The 615 defendants all received legal threats from Voltage, asserting that they would face civil litigation if they did not pay $7,500 to settle the case. The company reportedly identified as many potential copyright violators as possible, targeting people associated with IP addresses linked to copies of a Steven Seagal movie illegally downloaded via BitTorrent. However, the sheer number of defendants named in the suit appears to have prompted its dismissal.
]]> A judge with the U.S. District Court of Oregon threw out Voltage's claim, citing concerns that the defendants named therein were too disparate in their locations. He also had concerns about the dates on which the alleged violations occurred and the fact that the plaintiff had wrongfully lumped them together for the purposes of the lawsuit.Many of the defendants claimed to have never heard of BitTorrent or said they had no way of downloading the film, including elderly individuals without email addresses and a homeless man who does not own a computer. Others claimed that neighbors had been accessing their wireless Internet connections and they shared their computers with friends or relatives. A portion of the defendants admitted to downloading the film, but argued that $7,500 was an excessive amount for Voltage to demand.
In dismissing the case, the judge accused Voltage of attempting to manipulate the court's authority to obtain thousands of dollars for a product that can typically be purchased for under $10. The judge added that Voltage can pursue litigation against the first defendant listed on its filing, but would have to file separate lawsuits against every other individual accused of infringement.
Source: Oregon Live, "Steven Seagal movie lawsuit booted by Oregon federal judge" Laura Gunderson, May. 07, 2013
]]>The couple attempted to recoup some of the $885,000 in damages their home sustained from their insurance company, but were informed that their homeowner's policy did not cover damage caused by earth movement. This prompted them to sue Benton County in an Oregon court, arguing that storm water diverted by the drainage system caused the collapse of their home, including their home office. The couple was just one of at least 12 homeowners in the region that reserved their rights to file suit against the county.
]]> The jury ultimately ruled the water was not the primary cause of the collapse of the plaintiffs' home, asserting the county could not have prevented the landslide and thus did not wrongfully deprive the plaintiffs of their home and belongings therein.The plaintiffs say they were "shocked" by the jury's decision but have not yet decided whether they will appeal the ruling. They have 30 days from the time the judgment is entered to appeal. They could still obtain help even without an appeal, according to the county's attorney, who explained that county officials plan on looking into a possible source of Federal Emergency Management Agency funds for the couple. FEMA initially told the couple they did not qualify for disaster aid.
If you feel someone's negligence is responsible for damage to your property, contact an experienced attorney to discuss your options. There are civil remedies available when negligence can be proven and an attorney can ensure your rights are protected.
Source: gazettetimes.com, "Couples loses landslide lawsuit" Bennett Hall, May. 02, 2013
]]>Oregon's Attorney General said the state is largely not concerned with the results of the civil litigation, explaining it is unlikely to prompt widespread changes across the state. He noted that Oregon is still waiting on the results of two prominent Supreme Court cases concerning same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court recently heard arguments concerning one state's ban of same-sex marriage, as well as the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies same-sex couples the right to marry.
]]> The case began when an Oregon woman filed a complaint under the Employment Dispute Resolution Plan, asserting that the government discriminated against her when she tried to obtain benefits for her wife. She claims she receive a letter from the U.S. Court system turning down her request for benefits based on the Defense of Marriage Act and other regulations. The judge ultimately ruled in her favor and also found that Oregon's Measure 36, which stipulates that only a marriage between a man and woman is to be legally recognized, is in violation of the U.S. Constitution. He explained that he saw no logical objection to banning same-sex marriage in the state.The opinion has won support from a number of pro-gay marriage groups, such as Basic Rights Oregon. An official with that group praised the ruling as a major victory for gay rights advocates across the state, but explained that a state-wide vote is still the best way to overturn Measure 36.
If you believe a judgment in your civil case should be appealed, contact an experienced appeals attorney to see what options you may have.
Source: oregonlive.com, "Oregon same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, federal judge says in employee discrimination case" Bryan Denson, Apr. 25, 2013
]]>The plaintiff contends he was terminated shortly after filing complaints about the DOC's practices to investigators with the Department of Justice, which eventually resulted in a full investigation. The plaintiff asserted that DOC officials repeatedly bullied Oregon Corrections Enterprises into employing undesirable workers and wrongfully requested that the OCE pay for items for which it was not responsible. Justice Department investigators did not find the DOC guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.
