Public Justice - Briefs & Legal Documents

Altria v. Good (U.S. Supreme Court) (December 15, 2008) Decision rejecting federal preemption of damage claims against the tobacco companies for fraudulently advertising that "light" cigarettes deliver less tar and nicotine than regular brands.

Altria v. Good (U.S. Supreme Court) (June 18, 2008) Amici Curiae Brief of the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium, AARP, and Public Justice opposing federal preemption of consumer claims relating to Philip Morris' so-called "light" cigarettes.

Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) v. CBS Corporation (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles, April 11, 2008)Complaint filed alleging violations of a California 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.

Banderas Complaint

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.

Betts v. Fastfunding the Co. (Circuit Court, Orange County, Florida, September 18, 2008) Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay and Renewed Motion for Appointment of Arbitrator Capable of Fulfilling the Fifth District Court of Appeal's Mandate. After consumer was sent to arbitration with the arbitrator instructed by the Court of Appeal to consider under Florida law whether the case should proceed as a class action, the National Arbitration Forum dismissed the class action allegations under its own rules -- which effectively, but do not openly, ban all class actions -- without considering Florida law. (As is customary with NAF, this was done by a clerk, not an arbitrator.) This motion asks the Court to appoint a new arbitrator who does not believe its own rules override court orders and state law.

Betts v. McKenzie (Fourth District Court of Appeal, Florida, April 2008)

Reply Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees urging Court of Appeal to affirm 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.

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.

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.

Castaneda v. United States (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, October 2, 2008) Opinion

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.

Opposition to federal Public Health Service Defendants' motion to stay entire case while they appeal the district court's ruling denying their motion to dismiss the constitutional claims against them. These Defendants claim they are immune from suit and that Plaintiffs are limited to suing the U.S. for medical negligence. Plaintiffs are family members of former immigration detainee who received such grossly inadequate medical care for a penile lesion while in custody that he had to have his penis amputated and eventually died of penile cancer.

Castaneda v. United States (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, March 15, 2008). Second Amended Complaint and Jury Demand. Wrongful death and survival lawsuit on behalf of family of former immigration detainee who received such grossly inadequate medical care for a penile lesion while in custody that he had to have his penis amputated and eventually died of penile cancer. Suit charges federal and California authorities with constitutional violations, medical negligence, and other torts.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cruz v. Cingular Wireless, LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Mar. 4, 2009) Reply brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants urging Eleventh Circuit to reject Cingular's arguments that application of Florida law is preempted by FAA, and urging Eleventh Circuit to either certify the issue of whether Cingular's class action ban violates Florida public policy to the Florida Supreme Court, or hold that Plaintiffs' reading of Florida law is correct.

Cruz v. Cingular Wireless, LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Dec. 4, 2008) Opening brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants urging Eleventh Circuit to certify question of enforceability of Cingular's class action ban to the Florida Supreme Court, or alternatively, hold that Cingular's class action ban violates Florida public policy and is unenforceable.

Everett v. Cherry (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, December 13, 2007). Complaint. Lawsuit on behalf of family of former immigrant detainee, Sandra Kenley, who died in custody. Suit charges administrators and health care providers at the two Virginia facilities where Kenley was detained -- Pamunkey Regional Jail in Hanover and Hampton Roads Regional Jail in Portsmouth -- with medical negligence resulting in Kenley's wrongful death and a violation of Kenley's constitutional right to adequate medical care. Kenley had been suffering from an oversized fibroid tumor, high cholesterol and high blood pressure when she was taken into custody. (Note: The Complaint was originally filed pro se in state court, but was removed to federal court. Public Justice entered its appearance on plaintiff's behalf on February 5, 2009.)

Exxon Shipping Company v. Baker (U.S. Supreme Court, No. 07-219, June 25, 2008) On June 25, 2008, the United State Supreme Court issued a decision slashing the punitive damages award against the giant oil in Exxon Mobil Shipping Company v. Baker, but finds, as Public Justice had urged in an amici brief that the federal Clean Water Act does not preempt punitive damages awards in maritime cases. In reducing the punitive award (from $2.5 billion to $500,000), the Court ruled that, in maritime cases (which are governed by federal common law), "a numerical 1:1 ratio [ of compensatory to punitive damages] is a fair upper limit." The brief, which was filed on behalf of the Center for Constitutional Litigation ("CCL") and Public Justice, was principally authored by CCL’s Robert Peck and Jeffrey White, with input from Public Justice's Leslie Brueckner and Arthur Bryant.

