|
|
|
|
|
Legal briefs and other key documents in Public Justice cases are organized as follows. At the top of this page, you will find our most recent briefs and documents. Then there are six broad legal categories: Civil Justice System, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, Class Action
Preservation Project, Consumer & Victims' Rights, Environmental Enforcement Project, and Mandatory Arbitration Abuse Prevention Project. Cases are in alphabetical order by plaintiff name in each category.
Wherever possible, documents are provided in two electronic formats: HTML (which is better for fast, online viewing, but which modifies the original text format) and Adobe Acrobat PDF (which preserves the original text format). Both the HTML and PDF formats have the original text. For information regarding documents in PDF format and how to get the free Adobe Acrobat Reader, click here.
Recent Briefs and Legal Documents
|
|
PDF
|
Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) v. CBS Corporation (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles, April 11, 2008)Public Justice filed a lawsuit in California state court under a state law known as "Proposition 65" to protect children and their families from further exposure to asbestos contained in toy science kits made by Planet Toys, Inc. and licensed by CBS Broadcasting, Inc. The toy kits are based on the popular "CSI" television drama series, and tests of the kits’ fingerprinting powder found tremolite, one of the most deadly forms of asbestos. Proposition 65 requires businesses to give a "clear and reasonable warning" to California consumers if a product contains a chemical known to cause cancer or birth defects, such as asbestos. A second lawsuit on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers – Kick v. Planet Toys – was filed in federal court alleging that CBS and Planet Toys were negligent in their quality control measures and that they represented to consumers that the toys were appropriate playthings for children when, in fact, the toys contained a hazardous and potentially lethal carcinogen.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Bauduin
Gender Discrimination Demand Letter Regarding Wabash High School Baseball Program (Feb. 4, 2008) Demand letter on behalf of Heather Bauduin to the Indiana High School Athletic Association, Wabash High School, and Wabash City Schools charging that rule prohibiting girls from trying out for baseball violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and Title IX.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Betts v. McKenzie
(15th Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County, Florida)
Decision striking down a ban
on class actions embedded in
a payday lender's
arbitration clause as
violating public policy, on
the grounds that it would
effectively prevent
consumers from vindicating
their rights under the
state's consumer protection
act. The decision followed a
two day evidentiary hearing,
where the consumers
were represented by Paul
Bland and Goldberg, Waters &
Kraus Fellow Amy Radon of
Public Justice, as well as
our co-counsel Clay Yates of
Yates & Mancini in Ft.
Pierce, Ted Leopold of
Ricci-Leopold of West Palm
Beach, Chris Casper of James
Hoyer in Tampa, and Richard
Fisher of Cleveland,
Tennessee.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Captain D's,
LLC v. Smith
(U.S.
Supreme Court,
February 15,
2008) Opposition
to Petition for
Certiorari. In
this case, a
young woman sued
her employer
after she was
raped at work,
and the employer
tried to compel
arbitration,
arguing that the
rape "related
to" or "arose
out of" her
job. This brief
urges the
Supreme Court
not to disturb
the ruling of
the Mississippi
Supreme Court
that she need
not arbitrate
her claims
against her
employer.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Castaneda v. United States (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, May 5, 2008) Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Stay Case Pending Interlocutory Appeal.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Castaneda v. United States (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, March 11, 2008) Amended Order denying individual Public Health Service Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Bivens claims alleging Eighth Amendment violations of his right to adequate medical care. Plaintiff was an immigration detainee whose penis was amputated and who eventually died of penile cancer as the result of medical neglect suffered while in detention.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Castaneda v.
United States --
(U.S. District Court
for the Central
District of
California, February
11, 2008)
Plaintiff's
Memorandum of Points
and Authorities in
Opposition to
Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss Under
Rule 12(b)(1). This
brief opposes the
federal Public
Health Service
Defendants' motion
to dismiss
Plaintiff's Bivens
claims alleging
Eight Amendment
violations of his
right to adequate
medical care and
Fifth Amendment
violations of his
right to equal
protection.
