Litigation of Business | Business of Litigation

Customers sue LinkedIn, say company hacked their external email for marketing contacts

Customers have sued LinkedIn Corp. in federal court in San Jose, Calif., contending that the professional networking company hacked into their external email accounts in order to obtain email addresses of contacts to which to market its services. The suit seeks class action status and asks for a court order barring the alleged practice and disgorgement of profits, Bloomberg reports. LinkedIn spokesman Doug Madey said that the lawsuit has no merit and that the company will fight it vigorously. “LinkedIn is committed to putting our members first, which includes being transparent about how we protect and utilize our members’ data,” Madey told Bloomberg via e-mail. A Main Justice post provides additional details from the Tuesday complaint. It contends that LinkedIn essentially stole email addresses of friends, associates and business adversaries, among others, then sent emails, “including the name and sometimes the photo, of the LinkedIn customer” asking . . .

via Customers sue LinkedIn, say company hacked their external email for marketing contacts.

Standard
Litigation of Business | Business of Litigation

Lawyer sues over bad Google Plus review

A suburban Chicago lawyer and his law firm have filed a lawsuit because of a bad review on Google Plus. Naperville, Ill., lawyer Paul Nordini and his firm sued the writer, Joseph LaBarre, who wrote that Nordini worked for an “ethically shaky law firm” and an “exceptionally unethical law firm,” report CBS News and the Naperville Patch. LaBarre wasn’t a client of the firm. He is the former spouse of Nordini’s divorce client. The suit claims the review has cost Nordini’s firm, Nordini & Thompson, $10,000 a month in lost business. Nordini seeks $110,000 and an injunction to force LaBarre to take down the review. CBS Chicago reached LaBarre for comment. “What do I think about him filing a lawsuit? I think he’s out of his mind,” LaBarre said. He added that Nordini wants him to take down the review and “if he wanted . . .

via Lawyer sues over bad Google Plus review.

Standard
Litigation of Business | Business of Litigation, Technically Lawful

Clicking ‘like’ is protected by First Amendment, 4th Circuit says in case of fired jailer

A Facebook “like” is speech that is protected by the First Amendment, a federal appeals court has ruled in the case of a sheriff’s employee who lost his job for liking the sheriff’s election opponent. A federal judge in Virginia had ruled that clicking like was “insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection,” but the Richmond-Va.-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Liking a political candidate’s campaign page “is the Internet equivalent of displaying a political sign in one’s front yard, which the Supreme Court has held is substantive speech,” the court said. The National Law Journal, Bloomberg News and the Wall Street Journal Law Blog covered the ruling, and How Appealing linked to the opinion (PDF). The court ruled on behalf of jailer Daniel Carter, who lost his job after Hampton, . . .

via Clicking ‘like’ is protected by First Amendment, 4th Circuit says in case of fired jailer.

Standard
Attorneys & Lawyers & Counselors, Litigation of Business | Business of Litigation

So you’ve been served, huh?

I get a lot of calls that start off something like this, “Someone banged on my door last night and then handed me a legal-looking letter. The court file number is blank so I can ignore it, right?” I usually then ask them if it is two documents with the words “SUMMONS” and “COMPLAINT“ on them. Once they say yes, I tell the caller they just got served with a lawsuit and that it would be best to not ignore it.

In Minnesota, unlike most other states, an attorney can start a lawsuit without going to the courthouse and filing it there first.

As a result,court-pix there will not be a court file number on the  initial legal documents they got (pleadings)–YET.  Nonetheless, and as long as it is a typical civil state court action, the caller (now a “Defendant“) must serve a written answer to the allegations in the Complaint within 20 days. If they don’t, the person or business suing them can obtain a default judgment from the Court for the full amount of money requested in the Complaint. This is not good and can result in garnishment of wages, seizure of non-exempt property and levying on personal bank accounts.

After the caller/Defendant calms down, I usually ask them to e-mail or fax me a copy of the Complaint so I can see what the case is about.  Depending on the nature of the case, I then usually say they want to contact their insurance companies right away and see if the insurer will provide coverage for the claim, and perhaps more importantly, provide them with an attorney to defend the case.  If not, I am more than happy to help.

Some of the most important things I tell the Defendant (hopefully my new client) to do right away is to not talk about the case to anyone until they can meet with me first. If we do meet, initially we will discuss the details the case so I gauge how much, if any, potential liability they may be facing and what options may be available to us for resolving the case.