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.

Families for Asbestos Compliance v. City of St. Louis (New Mexico Supreme Court, No. 4:05-CV-719, September 15, 2008) Federal district court decision finding the City of St. Louis liable for 99 violations of the federal Clean Air Act for demolishing 99 homes before the asbestos in those homes was removed in accordance with federal asbestos safety standards.

FIA Card Services, N.A. v. Chouest, consolidated with MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Burdett (Louisiana Supreme Court, July 11, 2008 Opposition to Application for Writ of Certiorari successfully urging the Louisiana Supreme Court to deny review of decision refusing to confirm NAF arbitration awards against consumers where the creditors had failed to demonstrate that valid arbitration agreements existed between the parties.

Fiser v. Dell Computer Corporation (New Mexico Supreme Court, June 27, 2008) The New Mexico Supreme Court's decision, unanimously holding that Dell's class action ban is unenforceable.

Flood v. Board of Trustees of Florida Gulf Coast University (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, May 12, 2008) First Amended Complaint

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.

Garber v. Buckeye Chrysler-Jeep Dodge of Shelby, LLC (Ohio Supreme Court, August 28, 2008) Motion in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellants Jacob and Tammy Garber. This pleadings asks the Ohio Supreme Court to hear an appeal of a ruling where the lower court did not even permit a consumer to respond to a car dealer's motion staying the case in favor of arbitration. The pleading argues that denying consumers the chance to respond violates Ohio and federal law.

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.

Gibson v. Nye Frontier Ford (Alaska Supreme Court October 31, 2008)

Reply brief for employee arguing that employer's arbitration clause is unenforceable in several respects.

Gibson v. Nye Frontier Ford (Alaska Supreme Court, July 15, 2008) Brief for employee arguing that employer's mandatory arbitration clause is unconscionable because it (a) gives the employer the power to unilaterally re-write the arbitration clause at any time; (b) has a selective appeal provision which favors the employer; and (c) requires the employee to pay half the costs of arbitration.

Guantanamo detainee cases. Opinion by Justice Kennedy in Boumediene v. Bush and Al-Odah v. United States, ruling, as we had urged, that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention.

Guantanamo detainee cases. Public Justice and ACLU's amicus brief in Boumediene v. Bush and Al-Odah v. United States, arguing that the prisoners at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay are entitled to bring federal habeas corpus challenges to their detention.

Johnson v. Rockwell (Arkansas Supreme Court, December 1, 2008 ) Public Justice amicus brief challenging the constitutionality of Arkansas' tort reform statute.

Homa v. American Express (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, February 24, 2009) Decision.

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.

Komarova v. National Credit Acceptance (California Court of Appeal, February 5, 2009) Amici brief of Public Justice and the National Consumer Law Center, filed in support of Plaintiff/Respondent. The brief uses an array of publicly available sources to document consumers' concerns about arbitrations before the National Arbitration Forum.

Kellogg v. Wyeth, et al. -- (United States District Court for the District of the Vermont, December 17, 2008) Decision ruling, as Public Justice and co-counsel, the Center for Constitutional Litigation (CCL) had urged, that the FDA's approval of a generic prescription drug's label does NOT preempt claims against a drug maker for failing to warn consumers of known risks.

Kellogg v. Wyeth, et al. -- (United States District Court for the District of the Vermont, February 25, 2008) Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. In its motion for summary judgment, defendant Activis-Elizabeth, LLC, a pharmaceutical company, argued that the plaintiff's failure to warn claims involving a generic version of the drug metoclopramide should be dismissed on the ground that they conflict with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval of the drug's label. In her opposition brief, the plaintiff argued, among other things, that the federal preemption motion must fail because the plaintiff's claims do not conflict with the federal regulatory scheme and that the FDA's recently published regulatory preamble, in which the agency stated its view that common-law failure to warn claims are preempted by federal law, is not entitled to deference.

Kick v. Planet Toys (U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, CA, April 11, 2008) Complaint filed 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.