Plaintiff is a
former immigration
detainee who
received such
grossly inadequate
medical care for a
penile lesion while
in custody that he
now has terminal
cancer and had to
have his penis
amputated.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Cordova v. World Finance Corp. (New Mexico Supreme Court, February 5, 2008) Brief of Plaintiff-Appellee. This brief case involves a challenge to a one-sided and non-mutual arbitration clause, where a lender who charges extremely high interest rates and engaged in abusive debt collection conduct, requires that the consumer take all of her claims to arbitration but reserves for itself the option of taking nearly all of its claims to court. The brief argues that such a one-sided arbitration clause is unconscionable and unenforceable under state contract law principles.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Exxon Shipping
Company v. Baker
(U.S. Supreme Court, No.
07-219, January 29,
2008) Amicus Brief in
Support of Respondents
arguing for affirmance
of $2.5 billion punitive
damages award against
the giant oil company
Exxon Shipping
Company for economic
injuries caused by the
wreck of the Exxon
Valdez oil tanker.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Flood v. Board of
Trustees of Florida Gulf
Coast University
(United States District
Court for the Middle
District of Florida,
January 18, 2008)
Complaint and Demand for
Jury Trial. Lawsuit on
behalf of head women's
volleyball coach at
Florida Gulf Coast
University charging that
school is retaliating
against her and defaming
her because she
expressed concern
that university's
athletic department is
violating Title IX of
the Civil Rights Act, a
federal law designed to
ensure gender equity in
education.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Gay v. Creditinform and
Intersections, Inc. (U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, January 2, 2008)
Petition of Appellant for Panel
Rehearing and for Rehearing En
Banc. The decision of a panel of
the Court of Appeals enforced an
arbitration clause that banned
class actions, holding that even
if this term violates state
contract law, that the Federal
Arbitration Act preempts that
state law. This Petition argues
that the panel's decision
conflicts with a number of
earlier decisions of the Third
Circuit (as well as numerous
decisions from other courts
around the country), and is in
conflict with the jurisprudence
of the U.S. Supreme Court. The
Petition was authored by Paul
Bland, James Francis of Francis
& Mailman, P.C., in
Philadelphia, and David A.
Searles of Donovan Searles, LLC,
also in Philadelphia.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Griffin v.
Unocal Corp.
(Alabama Supreme
Court, No. 1061214,
January 25, 2008)
Opinion of Alabama
Supreme
Court reversing 1979
decision
interpreting state
statute of
limitations to
bar some
toxic tort victims
from ever
suing: victims
exposed to dangerous
chemicals could not
sue until they
developed a
"manifest" injury,
but could not sue
after two years had
passed from their
exposure to the
product. The reversal
gives many
toxic tort victims
in Alabama the right
to seek redress for
their injuries.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Homa v.
American
Express
(U.S. Court
of Appeals
for the
Third
Circuit,
January 25,
2008 ) Reply
Brief of
Appellant.
Reply brief
argues that
New Jersey
law governs
whether
charge card
issuer's
contract is
unconscionable,
as it
respects New
Jersey state
customers
raising
claims under
New Jersey
state law.
The brief
argues that
American
Express's
ban on class
actions is
unconscionable
under New
Jersey law,
and that the
Federal
Arbitration
Act does not
preempt that
law.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Kick v. Planet Toys (U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, CA, April 11, 2008) Public Justice filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers to protect children and their families from further exposure to asbestos contained in toy science kits made by Planet Toys, Inc. and licensed by CBS Broadcasting, Inc. The toy kits are based on the popular "CSI" television drama series, and tests of the kits’ fingerprinting powder found tremolite, one of the most deadly forms of asbestos. The lawsuit alleges that CBS and Planet Toys were negligent in their quality control measures and that they represented to consumers that the toys were appropriate playthings for children when, in fact, the toys contained a hazardous and potentially lethal carcinogen. A second lawsuit – Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization v. CBS Corporation – was filed by Public Justice in California state court to allege violations of California’s "Proposition 65," which requires businesses to give a "clear and reasonable warning" to California consumers if a product contains a chemical known to cause cancer or birth defects, such as asbestos. Public Justice, along with cooperating counsel, filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of two consumer who either purchased or acquired a toy kit for their children.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Lochearn Nursing Home v.