I always ask that the client gather up all documents that in may relate to the allegations in the Complaint and the whole case, to get me copies of the documents ASAP and to not throw anything away.  I also ask the client to get me copies of any e-mails related to the case and stress that it is extremely important that they do not delete any e-mails or other electronic information on their computers. I always explain that if any related computer files are deleted or modified (even if done for completely innocent reasons), it could be very harmful to the case. In these situations it is not unusual for the Plaintiff’s lawyer to find out and inform the Court about it. If that is the case, the Court could  wind up seeing the deletion of computer data (or any other evidence) in a negative light and hold the client responsible for destroying evidence.

If I am hired to defend the case, I am always completely honest about the risks and costs potentially involved and I insist that my new client be fully honest with me too. After all, I can not do my job and properly defend the case unless I know everything that went on before they were sued. Litigation can be grueling and, more often than not, any secrets that are not disclosed to me about the case at the beginning can come back to haunt the client before their case is over.

So basically, the most important things to remember if you get sued are to act quickly in contacting  your insurer and/or finding a lawyer to defend you. Remember to keep your mouth shut about the case and gather up and preserve all documents (whether on paper or in your computer) related to the case. And always be completely honest with your attorney and tell them everything that led up to the lawsuit.

Getting sued won’t be the end of the world, and if you take these simple first steps, the case will go much smoother for you. Keep in mind there are many ways to resolve a legitimate case through settlement, mediation and other ways. Likewise, cases that are not legitimate may be subject to dismissal.

No matter what your case is about, you are entitled to a vigorous,  strong and aggressive defense. Since the Plaintiff started the litigation, I make sure they have to prove it. If you are sued, please keep me in mind if you need an attorney that will protect your rights with zeal and compassion, while always trying to find the most favorable way to get the case over with.

MKT

Related articles
Standard
Litigation of Business | Business of Litigation

St. Paul Man Accused of Filing False Insurance Claims on Artwork

Global locations of the AXA Group of insurance...

Global locations of the AXA Group of insurance companies. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Insurance disputes are common. In the case of one St. Paul man, the dispute is an accusation by the insurance company that he filed a false insurance claim for collectibles and artwork that he reported stolen.

Rather cut and dry, right?

Now, Jason Sheedy, 39, has been charged in federal court with wire fraud.

Prosecutors said that Sheedy filed an insurance claim for over $275,000 for art and other valuables that he reported stolen in 2007. The total collected from AXA Art Insurance Corp was $254,000.

But after paying the claim to Sheedy, AXA later stated that some of the works that were reported stolen by Sheedy were found for sale on Artbrokerage.com. They contend that the art pieces were the same exact ones they had insured.

Sheedy says that some of the artwork was in a moving van when it was stolen.

However, it has been reported that investigators searched Sheedy’s home and found 22 pieces of historic items and artwork that he had reported missing. In fact, the pieces were found in his home in 2011 by armed government agents.

Sheedy had initially told the police late last year that the art was stolen from his moving van when he was moving to a Minneapolis condo to his St. Paul home. He said the condo wasn’t ready, so he had to park the van alongside the street, which is when someone allegedly broke off the padlock and stole the contents.

Pursuant to a plea agreement earlier this year, Sheedy was sentenced in federal court to three years’ probation on one count of wire fraud.

Sheedy also must pay $352,000 in restitution and serve 500 hours of community service.

MKT LAW OFFICE

Related articles
Standard
Attorneys & Lawyers & Counselors, Litigation of Business | Business of Litigation

Lawyer’s response to client’s bad Avvo review leads to disciplinary complaint

An Illinois employment lawyer is accused of revealing confidential information about a former client when the lawyer responded online to a negative review on Avvo. Lawyer Betty Tsamis posted a response after her ex-client claimed Tsamis accepted a $1,500 fee even though she “knew full well that a law in Illinois would prevent me from obtaining unemployment benefits,” according to the disciplinary complaint by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. The Legal Profession Blog noted the complaint. The former client had been fired from a job as a flight attendant based on allegations he assaulted a colleague during a flight. Tsamis wrote that the client did not reveal to her all the facts of the situation that led to his firing, and when she reviewed his personnel file, she advised him he would likely lose, the complaint says. Yet the client opted…

via Lawyer’s response to client’s bad Avvo review leads to disciplinary complaint.

 

Standard
Uncategorized

Vegas CityCenter to Consider Further Testing to Prove Construction Defects

In Minnesota and all around the country, there are issues with both small and large construction projects, which an compromise the integrity of a building and jeopardize the safety of all who inhabit the structure.