Liceaga v. Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC (California Supreme Court, Feburary 6, 2009) Petition for Review of decision by the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division 1, holding that the remedies provisions of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCRAA") are preempted by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The Plaintiff in this case is an identity-theft victim whose credit was damaged when the defendant debt collector continued reporting information on a fraudulent account opened by the identity theft, in violation of the CCRAA. This Petition argues that the California Supreme Court should grant review because the decision of the court below conflicts with decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and a different division of the court of appeal, both of which held that the FCRA expressly saved the CCRAA from preemption, and is also in conflict with U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Petition was authored by Paul Bland, with input from Leslie Bailey and our co-counsel Alec Trueblood of Los Angeles.

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.

Masters v. DirecTV, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, January 20, 2009). Opening Brief of Appellants urging the Ninth Circuit to affirm the district court's holding that DirecTV's choice-of-law clause is unenforceable under California law as to non-California class members and striking DirecTV's class action ban as an unconscionable exculpatory clause. The plaintiffs in this putative nationwide class action allege that DirecTV has violated California consumer protection laws by engaging in a "bait and switch" scheme in which it markets satellite television receivers for purchase, informing customers only after the sale is completed that they have merely "leased" the equipment and must pay additional long-term monthly fees or incur cancellation penalties. If enforced, DirecTV's choice-of-law clause -- which provides that the law of each customer's residence governs the enforceability of its contract terms -- would permit the corporation to require individual arbitration in any state that enforces class action bans, despite the fact that its class action ban is unenforceable in California, the state in which the corporation is based. We argue that enforcement of DirecTV's choice-of-law clause would violate California's fundamental public policy against exculpatory class action bans, and that because DirecTV is based in California, the alleged wrongful acts emanated from California, and the plaintiffs allege violations of only California law, California has a materially greater interest in applying its own laws to its corporate citizen than any other state has in preventing its residents from joining in this class action to hold DirecTV accountable.

McKee v. AT&T Corp. - (Washington Supreme Court, No. 81006-I, August 28, 2008) Unanimous decision affirming denial of AT&T's motion to compel individual arbitration of plaintiff's class action claims that AT&T violated Washington consumer protection law. The court held that (1) several provisions of AT&T's arbitration clause -- a class action ban, a secrecy clause, a shortened statute of limitations, and a limit on the attorneys' fees consumers can recover -- are unconscionable and unenforceable under Washington law; (2) AT&T cannot make its exculpatory class action ban enforceable by designating the law of a state other than Washington in its contract; (3) the Federal Communications Act does not preempt application of Washington's unconscionability law; and (4) the Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt Washington law.

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.

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.

Mensing v. Wyeth, et al. -- (United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, February 20, 2009). Appellant's Opening Brief. Appellant Gladys Mensing developed tardive dyskinesia as a result of her long-term use of the drug metoclopramide, the generic version of the prescription drug Reglan. She sued the manufacturers of both the brand name and the generic form of the drug for failure adequately to warn of the risks of using metoclopramide. The district court ruled that Ms. Mensing’s claims against the manufacturers of generic metoclopramide are preempted by the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and FDA regulations regarding generic drugs. The court also ruled that Ms. Mensing could not sue the manufacturers of Reglan, because under Minnesota law drug companies owe no duty to persons who do not take their product. This appeal challenges both rulings.

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, October 31, 2008) Decision granting preliminary injunction against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting a new mountaintop removal mine in West Virginia. The decision questions the scientific validity of the cornerstone of the Corps' permitting strategy - the theory that coal companies can make up for burying headwater streams with mining waste by creating new streams somewhere else.

OVEC v. Aracoma Coal Company (4th Circuit Court. No. 07-1355, February 13, 2009) Decision rejecting challenges to four valley fill permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for mountaintop removal mining activities in West Virginia.

Picardi v. United Hyundai (Nevada Supreme Court. No. 53126, January 20, 2009) Petition to Nevada Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus overturning trial court's order to compel arbitration. The petition argues that the arbitration clause should be found unconscionable under Nevada law because it contains a class action ban, and because it subjects the award of attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff to the arbitrator's discretion. It also argues that the arbitration clause, which was presented as a contract addendum, violates the Nevada Retail Installment Sales Act's "One-Document Rule."

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.

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

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.

