Current Edition- California Business Practice

The Peacemaker Quarterly- April 2014

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Dodger's Legal Troubles

The Dodger's legal troubles keeps getting worse and worse. Anyone else agree?

Check out this article regarding the Brian Stow case...


An attorney representing the Dodgers and owner Frank McCourt filed a civil complaint against the two men charged in the Opening Day beating of San Francisco Giants fan Bryan Stow in Los Angeles Superior Court last week, arguing that they should be held liable for the attack, not McCourt, the team or other parties named in the suit filed by Stow's family in May.

"One of the things the jury will be asked to do is to determine what percentage of fault various individuals have for this event," McCourt's attorney Jerome Jackson told ESPNLosAngeles.com.

They are saying we're 100 percent liable. But does that mean Norwood and Sanchez, who beat this guy up, have no liability? And, does it mean Mr. Stow himself has no liability?

-- Dodgers owner Frank McCourt's
lawyer Jerome Jackson

"You're saying to the jury, 'They (the Stow family) are saying we're 100 percent liable. But does that mean (Marvin) Norwood and (Louis) Sanchez, who beat this guy up, have no liability? And, does it mean Mr. Stow himself has no liability?' "

Jackson said that if the case goes to a jury trial, he will ask jurors to assign percentages of liability to the Dodgers, McCourt, Norwood, Sanchez, Stow and the other entities named in the original suit. If financial damages are awarded, they would be paid out at those percentages.

"I've been doing these cases for 23 years and I have never seen one yet in which it didn't take at least two people to tango," he said, referring to the notion that jurors could decide Stow bears some liability in the attack. "So stay tuned and stand by."

Jackson compared the Stow case to a suit filed by a woman named Maria Para Helenius, who lost sight in one of her eyes after being involved in a fight in the Dodger Stadium parking lot in 2005. A jury found her assailant, Denise Ordaz, 85 percent liable for the attack, Helenius 15 percent liable and the Dodgers zero percent liable. She was awarded $500,420, according to court documents obtained by ESPNLosAngeles.com, 85 percent of which was to be paid by Ordaz.

Stow, who was in a coma for several months following the attack, remains in a Bay Area rehabilitation facility. His family has said that he is speaking again and has made great progress since the March 31 attack, but that he still needs around-the-clock care indefinitely.

No hearings in the civil case are scheduled until January, but lawyers from Major League Baseball prominently cited the case as evidence of McCourt's mismanagement of the club in filings to a Delaware bankruptcy court earlier this week.

The Stow family is the largest of Frank McCourt's unsecured creditors. Their family lawyer, Tom Girardi, has said damages in the case could total as much as $50 million if a jury finds McCourt liable.

Girardi maintains that the Dodgers were negligent in providing adequate security on the night Stow was beaten. He said he was disgusted by McCourt's decision to countersue Norwood and Sanchez.

"Everybody makes mistakes in life. How you're judged is by the way you respond to them," Girardi told ESPNLosAngeles.com. "Here you have this family, this massive financial impact, and (McCourt's) plan is to sue the two people who were arrested because we didn't do anything about order and safety in the stadium."

Jackson said that he sympathizes with Stow and his family, but that their complaint should be with the alleged perpetrators of the attack, not McCourt.

Security for Opening Day, Jackson said, was the most extensive he'd seen in 23 years of representing the team and twice the size of the security force at Dodger Stadium during a series against the New York Yankees in June 2010, the park's most-attended series of the year.

"What happened to Bryan Stow was a tragedy," he said. "The Dodgers have held fundraisers. The Dodgers have helped police in solving this case. That doesn't mean we're legally responsible for what happens here.

"What baffles me is that the level of public outrage at the Dodgers seems to be higher than the level of outrage at the people who inflicted the blows."

Sanchez and Norwood remain in custody and are awaiting trial on the criminal charges. Both have entered not guilty pleas. Their next appearance in Los Angeles Superior Court is scheduled for Nov. 4.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Constitutional Rights Taken Advantage of to Protect Disgusting Acts on Minors

http://articles.ocregister.com/2008-01-19/sports/24725081_1_web-sites-water-polo-photos

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Katrina negligence lawsuit has implications for all hospitals

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-10-katrina-hospital-lawsuit_N.htm

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Supreme Court Decision: Global Human Rights Law?

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that would resolve the dispute of whether or not corporations and political groups can be held liable in American courts for their involvement in the torture, killing and enslavement of individuals abroad. There are essentially two U.S. laws that give American courts the jurisdiction to decide human rights cases. The Supreme Court stated that it will clarify if these cases are limited to the individuals who committed the injustice or the corporations or political organizations as well.

The Supreme Court will hear the case of about 12 Nigerians who sued the Royal Dutch Shell oil company for torturing and executing dissidents in Nigeria in the 1990s. The Nigerians note in the lawsuit that "Shell aided and abetted the Nigerian regime." Another case that Supreme Court will hear is centered on the conflict between Palestinian authorities and the sons of a Palestinian American widow who was tortured by Palestinian intelligence officers in the 1990s. The Supreme Court will hear both cases at the same time.

While the Supreme Court has the power via legislative laws to hear cases and make decisions regarding human rights, they have not exercised that power until now. I believe that with the decisions rendered in the cases above, the American court system and subsequently the government will make great strides in setting examples in the realm of global human rights. Personally, I did not know that the Supreme Court had such power. This power could result in a new movement of peace-making through the judicial branch and court cases. The courts and the executive branch could work together in enforcing global human rights.