]]> The DOC holds that the investigation was not related to the plaintiff's termination. In the former official's firing letter, the DOC's director told him his employment was being terminated due to repeated insubordination as well as disengagement from his work. She specifically mentioned an incident in which the former official hired Portland State University to conduct a $150,000 study regarding the future of Oregon's inmate work program, despite receiving instructions from her for the future of the program. She claims the plaintiff, who should have reported to her, contracted PSU without her consent.Additionally, she accused the plaintiff of failing to improve his relationship with the Association of Oregon Corrections Employees; the AOCE filed multiple complaints against Oregon Corrections Enterprises prior to the termination.
Transcripts from an interview between the DOC director and DOJ investigators reveal that the director contacted attorneys to speak about the plaintiff's allegedly poor performance before the investigation had concluded, prompting investigators to warn her that firing him could appear to be retaliation.
It will be up to the legal defense to prove that the employee's dismissal was due to insubordination and other factors, and not as retaliation for his earlier complaints about the DOC's practices.
Source: StatesmanJournal.com, "Fired OCE head sues Department of Corrections," Hannah Hoffman, April 10, 2013
]]>The plaintiffs argue that Bankers routinely withheld and delayed payments for clients who applied for assisted-living expenses as allowed by their policies. Long-term care insurance is designed to help elderly or disabled individuals afford assisted living, nursing and home health expenses. The lawsuit, which accuses Bankers of intentional misconduct, negligence, fraud, breach of contract and breach of promises, is led by a married Oregon couple. However, it is currently seeking judicial approval to represent around 9,000 Oregon residents who have complaints about Bankers' policies regarding long-term care insurance.
]]> According to information from the Oregon Insurance Division, Bankers saw the highest level of complaints among the state's long-term care insurance providers. It also ranked the highest in complaints in 2008, 2006 and 2005. Its parent company settled complaints with a number of insurance regulators in 2007, agreeing to pay $6.3 million in penalties and spend $26 million on improving its claims-management process. In 2012, the firm reached a $3.2 million settlement with five states after allegedly failing to abide by the terms of the 2008 settlement.Cases like this, where an individual or group of people, feel as though they are being wrongfully treated or taken advantage of, are often prime candidates for civil litigation. A court will decide, based on the evidence provided to support the case, if Bankers' is deliberate in their actions that resulted in these complaints, or if their practices were fair and ethical.
Source: Oregon Live, "Bankers Life hit with Oregon class-action lawsuit over long-term care insurance," Brent Hunsberger, April 4, 2013
]]>The program, known as the Health Engagement Model, requires workers enrolled in the state health plan to undergo an online health risk assessment test. Those who fail to do so were charged between $20 and $35 each month in 2012, but Oregon stopped penalizing state employees in 2013 and began paying for portions of workers' premiums if they took the test.
]]> The two Oregon State Police troopers and three Department of Corrections officers who filed the claim, which includes the president of the Association of Oregon Corrections Employees union, argue that the test violates the Americans with Disabilities Act by potentially making them disclose a disability; the ADA stipulates that employers may not inquire about workers' disabilities or medical conditions unless they are directly concerned with those individuals' work duties. It does allow employers to implement voluntary wellness programs, but they may not penalize workers who decline to participate.In addition to violating the ADA, Oregon is also accused of violating state employees' protection against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment.
In a similar lawsuit facing a county in a different state, a court dismissed claims that the county's use of a wellness program did not violate the ADA because it served as a "risk mitigation tool," which it asserted is legal.
Source: Statesman Journal, "Lawsuit: State's employee wellness program violates civil rights," Hannah Hoffman, March 21, 2013
]]>The ONDA had sought a court order blocking cattle grazing in southeast Oregon's Louse Canyon, citing concerns for the welfare of the region's native sage grouse population. The group contended that the number of livestock would create a massive amount of hoof imprints that hold stagnant water and become a breeding ground for mosquitoes and, by association, the West Nile virus. ONDA says that this virus would have a devastating effect on the grouse.
]]> The appeals court conceded that grazing could present some degree of threat to the grouse population, but the risk would be site-specific depending on a number of factors. It refused to issue an injunction, and cited one example in which the presence of livestock was found to have no negative effect on sage grouse; in fact, the court said that some evidence even suggests beneficial effects.ONDA successfully argued that grazing permits for the area violated environmental law in 2012, as they would have allowed the BLM to erect new water lines and fencing. The judge overturned the recent grazing permits and allowed grazing to continue under 2006 permits. ONDA appealed that ruling stating the old laws were invalid. This appeal was unsuccessful, allowing grazing to continue in the Louse Canyon area while the BLM determines whether the more recent permits could have negative environmental effects.
Appeals litigation can be very complex and usually requires a lot of research and negotiation to result in an outcome that is fair and advantageous for everyone.