Smith v. Hotels.com (Superior Court, California, January 8, 2009) Settlement Agreement. The agreement settles a lawsuit alleging that Hotels.com, a leading online travel company, discriminated against persons with mobility disabilities by failing to offer wheelchair accessible hotel rooms for reservation. The agreement provides that Hotels.com and Expedia.com will revise their websites and reservation systems so that disabled travelers will be able to search for and reserve hotels rooms with the accessibility features they need.

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.

Strauss v. Horton (California Supreme Court, January 14, 2008) Amici brief challenging Proposition 8, a voter initiative that purported to change the California Constitution to deny gay and lesbian individuals the right to marry. The case does not involve the question of whether gays and lesbians have a fundamental right to marry under the California Constitution; that question has already been answered affirmatively by the California Supreme Court. Instead, the question before the Court is whether a fundamental right -- including, but not limited to, the right to marry -- can validly be eliminated from California's Constitution for any minority by a simple vote of the majority, or whether the elimination of such a right constitutes a "revision" that requires approval by a Constitutional Convention or two-thirds of the legislature followed by public ratification. The brief was filed on behalf of Public Justice and a host of other public interest groups and bar associations, including the Alameda County Bar Association, Bar Association of San Francisco, Los Angeles County Bar Association, Marin County Bar Association, Santa Clara County Bar Association, California Employment Lawyers Association, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, Impact Fund, American Bar Association of Southern California, and San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association.

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.

West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc. and West Virginia Rivers Coalition v. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, January 14, 2009) Decision requiring West Virginia to obtain permits for toxic acid mine drainage from abandoned coal mines so that discharges comply with water pollution limits.

WFS Financial v. Superior Court (California Supreme Court, July 25, 2006) Petition for Review urging the California Supreme Court to hear appeal of a decision holding that state laws requiring that consumers be given accurate information when their cars are repossessed were preempted as with respect to a federal saving association.

Wyeth v. Levine (U.S. Supreme Court, March 4, 2009)

Decision.

Wyeth v. Levine (U.S. Supreme Court, August 14, 2008)

Amicus brief filed on behalf of 10 current and former editors and contributing authors of the New England Journal of Medicine. It argues that allowing federal preemption of prescription drug failure-to-warn claims poses a serious threat to public health and safety because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) relies on the pharmaceutical industry to provide information about the risks of its own prescription drug products. The brief includes case studies of three drugs whose manufacturers withheld key information from the FDA while the companies lobbied against stricter label warnings and continued to market their unsafe drugs to an unsuspecting public.

Y. v. Indiana High School Athletic Association, et al. (District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, November 21, 2008) Complaint. Complaint alleging violations of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause where high school athletic association's rule prohibited girls from playing baseball if school offered softball.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Johnson v. Rockwell (Arkansas Supreme Court, December 1, 2008 ) Public Justice amicus brief challenging the constitutionality of Arkansas' tort reform statute.

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.

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.

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.

Wyeth v. Levine (U.S. Supreme Court, March 4, 2009)

Decision.

Wyeth v. Levine (U.S. Supreme Court, August 14, 2008)

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.

Castaneda v. United States (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, October 2, 2008) Opinion

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.

Flood v. Board of Trustees of Florida Gulf Coast University (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, May 12, 2008) First Amended Complaint

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.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - (U.S. Supreme Court, Case No. 05-184, January 2006) Amici curiae brief on behalf of petitioner, arguing that the military commissions President George W. Bush established to try the "enemy combatants" held in Guantanamo Bay are illegal because they violate the detainees' right to a fair trial under U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions. The amici brief was filed as part of TLPJ's Access to Justice Campaign in conjunction with the People for the American Way Foundation, the American Jewish Committee, and the Rutherford Institute.

Skirchak v. Dynamics Research Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Nos. 06-2136, 06-2180, November 19, 2007) Court of Appeals decision holding that the class action ban in DRC's employment contract is unconscionable under Massachusetts law, and that the plaintiffs' claims that they were wrongly denied overtime pay can proceed in class arbitration.