Addison (Maryland Court of
Special Appeals, April 30, 2008)
Appeal defending the trial
court's ruling that an elderly,
ill woman's counterclaims
against a nursing home (it had
set in motion a predatory real
estate transaction that would
strip her of all the equity in
her home) did not fall within
the scope of the nursing home's
mandatory arbitration clause.
The nursing home had sued her in
court over her bill, but tried
to force her counterclaim into
arbitration.
|
|
|
PDF
|
McKee
v.
AT&T
Corp.
-
(Washington
Supreme
Court,
No. 81006-I,
February
12,
2008)
Amicus
brief
filed
in
support
of
Respondent
McKee,
filed
by
Washington
State
Trial
Lawyers
Association
Foundation.
|
|
|
PDF
|
McKee
v.
AT&T
Corp.
-
(Washington
Supreme
Court,
No. 81006-I,
February
12,
2008)
Amicus
brief
filed
in
support
of
Respondent
McKee,
filed
by
Washington
Attorney
General.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Public Justice Attorney Adele
Kimmel's Written Testimony
Before the House Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security
for an April 22, 2008 Hearing on
the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA). The testimony argues
that the PLRA's administrative
exhaustion requirement prevents
prisoners with meritorious
claims of serious abuse from
getting their day in court and
obtaining relief for the abuse
they have suffered.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Sierra Club et al v. Wellington Development-WVDT, LLC (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, February 27, 2008)
Complaint alleging that Wellington's permit to construct a waste coal-fired power plant has expired because Wellington did not commence continuous construction within 18 months of permit issuance
|
|
|
PDF
|
Sierra Club et al v. Wellington Development-WVDT, LLC (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, February 27, 2008)
Petition asking Pennsylvania to revoke Wellington's construction permit because it does not meet required emission standards for hazardous pollutants.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Tillman v.
Commercial Credit,
Inc.
(Supreme Court of
North Carolina, No.
360A06, January 25,
2008) Opinion of
North Carolina
Supreme Court
striking down
arbitration clause
that bans class
actions and imposes
excessive fees on
consumers who
purchased credit
life insurance.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Warner-Lambert v. Kent
(U.S. Supreme Court, January
17, 2007)
United States Supreme Court
Amicus Brief arguing against
federal preemption of
prescription drug
failure-to-warn claims. The
brief focuses on rebutting
arguments that the
presumption against
preemption should not apply
in cases involving implied
conflict preemption.
|
^^ BACK TO TOP ^^
Briefs and Legal Documents
by Category
(Civil Justice System, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, Class Action
Preservation Project, Consumer & Victims' Rights, Environmental Enforcement Project, and Mandatory Arbitration Abuse Prevention Project.)
Civil Justice System
|
|
PDF
|
Brown v. District of
Columbia
–
(United States Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit, No. 05-5320, June 18, 2007) Brief of
Amici Curiae Public Justice, the
American Civil Liberties Union, the American
Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital
Area, and the D.C. Prisoners' Project of the
Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
and Urban Affairs urging the court to overturn a
district court ruling that Corrections
Corporation of America, a private corporation,
cannot be held liable under a respondeat
superior theory for violating a prisoner's
Eighth Amendment rights.
|
|
HTML
|
PDF
|
Comment from TLPJ Staff Attorney
Rebecca E. Epstein on September 19, 2002, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina, in support of proposed Local Rule 5.03 amendment,
which would prohibit the sealing of settlement agreements
filed with the court.
|
|
HTML
|
PDF
|
Comment by TLPJ's Arthur
Bryant and Victoria Ni to the Conference of Chief Justices and
Conference of State Court Administrators on the February 22,
2002 draft of a Model Policy on Public Access to Court
Records. The comment objects to the draft’s approach on how
public access to court records may be limited. April 30, 2002.
