Hearing: Which court should hear coastal lawsuit?

A legal tug-of-war continues in a state levee board's lawsuit against 97 oil, gas and pipeline companies over the erosion of wetlands.

The Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East wants U.S. District Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown to send the case back to Orleans Parish Civil District Court, where the board filed it in July.

Attorneys for Chevron USA Inc. got the lawsuit moved to federal court in August, arguing that federal laws govern many of its claims.

Since then, lawyers have filed hundreds of pages of arguments and exhibits just on the question of which court should hear the case.

Brown scheduled arguments Wednesday.

The lawsuit says oil and gas canal and pipeline work has contributed to the erosion of wetlands that protect New Orleans when hurricanes move ashore. Corrosive saltwater from a network of oil and gas access and pipeline canals has killed plants that anchored the wetlands, letting waves sweep away hundreds of thousands of coastal land, it says.

Gov. Bobby Jindal has blasted the lawsuit as a windfall for trial lawyers and his coastal protection chief, Garret Graves, said the suit would undermine Louisiana's work with the industry to rebuild wetlands. An association of state levee districts voted to oppose the suit.

Since then, however, two coastal parishes heavily dependent on the industry have filed lawsuits of their own raising similar issues.

Earlier this month, the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association sued the state's attorney general, accusing him of illegally approving the Southeast Louisiana board's contract with lawyers who filed its lawsuit.

The association contends that Buddy Caldwell had no authority to approve the contract and that the suit will have "a chilling effect on the exploration, production, development and transportation" of Louisiana's oil and gas.

Appeals court moves BP forward in settlement dispute

The April 2010 blowout of BP's Macondo well off the Louisiana coast triggered an explosion that killed 11 workers on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and led to millions of gallons of oil spilling into the Gulf. Shortly after the disaster, BP agreed to create a $20 billion compensation fund that was administered at first by the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, led by attorney Kenneth Feinberg.

BP argued that Barbier and court-appointed claims administrator Patrick Juneau misinterpreted terms of the settlement. Plaintiffs' lawyers countered that BP undervalued the settlement and underestimated how many claimants would qualify for payments.

In the panel's majority opinion, Judge Edith Brown Clement said BP has consistently argued that the settlement's complex formula for compensating businesses was intended to cover "real economic losses, not artificial losses that appear only from the timing of cash flows."

"The interests of individuals who may be reaping windfall recoveries because of an inappropriate interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and those who could never have recovered in individual suits for failure to show causation are not outweighed by the potential loss to a company and its public shareholders of hundreds of millions of dollars of unrecoverable awards," Clement wrote.

Judge Leslie Southwick wrote a concurring opinion. Judge James Dennis wrote a partial dissent, largely disagreeing with the other two.

"Because BP has not satisfied its heavy burden of showing that a change in circumstances or law warranted the modifications it sought, the district court correctly affirmed the Administrator's decision rejecting BP's argument and actions to modify the agreement," Dennis wrote.

Judge OKs class-action settlement over Skechers

A federal judge approved a $40 million class-action settlement Monday between Skechers USA Inc. and consumers who bought toning shoes after ads made unfounded claims that the footwear would help people lose weight and strengthen muscles.
U.S. District Judge Thomas B. Russell in Louisville approved the deal, which covers more than 520,000 claims. About 1,000 people eligible for coverage by the settlement opted not to take part.
Those with approved claims will be able to get a maximum repayment for their purchase _ up to $80 per pair of Shape-Ups; $84 per pair of Resistance Runner shoes; up to $54 per pair of Podded Sole Shoes; and $40 per pair of Tone-Ups.
Russell also awarded $5 million for the attorneys in the case to split. Russell ordered that the money cannot come from the $40 million settlement fund set aside for consumers.
Two people that served as the lead plaintiffs in the case will receive payments of $2,500 each.
Russell considered multiple factors in deciding to approve the settlement and found it provides just compensation to the plaintiffs.

RI Supreme Court settles $8,500 Vegas loan dispute

What happens in Vegas shouldn't necessarily stay in Vegas, the Rhode Island Supreme Court said Friday as it ruled a Providence man who called a friend from Sin City to borrow $8,500 for gambling losses must pay it back despite an old law that says otherwise.
The court opinion ends a long legal dispute over the money given to Juan Catala by David S. Vogel, a Providence attorney who ran for Congress last fall as an independent. But despite the ruling from the high court, Catala said he'll never repay his former friend.
"I'll go to jail before I give him a dollar," Catala told The Associated Press.
According to court documents, Catala and his fiancée were on a trip to Las Vegas in 2007 when Catala called Vogel for help. According to Vogel, Catala said he had lost a substantial sum of money gambling and needed to recover his losses. Vogel agreed to wire $8,500 to the Bellagio Hotel.
After Catala refused to repay the loan, Vogel sued. Catala initially disputed that he had received the money but later argued that the loan was void because of a more than century-old Rhode Island law that invalidates loan agreements when the lender knows the money would be used for gambling. On Friday, Catala said Vogel gave him the money as an investment, with the understanding that he would be paid back only if Catala won.

Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC - Class Actions

Class action lawyers must be experienced with complex litigation and class action certification, notice, and settlement procedures. Large corporate defendants always put up formidable opposition in cases involving thousands of claimants.

Our experienced Indiana based class action lawyers have the willingness to tackle the most complex of cases and aggressively face larger law firms and corporations on your behalf.  Our class action attorneys have represented plaintiff classes in numerous class action lawsuits. Among the major class action lawsuits we have handled are:

    Right-of-Way Class Action Lawsuits
    Pharmaceutical and Prescription Drug Class Actions
    Medical Device  Class Actions
    Personal Injury Multidistrict and Class Actions
    Financial Damage Class Actions
    Property Owner Class Actions

http://www.price-law.com/practice-areas/class-actions

Court to hear 2 days of arguments on gay marriage

The Supreme Court says it will hear two days' worth of arguments over laws affecting gay marriage during the last week of March.

Justices on Monday announced they will hear arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry on March 26 and United States v. Windsor on March 27.

The first case involves California's constitutional amendment that forbids same-sex marriage. The second concerns a federal law that denies gay couples who legally marry the right to obtain federal benefits available to heterosexual married couples. The court scheduled one hour's worth of arguments on each day. Justices can still extend the amount of time given to arguments in each case, however.

Nine states — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington— and the District of Columbia allow gay marriage.