Skirchak v. Dynamics Research Corp. – (U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Nos. 06-2136, 06-2180, filed May 7, 2007) Brief of Amicus Curiae Public Justice in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants. This amicus brief argues that the ban on class actions embedded in the defendant's arbitration clause would effectively serve as an exculpatory clause in the context of the employees' Fair Labor Standards Act claims, and thus is unconscionable and unenforceable. The brief was authored by John Roddy and Elizabeth Ryan of Roddy, Klein & Ryan, with input from Leslie Bailey and Paul Bland.

TLPJ's letter to Florida A & M University -- TLPJ's demand letter, dated August 9, 2005, charging that the school’s decision to eliminate the women’s swimming and diving team violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination by educational institutions receiving federal funds. FAMU has confirmed that it will reinstate the team.

Figueroa v. Sharper Image – (District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, No. 05-21251, October 11, 2007) Court's 61-page decision rejecting, as we had urged, the proposed class action settlement involving Sharper Image air purifiers, which would have given class members a $19 coupon that could be used toward the purchase of another item sold at Sharper Image and a retrofit device that may or may not have reduced the health hazards posed by these air purifiers.

Figueroa v. Sharper Image – (District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, No. 05-21251, August 13, 2007) Renewed objections to the third amended settlement agreement, which the parties filed with the court on July 30, 2007. The renewed objections maintain that the relief proposed by the settlement (a $19 coupon and retrofit device) remains inadequate, as does the notice of the settlement.

Figueroa v. Sharper Image – (District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, No. 05-21251, June 21, 2007) Objections to proposed class-action settlement in Figueroa v. Sharper image, a nationwide class action involving the so-called "Ionic Breeze" air purifiers manufactured by Sharper Image, which have been the subject of a nationwide controversy due to their admission of high levels of ozone, a known health hazard. The proposed settlement, which is pending before a Miami federal court, would give class members a coupon good for $19 off the purchase of other sharper image branded products and the right to purchase a retrofit device that may or may not help reduce the health hazards posed by the air purifiers. The objections, which were filed on June 21, 2007, on behalf of a class member who owns two of the air purifiers, argue that the settlement is unfair, inadequate, and unreasonable because it amounts to little more than a marketing device for Sharper Image and does not adequately address the health hazards posed by the Ionic Breeze air purifiers. Theodore J. Leopold of Palm Beach Gardens and Public Justice’s Amy Radon are lead counsel, with Public Justice’s Leslie Brueckner and Arthur Bryant assisting.

Figueroa v. Sharper Image – (District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, No. 05-21251, June 19, 2007) Amicus Curiae Brief filed on behalf of the Attorney Generals of 36 states and the District of Columbia on June 19, 200, objecting to the proposed class-action settlement in Figueroa v. Sharper Image, a nationwide class action involving the so-called "Ionic Breeze" air purifiers manufactured by Sharper Image. Public Justice has filed objections to this proposed settlement on behalf of a class member who owns two of the air purifiers. For a description of Public Justice's objections, see above.

Gentry v. Superior Court (Circuit City, Inc.) – (California Supreme Court, No. S141502, December 14, 2006) Brief of Amici Curiae Trial Lawyers for Public Justice et al. in Support of Petitioner Robert Gentry. This amicus brief argues that the ban on class actions embedded in the arbitration clause in Circuit City's employment contract would effectively serve as an exculpatory clause in the context of the plaintiffs' wage-and-hour claims, and thus is substantively unconscionable and unenforceable under California law. The brief was authored by Laura Ho and Joseph Jaramillo of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, with input from TLPJ's Leslie Bailey and Paul Bland.

Homa v. American Express (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, February 24, 2009) Decision.

Homa v. American Express (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 07-2921, filed November 13, 2007) Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant. This brief urges the court to certify to the New Jersey Supreme Court the question of whether New Jersey law providing that an exculpatory class action ban embedded in an arbitration clause is unconscionable represents a fundamental policy of the state, or alternatively urges the court to strike such a contract provision as unenforceable under New Jersey law. The brief was authored by Paul Bland, David Arkush and Amy Radon (with assistance from Michael Roney), Gary Graifman of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, and Howard Longman of Stull, Stull & Brody.

Italian Colors Restaurant v. American Express Travel Related Services (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 06-1871-CV, September 20, 2006) Amicus brief in support of plaintiffs in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that a provision barring small merchants from bringing a class action would bar them from effectively vindicating their rights under the federal antitrust laws, because the costs of bringing such an action on an individual basis would be prohibitive.