|
|
HTML
|
PDF
|
Comment by TLPJ's Arthur Bryant
and Victoria Ni submitted in response to the Request for
Comment on Privacy and Public Access to Electronic Case Files
issued by the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts. The comment urges the federal judiciary to adopt a
policy approach that would make court files available through
remote electronic means to the same extent that those files
are now available in paper form. January 26, 2001.
|
|
HTML
|
PDF
|
Comments submitted by TLPJ's Arthur Bryant,
Leslie Brueckner, and Richard Frankel, on February 14, 2004,
to the Federal Judiciary's Committee on Rules of Practice and
Procedure urging the Committee to eliminate the current
practice among the United States' Courts of Appeal of issuing
non-precedential and non-binding unpublished dispositions.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Comments
Submitted by TLPJ Staff Attorney F. Paul Bland, Jr., on June
26, 2003 to the Co-chairs of the Working Group on Consumer
Protection of the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners in connection with a public hearing into the
advisability of insurance commissioners regulating mandatory
arbitration clauses in insurance contracts.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Colacicco v. Apotex, Inc. –
(U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No.
06-3107, September 28, 2006) Brief of Amici
Curiae Public Citizen, Trial Lawyers for Public
Justice, and Association of Trial Lawyers of America
in Support of Appellant Seeking Reversal. This
amicus brief argues that the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania erred
when it dismissed the plaintiffs' failure-to-warn
claims involving the prescription drug Paxil and its
generic equivalent on the ground that they conflict
with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's
approval of the drug's label. We argue that damages
suits are consistent with FDA regulation of drugs,
and that the FDA's position that common-law
failure-to-warn claims are preempted by federal law,
as expressed in the recently published regulatory
preamble, is not entitled to deference. Allison
Zieve of Public Citizen is the principal author of
the amicus brief.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Duncan v. Ford Motor Company -- (Circuit
Court, Fourth Judicial Circuitu, Dval County, Florida, No. 01-7230-CA,
February 3, 2006) Final reply brief in support of motion to
unseal trial exhibits.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Duncan v. Ford Motor Company -- (Circuit
Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida, No. 01-7230-CA,
December 1, 2005) TLPJ's motion, on behalf of Public
Citizen, to unseal critically important auto safety
documents, regarding roof crush standards, that were
submitted in open court and subsequently sealed at the
request of Ford.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Exxon Shipping
Company v. Baker
(U.S. Supreme Court, No.
07-219, January 29,
2008) Amicus Brief in
Support of Respondents
arguing for affirmance
of $2.5 billion punitive
damages award against
the giant oil company
Exxon Shipping
Company for economic
injuries caused by the
wreck of the Exxon
Valdez oil tanker.
|
|
HTML
|
|
Foltz v. State Farm – (U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, No. CV-94-6293-HO, June 30, 1999) TLPJ's reply to State Farm's opposition to our motion to intervene and unseal records which have been almost completely erased from the public record.
|
|
HTML
|
|
Foltz v. State Farm – (U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, No. CV-94-6293-HO, May 1999) TLPJ's memo in support of motion to unseal records which have been almost completely erased from the public record.
|
|
HTML
|
|
Foltz v. State Farm – (U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, No. CV-94-6293-HO) TLPJ's memorandum in support of renewed motion to unseal court records.
|
|
HTML
|
PDF
|
Ford Motor Company v. McCauley (U.S. Supreme Court, 01-896, June 5, 2002) TLPJ's amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of respondents arguing that the amount in controversy in a class action for injunctive relief is the value or cost of relief provided to each individual plaintiff, not the aggregated value or cost of the injunction to the entire class.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Frankl v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. – (Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, No. MER-L-003052-99, July 10, 2002) Ruling on corporate secrecy in a rollover case, where the New Jersey Superior Court ordered the full or partial release of 14 Goodyear tire documents that TLPJ and Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety (CARS) sought to unseal because of growing concerns about the dangers of Goodyear’s Load Range E tires.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Frankl v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. –
(Superior
Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, No. MER-L-003052-99,
December 18, 2001) Order granting TLPJ's motion to intervene
in the case and directing further briefing on the substantive
issue of whether discovery documents should be unsealed.