In Las Vegas, CityCenter executives may be conducting more destructive inspections of the Harmon Hotel tower, which resides on the Vegas Strip. A court ruling was handed down in July 2012 after it was found that the CityCenter could not tell the court that destructive testing at nearly 400 locations within the building proves that there are over 1,400 defects in the building due to the testing not being random enough.

Due to the alleged construction and design defects, there are unpaid invoices to the construction company for the unfinished building that touts a price tag of $275 million.

The CityCenter may appeal the ruling or may seek permission from the court to conduct more destructive testing to strengthen its case.

Destructive testing can involve using a jackhammer on the concrete to determine whether or not reinforcing steel was installed where it was supposed to be installed and whether it was installed properly.

The unused Harmon is planned to be demolished, but it is not clear as to whether or not this planned demolition will move forward in the near future because of the current litigation. However, the court did rule that the CityCenter can move forward with implosion of the building. CityCenter has stated that the building is such a safety hazard that it could crumble in an earthquake. Perini Building Co., the contractor that constructed the building, states that it is safe and can be repaired.

It is possible that the contractors will appeal the order to demolish. In the meantime, CityCenter has to create a demolition plan that Clark County must approve, which means the additional destructive testing that CityCenter wants could be a part of that plan.

A CityCenter official stated that every time concrete has been chipped away within the building, a structural defect has been revealed. There is confidence that ample evidence can be produced to prove that Perini built an unsafe building. Pacific Coast Steel had rendered the building unsafe and a major financial liability to CityCenter. CityCenter has stated that since they have approval by the court to demolish, they will move forward with it.

Half owner and manager of the CityCenter compled, MGM Resorts International, stopped construction of the tower in 2010 because of the defects that were found. The defects have been blamed for construction and design issues. Litigation then began between the parties, with Perini stating that CityCenter owes them up to $240 million for the work they completed. CityCenter states they owe them nothing because they did not build a hotel that could be used.

Perini states that the 26-story Harmon Tower can be repaired for $21 million. CityCenter, on the other hand, says it would cost almost $200 million to perform the repairs and that the repairs would take 10 months or more to complete.

CityCenter states that the delays with the court proceedings are harming the CityCenter’s finances. Even if the building was fixed, the company would spend another $30 million overcoming the fact that there is a stigma attached to a repaired building. Perini feels that it will prevail in the end, as the company contends that demolition is simply a business strategy by MGM Resorts to not complete the structure due to the recession.

Related articles

 

Standard
Litigation of Business | Business of Litigation

Cheapest Business Insurance Policy Out There

I am often asked why someone should form a corporation (Inc) or limited liability company (LLC) for their business. I usually tell them, “Because it is the cheapest insurance policy you can buy!” Why? Once you form an Inc or LLC, you, as the owner(s), are protecting yourself from personal liability for your business-related debts, obligations and liabilities. By forming an Inc or LLC, the government (your state) is now legally recognizing ABC, Inc. as a separate legal entity (a fictional legal person). Your new Inc or LLC can own and sell property, enter into contracts and sue or (hopefully not) be sued. As a result, if ABC, Inc. breaks a contract, ABC, Inc. must be sued rather than you (the owner(s)) personally. This can help protect your personal assets from being subject to any judgments against ABC, Inc.

Of course there are many exceptions to this legal rule (just like ALL legal rules). But if you keep ABC, Inc.’s finances completely separated from your personal dealings (proper accounting, payroll, follow all Inc/LLC legal governing formalities), you can usually keep ABC, Inc.’s “personal liability shield” intact and protect your personal assets.

One big exception that sometimes cannot be avoided is a creditor (or landlord) requiring you (as ABC, Inc.’s owner(s)) to sign a “personal guarantee” for ABC, Inc.’s obligations. This is a device many financial institutions (and savvy landlords) use to get around ABC, Inc.’s liability shield and to help guarantee the obligation will be fulfilled, even if ABC, Inc. goes bankrupt, but you (owner(s)) do not.

Nonetheless, many times you can (and should always try) to negotiate out of a personal guarantee requirement or alter its terms to be more favorable to you. So, as always, make sure you know what you are signing on behalf of your business and always make sure you are not (unless required) signing in your individual capacity, i.e. John Smith, as president of ABC, Inc.

I am here to help if you have business formation questions, contract questions or liability questions. Protect yourself, contact me today!

www.mktlawoffice.com

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

MKT 4/14/2012

Standard