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.

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.

Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware (New Jersey Supreme Court Docket No. 58,430, March 3, 2006) Plaintiff’s Brief in Response to Amicus Curiae New Jersey Business and Industry Association.

Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware (New Jersey Supreme Court Docket No. 58,430, February 3, 2006) Plaintiff’s Brief in Response to Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.

Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware (New Jersey Supreme Court Docket No. 58,430, filed November 23, 2005) Plaintiff’s Brief on the Merits urging State Supreme Court to hold that mandatory arbitration clause in high-cost payday loan contract is unconscionable because of provisions prohibiting consumers from asserting class action claims and from taking more than $180 worth of discovery with which to prove their claims that four corporate defendants violated racketeering and consumer protection statutes by entering into a “rent-a-bank” scheme to commit usury by misrepresenting to consumers who was their true lender.

Picardi v. United Hyundai (Nevada Supreme Court) Petition to Nevada Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus overturning trial court's order to compel arbitration. The petition argues that the arbitration clause should be found unconscionable under Nevada law because it contains a class action ban, and because it subjects the award of attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff to the arbitrator's discretion. It also argues that the arbitration clause, which was presented as a contract addendum, violates the Nevada Retail Installment Sales Act's "One-Document Rule."

Pleasants v. American Express (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit November 21, 2007) Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant arguing that American Express's ban on class actions embedded in its arbitration clause is unconscionable under Missouri law as applied to a consumer's Truth-in-Lending claims, or, in the alternative, that the district court should at least have permitted the consumer plaintiff to take basic discovery in support of her claim that the contract term banning class actions was unconscionable. The brief was authored by Leslie Bailey and Paul Bland, with input from co-counsel Debra Lumpkins of Gateway Legal Services, Inc. and Charles D. Marshall of Green Welling LLP.

Michael Schnuerle, et al. v. Insight Communications Company, L.P. and Insight Communications Midwest, LLC– (Kentucky Court of Appeals, No. 06-CI-04267) Challenge to a contract term banning class actions that was embedded in a cable company's arbitration clause, in a case where consumers of broadband internet service allege breach of contract and consumer protection claims.

Adams v. Corrections Corporation of America – (Court of Appeals, State of Colorado, No. 07CA681, July 2, 2007) Opening Brief of Appellants, 85 inmates who suffered physical and mental injuries at the hands of Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) employees during and after a riot at Crowley County Correction Facility. The inmates, none of whom participated in the riot, filed common-law tort claims against CCA and its employees. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under a Colorado statute requiring exhaustion for civil claims based on prison conditions brought “under any statute or constitutional provision.” The inmates assert on appeal that the district court erred for the following reasons: (1) it ignored Colorado’s strong presumption against abrogating or altering common-law claims; (2) it ignored the plain and unambiguous wording of the statute; (3) it did not properly consider the statute’s textual context and other neighboring provisions; (4) it misconstrued the statute’s legislative history; and (5) it second-guessed the legislature’s policy

Adams v. Corrections Corporation of America -- District Court, County of Crowley, State of Colorado, No. 2005cv60, filed August 23, 2005) Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint against the nation's largest private prison operator, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), for causing and outrageously responding to a riot at Crowley County Correctional Facility in Olney Springs, Colorado. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of 86 inmates who had no role in the riot, but were inhumanely treated and injured by CCA.

Blanco v. Key Bank USA -- (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, No. 1:04-cv-0230) TLPJ's brief in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss the case on federal preemption grounds. TLPJ represents the plaintiffs, a group of students who were defrauded by a trade school that went belly up after receiving full payment. Key Bank financed the school loans, and paid the school up-front for the entire amount of the students’ loans. After the school went bankrupt, Key Bank allegedly refused to refund the students’ money or discharge their remaining student loans. The students sued the bank in federal court under an Ohio consumer protection law, seeking a refund of their money and discharge of any future payment obligations. Key Bank moved to dismiss, saying that the state law (which makes third party “creditors” subject to the same defenses as “sellers”) is preempted by the National Bank Act (NBA) and its implementing regulations. The District Court issued a decision in plaintiff's favor, which was one of the first in a country rejecting federal preemption under new regulations promulgated by the US Office of Comptroller of Currency. See the decision in Blanco. In the wake of that decision, however, the judge recused himself from the case and vacated his earlier ruling. The motion to dismiss was refiled and is now pending before a different judge.