|
|
HTML
|
PDF
|
Frankl v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. – (Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, No. MER-L-003052-99, October 9, 2001) Letter submitted by TLPJ to the court with attachments re plaintiffs' attorneys across the country who also object to the designation of Goodyear's documents as confidential.
|
|
HTML
|
PDF
|
Frankl v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. – (Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, No. MER-L-003052-99, September 28, 2001) TLPJ's brief in response to Goodyear's supplemental brief.
|
|
HTML
|
PDF
|
Frankl v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. – (Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, No. MER-L-003052-99, September 13, 2001) TLPJ's supplemental brief on behalf of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety (CARS), arguing that the public interest in this tire safety case continues to grow; that Goodyear must show "good cause" to overcome the presumption of public access to court documents; and citing 15 additional complaints filed with NHTSA since November 1, 2000, regarding Goodyear Load Range E tire tread separations.
|
|
HTML
|
PDF
|
Frankl v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company – (Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, No. MER-L-003052-99, February 7, 2001) TLPJ's reply to the amicus brief filed by Washington Legal Foundation in opposition to the Motions to Vacate or Modify the Protective Order filed by CARS and by the L.A. Times and L.A. Daily News.
|
|
HTML
|
PDF
|
Frankl v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company – (Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, No. MER-L-003052-99, Nov. 15, 2000) TLPJ's Reply to the Response that Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. filed under seal on November 8, to the Brief of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety (CARS) in Support of its Motion to Intervene, Vacate or Modify Protective Order and Seek Public Access to Documents.
|
|
HTML
|
PDF
|
Frankl v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company – (Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, No. MER-L-003052-99) TLPJ's brief filed on behalf of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety (CARS) in support of a motion to intervene, vacate or modify a protective order, and to seek public access to documents relating to potential life-and-death public safety issues.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Grafton Partners, L.P. v. Superior Court in and for the
County of Alameda, R.P.I. PricewaterhouseCoopers, L.L.P. -
(Supreme Court of California, No. S123344, October 19, 2004)
TLPJ joined with the Consumer Attorneys of California, the
National Association of Consumer Advocates, and the
Association of Trial Lawyers of America in filing an amici
curiae brief urging the California Supreme Court to hold
that a company cannot enforce a pre-dispute contract that
takes away a party’s constitutional right to a jury trial in
future cases.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Graham v. Daimler Chrysler
Corporation –
(Supreme Court of the State of California, No.
S112862, October 6, 2003)
TLPJ's amici brief in support of respondents,
urging the Court to refuse to import the widely-criticized Buckhannon
rule into California law because it would discourage private
plaintiffs from bringing cases that enforce public
policy.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Griffin v.
Unocal Corp.
(Alabama Supreme
Court, No. 1061214,
January 25, 2008)
Opinion of Alabama
Supreme
Court reversing 1979
decision
interpreting state
statute of
limitations to
bar some
toxic tort victims
from ever
suing: victims
exposed to dangerous
chemicals could not
sue until they
developed a
"manifest" injury,
but could not sue
after two years had
passed from their
exposure to the
product. The reversal
gives many
toxic tort victims
in Alabama the right
to seek redress for
their injuries.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Jessee v. Farmers
Insurance Exchange (Colorado Supreme Court Case
No. 2004CV1073, November 20, 2006) Colorado Supreme
Court decision striking down protective order that
would have made key evidence in an insurance bad
faith case secret, even though the documents were
already in the public domain and an injury victim's
attorney obtained them without a protective order in
a prior case against Farmers Insurance Exchange. The
court held -- as TLPJ had urged -- that such a
sweeping order was not permitted by Colorado
discovery rules.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Jessee v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (Colorado Supreme Court
Case No. 2004CV1073,
filed February 23, 2006) Amicus brief filed by
Colorado Trial Lawyers Association in support of petitioner
in a court secrecy case against Farmers Insurance Exchange.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Jessee v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (Colorado Supreme Court
Case No. 2004CV1073,
filed February 15, 2006) Petitioner's reply brief in support
of petition for order to show cause. The Colorado Supreme
Court has agreed to hear TLPJ's challenge to a sweeping
protective order that would make key evidence in an
insurance bad faith case secret, even though the documents
are already in the public domain and an injury victim's
attorney obtained them without a protective order in a prior
case against Farmers Insurance Exchange.
