation

Can justify this litigation

Whether bowels constrict or flex

De minimus non curat lex.”

Whoa! That’s throwing some serious shade when you start slinging the Latin around!

That last line there translated from Latin means: “the law does not concern itself with trifles.” Clearly not.

In the article from the Columbus Dispatch, Cain, a judge for nearly 30 years, is quoted as follows:

“I read the complaint and quickly concluded that it was totally frivolous,” Cain said after the ruling was posted on the court Website.

“You know, if he is going to file something that frivolous, he can’t expect me to be too judicious in how I respond. He can’t expect me to take it seriously.” This is the first time he’s issued a judgment in rhyme—wonder if it will be the last? Apparently, he only has three years left  before an age restriction prevents him from seeking re-election. “If there’s anything I want to do, I better get about doing it. I just wanted to have some fun.”

Apparently Cain received his journalism degree from Ohio University in 1965 and went on to work at the Dispatch as a reporter for a decade before getting his law degree. In the 1970s, he was among those who wrote song parodies poking fun at local personalities for the Press Club’s Gridiron Shows.

Well, alrighty then. Can’t wait to see what’s next!

Hired to Drive, Told to Assemble (IKEA!), Suing for $1.7M

January 8th, 2016. By LucyC

Ok—finally!! After all these years, confirmation!! Every time I had to put together a piece of Ikea furniture I would stall for days—weeks sometimes. After all, I’d survived for a year without that particular piece of furniture—what’s a few more days, right? In fact, the products could lay for months in their boxes, untouched, while I gathered the nerve, the tools and the beer necessary to put a table, desk or wardrobe piece together. Now there’s a guy in New York who’s suing his employer for forcing him to single-handedly put together a 225-pound piece of Ikea furniture by himself. Thank you! (doing a happy dance)—It’s not just me.

Fifty-two year old Carlos Figueroa, a chauffeur to Sweden’s UN Ambassador, alleges in his lawsuit that he endured Scandinavian-style torture when his boss forced him to single-handedly build a massive IKEA wardrobe. He claims that “handyman” was not part of his job description—likely nor was masochist. So, are you sitting down? He’s suing the Swedish Mission in Manhattan for $1.7 million (that’s a lot of wardrobes). He claims he was injured on the job and cites discrimination from his superiors.

The story goes that Figueroa was sent to Ikea in Elizabeth, NJ, to buy “one or two” “Pax” wardrobes (see Ikea video, above) with “Hasvik” sliding doors by his boss, the late Ambassador Marten Grunditz. What’s your first clue this furniture is going to be too heavy, and it turns out, too big for Figueroa to haul back to Manhattan on his own? And anyone who’s tried to get even a Trofast storage bin unit out of the Elizabeth, NJ Ikea store knows the concept of ‘grab ‘n go’ is royally put to the test. So…Grunditz told him to order the units. Yeah, thanks a lot.

When the furniture arrived at the Mission, complete with instructions that clearly show the furniture should be assembled by two people (why are they smiling?), Figueroa was told to assemble the 8-foot-by-7-foot piece by himself.

No additional manpower was provided, despite Grunditz being aware that Figueroa wasn’t a “workman or carpenter,” his suit states.

It took Figueroa three days apparently, to negotiate the instructions, parts (no doubt including endless packages of screws and the ubiquitous Alan key) but he did it. Except for hanging the sliding doors. He was in the process of hanging them when he fell off the five foot ladder and injured his back. He had to have back surgery to relieve pressure in his spine and fix pinched nerves. Wait—there’s more—he also suffered leg injuries. All this has forced Figueroa, who first started working as a driver and office clerk at the Mission in 2006, to take two medical leaves of absence, from September 2013 through February 2014 and from May 2014 onward.

“I’ll be in pain for the rest of my life. I’m disabled,” Figueroa told The New York Post, when they called him. “It’s been very emotional. I’m still in a lot of pain.” Yes, I should think so.

Despite his injuries, Figueroa continued working as a chauffeur after the accident, which, predictably, exacerbated his injuries, according to the lawsuit. Figueroa alleges he was told to lie to doctors about his continued duties “to avoid an uninsured Workers Compensation claim.” Boy, this just gets better and better. Not.

According to the lawsuit, “The important thing is for you to say that you don’t know how you got it and you don’t mention work,” a senior administrative officer under Grunditz texted Figueroa in December 2012. “So you want me to lie,” Figueroa texted back.

The worker responded: “Lying and withholding all info are two different things. You are an office clerk aren’t you? As it happens you don’t need to lie. As much as we don’t know the entire story behind your injury either,” the lawsuit states. So, how “gray” is grey, exactly?

Figueroa is also suing the Mission for discrimination: he claims his colleagues made disparaging comments about Latinos and questioned him about various missing items at the Mission. Seriously? And, there’s also an allegation of denied overtime despite working up to 18-hour driving shifts, with Figueroa claiming his boss said he was “paid too much.” FYI—Grunditz died January 2014.

According to Figueroa’s lawyer, Stanley Chinitz, who spoke with the Post, “Mr. Figueroa is not going to try his case in the press. He has accurately described the facts and this will be for a jury to resolve. Discussions occurred between the parties before the lawsuit was filed and the claims were unable to be resolved.”

You know, there ought to be a therapy group for survivors of Ikea furniture assembly—I’d join—though admittedly in most situations, the quest to assemble is purely self-inflicted.