County of Santa Clara, et al. v. Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara – (California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District, No. H031540, April 4, 2007) Application for leave to file Amici Curiae brief and proposed Amici Curiae brief of Public Justice, Healthy Children Organizing Project, and Western Center for Law and Poverty in support of Petitioners County of Santa Clara, et al. In a public nuisance action brought by several cities and counties in California against the lead pigment industry, defendants moved to disqualify the private attorneys who were representing and co-counseling with the local governments in the case. The amici brief argues that public-private collaboration in public nuisance litigation is permitted under California law and is critical to ensure access to justice.

Davis v. Honda (California Superior Court, County of Placer, No. SCV 9736, October 25, 2005) Transcript of oral argument in this court secrecy case, which resulted in the unsealing of a blistering 36-page sanctions order against Honda and its expert witness Robert Gratzinger for "deliberately" tampering with physical evidence in an auto safety case.

Davis v. Honda (California Superior Court, County of Placer, No. SCV 9736, Sept. 21, 2005) TLPJ's challenge to an extraordinary court order that seals, vacates, and bars reference to a court decision that sanctioned an expert witness and the American Honda Motor Company (Honda) for deliberately tampering with evidence. TLPJ is asking a California state court to make public its 2002 sanctions decision in an auto safety case. The lawsuit was based on a 1999 accident in a Honda Civic that left plaintiff Sarah Davis, then 17 years old, a quadriplegic. The sanctions decision reportedly held the automaker liable after the court found that Honda’s expert witness, Robert Gratzinger, had deliberately tampered with key evidence in the case. The sanctions decision was vacated and sealed from public view after the case settled. TLPJ filed motions on behalf of a national auto safety group and attorneys representing car crash victims in Tennessee and Mississippi, who successfully sought to end the secrecy blanketing the decision.

Gibson v. Nye Frontier Ford (Alaska Supreme Court October 31, 2008)

Reply brief for employee arguing that employer's arbitration clause is unenforceable in several respects.

Homa v. American Express (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, February 24, 2009) Decision.

Homa v. American Express (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 07-2921, filed November 13, 2007) Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant. This brief urges the court to certify to the New Jersey Supreme Court the question of whether New Jersey law providing that an exculpatory class action ban embedded in an arbitration clause is unconscionable represents a fundamental policy of the state, or alternatively urges the court to strike such a contract provision as unenforceable under New Jersey law. The brief was authored by Paul Bland, David Arkush and Amy Radon (with assistance from Michael Roney), Gary Graifman of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, and Howard Longman of Stull, Stull & Brody.

Kelly, et al v. Wyeth -- (Massachusetts State Court, Civil Action No. 03-3314-F, April 12, 2007) Decision ruling, as Public Justice and co-counsel, the Center for Constitutional Litigation (CCL) had urged, that the FDA's approval of a generic prescription drug's label does NOT preempt claims against a drug maker for failing to warn consumers of known risks.

Kelly, et al v. Wyeth -- (Massachusetts State Court, Civil Action No. 03-3314-F, December 15, 2006) Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. In its motion for summary judgment, defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, argued that the plaintiff's failure to warn claims involving a generic version of the drug metoclopramide should be dismissed on the ground that they conflict with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval of the drug's label. In their opposition brief, the plaintiff argued, among other things, that the federal preemption motion must fail because the plaintiff's claims do not conflict with the federal regulatory scheme and that the FDA's recently published regulatory preamble, in which the agency stated its view that common-law failure to warn claims are preempted by federal law, is not entitled to deference.

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. John J. Stoia, Jr. of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP in San Diego, Calif., and Edith M. Kallas of Whatley, Drake & Kallas, LLC in New York, NY are leading Public Justice’s litigation team in the lawsuit. Co-counsel also include Alan R. Brayton, Gregory Sheffer, and Peter Fredman of Brayton Purcell LLP; Rachel Jensen, Phong Tran, and Thomas O’Reardon II of Coughlin Stoia; and Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Joseph P. Guglielmo, and Elizabeth Rosenberg of Whatley, Drake. Victoria Ni and Arthur Bryant of Public Justice are also co-counsel.