|
|
HTML
|
PDF
|
Kumho Tire Co. et al. v. Patrick Carmichael et al. – (U.S. Supreme Court, No. 97-1709, October 19, 1998) TLPJ's amicus brief urging the Court not to apply Daubert rigidly to determine the admissibility of the expert testimony of an engineer.
|
|
HTML
|
PDF
|
Letter re Electronic Discovery –
(December 17, 2002)
Letter by TLPJ Staff Attorneys Paul Bland and Victoria Ni
urging the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to reject
proposals to change the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by
placing additional restrictions on the discovery of electronic
information.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Philip
Morris USA v. Williams (U.S. Supreme Court, No. 05-1256, September 15, 2006) TLPJ's amicus
brief urging the U.S. Supreme
Court to preserve a jury’s power to fully punish a
cigarette maker for lying to consumers for decades about
the horrible dangers of cigarettes.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Public
Justice Brayton-Baron
Attorney Leslie Bailey's
Testimony to the Subcommittee
on Antitrust, Competition Policy
and Consumer Rights of the
U.S. Senate's Committee on the
Judiciary for a December 11,
2007 Hearing on "The Sunshine in
Litigation Act: Does Court
Secrecy Undermine Public Health
and Safety?" The
testimony argues
that unnecessary court secrecy
threatens the public welfare by
concealing critical information
about dangerous products and
corporate wrongdoing from the
public and press, and undermines
our historically open civil
justice system. It
also describes Public
Justice's work in Project
ACCESS, our special litigation
project devoted to fighting
unnecessary secrecy in the
courts.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Rieff v. Evans –
(Supreme
Court of Iowa, No. 02-727, November
27, 2002) Amicus brief filed by TLPJ and ATLA in
support of plaintiff-appellee Mary Rieff, arguing that the right to jury trial was essential
to the framers of the Constitution; that juries and judges
usually come to the same decisions; that there is no need
for a complexity exception because there are mechanisms in
place to help juries understand difficult issues; and that
allowing such an exception would lead to a slippery slope
wherein no complex civil litigation would involve a jury.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Smith v. Hotels.com
–
(California
Superior Court for Alameda
County, filed
May 22, 2007) Complaint on
behalf of a class of
individuals with mobility
impairments against
hotels.com charging that the
company violates California
civil rights laws by
refusing to guarantee
reservations for
wheelchair-accessible rooms.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson –
(U.S. Supreme Court, 01-757, June 5, 2002) TLPJ's amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of respondent urging the Court to affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals that the All Writs Act by itself does not create federal jurisdiction.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Tipton-Whittingham v. City of
Los Angeles –
(Supreme Court of the State of California, No.
