Author: Tom Scott

If I hear one more thing about how Proposition 65 is the great environmental protector I think I am going to have to check myself in. This initiative was passed by the voters of California in 1986. Whatever the voters thought they were doing has really turned into a windfall for a small group of attorneys.

Recently, our esteemed Attorney General Jerry Brown, posted the 2008 list of Proposition 65 settlements for our state. It is an absolute joke what is going on in California in the name of environmental protection. One firm, the Environmental Law Foundation, had one settlement against Laidlaw for $6.6 million. Guess what the attorney’s fee was in the case – $6.6 million. The Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation had 39 settlements for a total of $1,775,300. Its fees totaled $1,060,000. Insane and it gets better.

One organization called the Consumer Advocacy Group seems to have boutique practice at tackling Prop. 65 warnings. The firm had 31 settlements totaling $1,003,250. Its fees… $972,750! Are you kidding me!?!?!?!?!?!

Every year, during the second full week of May, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the Superior Courts in California team up to recognize the millions of Californians who answer the call and the serve on juries in our great state. California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) would like to also applaud these great Californians who take the time to serve their state.

This is not sometimes a perfect system, but it does work and it is truly a system of the people, by the people and for the people. As Chief Justice Ronald George has stated, "trial by a jury of one’s peers is among the fundamental democratic ideals of our nation. Serving as jurors reminds us that these ideals exist only as long as individual citizens are willing to uphold them."

Our jury system has come a long way. Some statistics compiled by the AOC show directly what an impressive system we have in California.

On April 28th, the personal injury lawyer lobby swept down upon Sacramento for its annual lobby day, making sure that its $4.1 million dollar investment during the 07/08 election cycle is paying off. These are good times for the personal injury lobby. They delivered nationally for Barack Obama and Congress and they even had a pretty decent year in California. Their ship has come in and the first thing the President did for them was to sign the Ledbetter legislation into law.

The Consumer Attorneys of California’s website states "special interest lobbyists are using the economic downturn as cover for passing their anti-consumer, anti-patient, anti-worker and anti environmental agendas. Lobby Day is our opportunity for Consumer Attorneys to unite with one strong voice, reminding legislators why a fair legal system is so important and why we must fight to protect it." Give me a break. Was this written by Erin Brockovich?

If not, you might want to read on for a bit.  On February 10th, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) went into effect.  Now – you should realize that anytime government uses the term “improvement,” trouble is probably the next thing coming.  The act provides for fines starting at $100,000 per violation and possible jail time for anyone selling items containing lead for use by children age 12 or under.  No one denies that lead ingestion can have severe health implications, but this is a train wreck.  A lot of people believe that Congress overreacted with this legislation and made matters even worse when they let state attorneys general sue, or even hire personal injury lawyers to sue, to enforce their own interpretations of the law.

The end result of this law is that many businesses, from used bookstores to thrift shops and even libraries, are being forced to throw out inventory, lay off workers or even close their doors.  The Motorcycle Industry Council has estimated $1 billion in economic loss from frozen inventory, payroll losses and lost opportunities for sales and service.

These three legislators and a whole host of co-authors have truly started off the new year on the right footing by trying to restore common sense through the Good Samaritan Act.
 

It seems that once again our California Supreme Court has gotten it wrong in its recent majority opinion stating that the good samaritan law should only apply to emergency medical care providers.  The opinion is based on a Los Angeles case involving a “friend” who pulled another friend out of a crashed car that she thought might catch fire.  The friend filed a suit claiming the other’s actions were negligent and rendered her a paraplegic.  The court should have also ruled on the definition of a friend.
 

California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse and the National Federation of Independent Business in California teamed up for Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week (October 6-10) and have released a survey of over 800 small business people.  The results are somewhat stunning.  If you thought the stock market recently has been frightening just take a look at the results of the survey.  The survey is posted on CALA.com.

Some of the highlights are as follows:

? 98% of California’s small business owners believe that the number of lawsuits filed against businesses in California has hurt the state’s economy. 

? More than 4 in 5 think that the number of liability lawsuits is increasing. 

? More than 98% believe the number of lawsuits filed against businesses in California has a negative impact on business growth and prosperity. 

No, it is not the title of an upcoming Clint Eastwood movie.

Now that the budget has been signed, we can all focus on the 800 or so bills that the Governor has to deal with by October 1st.  On the civil justice front, CALA would like to see the Governor veto the following legislation:

AB 437 Jones:  Would result in significant new employer liability and damages exposure in virtually any lawsuit challenging workplace decisions.

AB 2947 Eng:  Prohibits voluntary arbitration agreements between seniors and long-term care facilities.  This legislation only helps lawyers, not seniors.

SB 1113 Migden:  Would further tip the scales in the plaintiffs’ favor by expanding the scope of reimbursable costs to a victorious plaintiff.  This kind of expansion of cost recovery would only create new incentives to sue.

Last week Citizen’s Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) released a new study focusing on prisoner litigation.  At a time when this state is in complete lock-down on the budget it seemed like an interesting topic to raise.  Civil litigation by prisoners  has cost the taxpayers of California nearly $200 million.  And that does not include federal class actions and the subsequent receiver and three judge panel put in place by federal courts or habeas corpus lawsuits. It also does not include the bureaucracy that is involved to deal with the litigation, such as the Litigation Coordinators at each of the 33 prisons in our state or the staff that assists them in monitoring the caseload and the administrative fees.  Some of these coordinators make nearly $120,000 a year.

Let me make it clear that not all lawsuits are frivolous.  Certainly there are issues that need to be heard and prisoners deserve  a venue for grievances, but spending an average $32 million dollars a year, enough to fund the care and feeding for nearly 500 prisoners, seems over the top.  I do not think the average citizen has a clue that  these costs are so high.