OVEC v. Aracoma Coal Company (4th Circuit Court. No. 07-1355, February 13, 2009) 4th Circuit Court decision.

Watson v. Dell, Inc. – (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma, No. C-05-5200-RBL, October 20, 2006) Signed settlement agreement.

Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. (U.S. Supreme Court, No. 05-1342, September 1, 2006) Amici brief signed by TLPJ and other organizations -- including the Center for Responsible Lending, AARP, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and Public Citizen -- arguing that the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has wrongly attempted to preempt state consumer protection laws as they relate to national bank operating subsidiaries, contrary to the language of the National Bank Act, and has thereby dramatically undermined the states’ ability to protect their consumers from predatory lending.

Wyeth v. Levine (U.S. Supreme Court, March 4, 2009)

Decision.

Wyeth v. Levine (U.S. Supreme Court, August 14, 2008)

Citizens Against Pollution v. American Electric Power Company – (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, No. CV-0371, December 7, 2006) Signed Consent decree settling case; requires American Electric Power Plant to reduce the amount of sulfuric acid emitted from the coal-fired Gavin Power Plant in Cheshire, Ohio. (For a cleaner, but unsigned copy of the decree, click here.)

Citizens Against Pollution v. American Electric Power Company – (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, No. CV-0371, July 13, 2006) Court decision denying AEP's motion for summary judgment on CAP's RCRA endangerment claim.

Citizens Against Pollution v. American Electric Power Company – (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, No. CV-0371, July 20, 2006) Court decision denying cross-motions for summary judgment on CAP's CERCLA/EPCRA reporting claims.

Citizens Against Pollution v. American Electric Power Company – (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, No. CV-0371, August 16, 2006) Court order unsealing its two decisions on the parties' motions for summary judgment.

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers– (District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington Division, No. 3:05-0784, October 11, 2007) Suit challenging the Corps’ issuance of eight individual permits under the Clean Water Act for valley fills at eight large surface coal mines in West Virginia.

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

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.

Betts v. McKenzie (Fourth District Court of Appeal, Florida, April 2008)

Betts v. McKenzie (15th Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida)

Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna -- (U.S. Supreme Court, No. 04-1264, 2005) TLPJ's brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the justices to uphold the Florida Supreme Court's ruling that, under Florida law, Florida state courts must first determine whether a payday loan contract that charges interest rates of up to 1,300 percent is criminal and void ab initio before enforcing any provision in it, including a mandatory arbitration provision. The lender, Buckeye Check Cashing, insists that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts – i.e., wipes out – that law and requires Florida judges to enforce the contract’s arbitration clause even if the contract is illegal in Florida. TLPJ represents plaintiff John Cardegna, who sued Buckeye on behalf of a class of Florida consumers for violating a Florida anti-usury statute that prohibits exorbitant interest rates.

Muhammad v. County Bank and County Bank v. Muhammad – (U.S. Supreme Court, No. 06-907, March 7, 2007) Brief of Respondent Jaliyah Muhammad opposing County Bank's Petition for Certiorari. The New Jersey Supreme Court had held that the payday lender's contract provision banning class actions was unconscionable and unenforceable. This brief argues that the New Jersey Supreme Court's position does not raise an issue of federal law about which courts have been in conflict, and thus that the case is not appropriate for U.S. Supreme Court review.

Gentry v. Superior Court (Circuit City, Inc.) – (California Supreme Court, No. S141502, July 10, 2006) Petitioner's Opening Brief on the merits.

Haynes v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation - (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 05-cv-7696, Jan. 3, 2006) Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on federal preemption grounds. This brief argues that the state-law tort claims of the plaintiff, who suffered fatal injuries allegedly due to the negligence and intentional misconduct of Amtrak while riding on an Amtrak train, were not preempted by various federal railroad statutes or the U.S. Constitution.

Lewallen v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC – (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 06-1925, July 10, 2006) Brief of Appellant Rhonda Lewallen arguing that a bankruptcy court has broad discretion to deny motions to compel arbitration with respect to core bankruptcy issues, and that Green Tree waived its right to compel arbitration by engaging in extensive and prolonged litigation activity that had prejudiced Lewallen's rights