S112943, October 7, 2003)
TLPJ's amici brief in support of respondents,
urging the Court to refuse to import the widely-criticized Buckhannon
rule into California law because it would discourage private
plaintiffs from bringing cases that enforce public
policy.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Washington Legal Foundation v. Legal Foundation of
Washington – (U.S. Supreme Court, No. 01-1325,
October 18, 2002) Brief of that National League of Cities,
International Municipal Lawyers Association and TLPJ as amici
curiae in support of respondents. This
U.S. Supreme Court case presents the issue of whether a
government program which funds legal services for the poor
with the interest from certain pooled accounts –
comprised of nominal or short-term client deposits in
lawyers' trust accounts (IOLTA) – constitutes
an unconstitutional taking of private property. The brief
argues that no compensation is due to the owners of the
principal at issue, and thus no violation of the Constitution
occurred.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Watson v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
–
(United States Supreme Court, No. 05-1284,
June 11, 2007) Supreme
Court decision unanimously overturning, as our
amicus brief urged, an Eighth Circuit ruling
finding that a class action against cigarette
giant Phillip Morris could be removed to federal
court simply because the company is subject to
government regulation.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Watson v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
–
(United States Supreme Court, No. 05-1284,
February 26, 2007) Public
Justice amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme
Court to overturn an Eighth Circuit ruling
finding that a class action against cigarette
giant Phillip Morris could be removed to federal
court simply because the company is subject to
government regulation.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Weiss v. Allstate Insurance Company - (U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
No. 06-cv-3774, August 8, 2007)
Reply in Support of FTCR's Motion to Intervene. |
|
|
PDF
|
Weiss v. Allstate Insurance Company - (U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
No. 06-cv-3774, August 2, 2007)
Opposition to Allstate motion to return or
seal trial documents. |
|
|
PDF
|
Weiss v. Allstate Insurance Company - (U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
No. 06-cv-3774, July 31, 2007)
Weiss memorandum in support of motion to intervene to oppose
Allstate's motion to seal trial exhibits and for extension
of time to file. |
|
|
PDF
|
Weiss v. Allstate Insurance Company - (U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
No. 06-cv-3774, July 30, 2007)
Declaration of Harvey Rosenfeld in Support of Motion to
Intervene and Opposition to Sealing of Trial Exhibits. |
^^ BACK TO TOP ^^
Civil Rights & Civil Liberties
|
|
PDF
|
Barrett
v. West Chester University –
(U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
No. 03-4978, November 12, 2003)
Federal court decision granting TLPJ's motion for a preliminary injunction
seeking reinstatement of WCU's women's gymnastics team.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Barrett
v. West Chester University –
(U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
No. 03-4978, September 4, 2003)
Plaintiffs' motion in support of a preliminary injunction
seeking reinstatement of WCU's women's gymnastics team.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Barrett v. West Chester
University - (U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 03-4978, September 4,
2003)
TLPJ's complaint in a sex discrimination lawsuit against West
Chester University of Pennsylvania (WCU), charging that the
state university's decision to eliminate its women's
gymnastics team in response to a budget crunch violates Title
IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
|
|
HTML
|
PDF
|
Beck v. Boeing Company
– (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 02-35140,
June 12, 2002) Amicus brief in support of plaintiffs-appellees in a class action suit filed by female employees of the Boeing Company, alleging that
systemic gender discrimination at the company violated Title VII and applicable state law. TLPJ joined in the amicus brief with many public interest organizations and professional associations, seeking to uphold the district court's class certification decision and arguing that nothing in the 1991 Civil Rights Act was intended to undermine, or had the effect of undermining, the propriety of Title VII class actions.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Browning v. Southwest Research Institute -- TLPJ's
complaint charging Southwest Research Institute in San
Antonio, Texas – a major research institute that receives
significant federal funding from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission – with sex discrimination and retaliation against
a noted geoscientist, Dr. Laura Browning. The Institute
denied Browning equal pay and advancement opportunities, and
then punished her when she complained.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Castaneda v. United States (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, March 11, 2008) Amended Order denying individual Public Health Service Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Bivens claims alleging Eighth Amendment violations of his right to adequate medical care. Plaintiff was an immigration detainee whose penis was amputated and who eventually died of penile cancer as the result of medical neglect suffered while in detention.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Castaneda v.
United States --
(U.S. District Court
for the Central
District of
California, February
11, 2008)
Plaintiff's
Memorandum of Points
and Authorities in
Opposition to
Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss Under
Rule 12(b)(1). This
brief opposes the
federal Public
Health Service
Defendants' motion
to dismiss
Plaintiff's Bivens
claims alleging
Eight Amendment
violations of his
right to adequate
medical care and
Fifth Amendment
violations of his
right to equal
protection.
Plaintiff is a
former immigration
detainee who
received such
grossly inadequate
medical care for a
penile lesion while
in custody that he
now has terminal
cancer and had to
have his penis
amputated.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Castaneda v. United States
–
(United States
District Court for the Central District of
California, November 2, 2007) Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial. Lawsuit on behalf of
former immigration detainee who received
such grossly inadequate medical care for a
penile lesion that he now has
terminal cancer and had to have his penis
amputated. Suit charges the federal and
California governments, and/or their agents,
with constitutional violations, medical
negligence and other torts.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Carranza-Reyes
v. Park County - (U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, No. 2005-WM-377, May 2005)
Second amended complaint on behalf of Moises Carranza-Reyes, a Mexican
man who was detained in Colorado’s Park County Jail for an
immigration violation, but who was never charged with any
crime, is suing Park County officials, including the sheriff
and the captain of the sheriff’s department, as well as the
jail’s medical staff, for denying him sanitary housing and
medical care so that his leg had to be amputated.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Chiras - (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No.
04-10998, November 16, 2004) Plaintiffs' appellate brief in a First Amendment case
charging Texas State School Board officials with censorship
for rejecting an environmental science textbook because of the
viewpoints it represents.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Chiras v. Miller –
(U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, July 23,
2004) Order dismissing TLPJ's First Amendment
challenge.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Chiras v. Miller –
(U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, January
22, 2004) TLPJ's brief in opposition to the motion to
dismiss in a First Amendment case
charging Texas State School Board officials with censorship
for rejecting an environmental science textbook because of the
viewpoints it represents.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Chiras v. Miller –
(U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, January
22, 2004) TLPJ's second amended complaint in a First Amendment case
charging Texas State School Board officials with censorship
for rejecting an environmental science textbook because of the
viewpoints it represents.
|
|
HTML
|
PDF
|
Cohen v. Brown University – (District of Rhode Island, C.A. No. 92-0197-P, June 23, 1998) Final settlement agreement in case alleging that Brown University violated Title IX by discriminating against its female athletes.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Commissioner v. Banks and Commissioner v. Banaitis - (U.S.
Supreme Court, Nos.
03-892,
03-907,
August 18,
2004) Amici brief filed by TLPJ and a coalition of
civil rights groups in two consolidated cases, urging the U.S.
Supreme Court to reject the federal government's proposal to
force victims of discrimination to pay taxes on money they
never receive -- specifically, their civil rights attorneys'
contingency fees.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Flood v. Board of
Trustees of Florida Gulf
Coast University
(United States District
Court for the Middle
District of Florida,
January 18, 2008)
Complaint and Demand for
Jury Trial. Lawsuit on
behalf of head women's
volleyball coach at
Florida Gulf Coast
University charging that
school is retaliating
against her and defaming
her because she
expressed concern
that university's
athletic department is
violating Title IX of
the Civil Rights Act, a
federal law designed to
ensure gender equity in
education.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Gender Discrimination Demand Letter Regarding Wabash High School Baseball Program (Feb. 4, 2008) Demand letter on behalf of Heather Bauduin to the Indiana High School Athletic Association, Wabash High School, and Wabash City Schools charging that rule prohibiting girls from trying out for baseball violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and Title IX.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Hickey v. City of Seattle –
(U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No.
02-36027,
October 29, 2007) Settlement on behalf of nearly two hundred
peaceful protesters arrested on December 1, 1999 in
Seattle's Westlake Park during WTO Ministerial meetings in
violation of their constitutional rights. Requires the City
of Seattle to expunge protesters' arrest records, improve
police training on mass arrests, and pay $1 million in
damages.
|
|
HTML
|
PDF
|
Hickey v. City of Seattle –
(U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No.
02-36027,
March 20, 2002) Plaintiffs' reply brief arguing that the Court
should reverse the District Court orders holding the "no
protest zone" constitutional.
|
|
HTML
|
|
Hickey v. City of Seattle
- (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 02-36027,
January 6, 2003)
Plaintiffs-Appellants' opening brief on the issue of whether
the creation and implementation of the "no protest
zone" during peaceful WTO demonstrations in Seattle in
December 1999 violated the First Amendment.
|
|
|
PDF
|
Hickey v. City of Seattle (U.S. District
Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle, Case No.
C00-1672P, December 29, 2003) Federal judge's order
determini | |