Source: Capital Press, "Appeals court refuses bid to block cattle grazing," Mateusz Perkowski, March 22, 2013
]]>The accident at the center of the case occurred in 2009 when a victim was struck by a police car as she walked across an unmarked crossing at night, severely injuring her and incurring at least $500,000 in medical expenses. A jury awarded the woman more than $1 million, finding that she and the police officer were equally responsible for the wreck. The city was ordered to provide $507,500 to the victim, while the officer was held accountable for the remaining damages. The award was reportedly the highest ever recorded in Beaverton.
]]> The Supreme Court ultimately issued a 4-3 decision in support of the city, asserting that $200,000 is an acceptable award. However, an opinion filed by one of the three dissenting judges said that ruling left the woman "with a constitutionally inadequate remedy that is incapable of restoring her injured rights." The woman's attorney said he and his client were "disappointed" by the ruling and said that she will be left with less than half of what the jury initially decided to be her rightful compensation if the appeals court follows the Supreme Court's recommendation.A lawyer representing the city of Beaverton said the ruling is important for the cities and government bodies across Oregon, as it clarifies cities' rights to place caps on liabilities.
Source: Oregon Live, "Oregon Supreme Court rules Beaverton can cap award to woman hit by police car," Nicole Friedman, March 15, 2013
]]>Crave Bake Shop's 34-year-old owner says she has received letters from another bakery from outside of Oregon whose name also incorporates the word "crave." Additionally, the out-of-state company claims to have been the first gluten-free bakery in its area; Crave Bake Shop's products are also entirely gluten-free. As such, the letters demand that Crave Bake Shop either discontinue its use of the name or pay an unspecified sum to use it. The company claimed its most recent letter would be its "final attempt to resolve this matter amicably."
]]> Crave's owner said the threats have continued despite the fact she was awarded a trademark for the name, also noting that her company is in the process of transitioning to a new name. However, she stressed that the decision to change the name was not motivated by the out-of-state bakery's threats, explaining that she wants to find a new name that better reflects the evolving nature of the business -- she has recently begun offering an expanded range of products, such as a cookbook and dry cake mixes for home bakers.The out-of-state bakery has acknowledged the trademark and Crave's plans to change its name, but says those developments fail to repay it for "past infringement or the damages it has caused" and has continued to threaten Crave with legal action. This prompted Crave to file its complaint, asking the court to formally recognize its right to use the name and prohibit the other bakery from accusing it of copyright infringement.
Source: Oregon Live, "Lake Oswego's Crave Bake Shop attempts to stop lawsuit threats from California bakery," Victoria Edwards, March 12, 2013
]]>Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research sued Sea Shepherd in 2011 after the group allegedly attacked its crafts. The Institute contends that its own whaling efforts are not subject to an international ban because they are primarily focused on scientific research.
]]> The 9th Circuit U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recent ruling sides with the Institute, claiming that Sea Shepherd's actions constitute piracy. The panel's majority opinion accused the group of attacking the plaintiff's ships with smoke bombs, containers of acids, high-powered laser, flares, and metal-reinforced ropes designed to damage the crafts' propulsion systems. One of the judges asserted that these acts make Sea Shepherd pirates regardless of "how high-minded [they] believe [their] purpose to be."Despite the court's orders, whalers have reported continued attacks from Sea Shepherd crafts in Antarctic waters. A representative with Sea Shepherd argued that the attacks are the work of its Australian branch, which officially separated from its American counterpart following the Circuit Court ruling.
A judge with a lower court initially dismissed claims that Sea Shepherd was engaging in piracy, a decision that the Cetacean Institute quickly appealed. The Circuit Court ordered the judge removed from the case, accusing him of making "numerous, serious and obvious errors" in his handling of the case.
International litigation is typically complex and often involves multiple rounds of appeals. Individuals, companies or other parties in Oregon involved in such disputes significantly increase their chance of success by employing qualified attorneys with experience in commercial and business litigation.
Source: Oregon Live, "Sea Shepherd whale activists called pirates, lose ruling by 9th Circuit judges," Richard Read, Feb. 27, 2013
]]>The suit arose after a dispute between state regulators and representatives from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The state was required to perform a series of studies to demonstrate the safety of the sport fishing program; sign-off on a national scale was required because endangered fish were involved. However, Oregon's lawmakers allowed fishermen to begin catching fish along the prohibited waterways before the final documents were approved.
]]> Now, fishermen will be prohibited from participating in the program that had expanded to several other rivers, including the Santiam, McKenzie and Middle Fork of the Willamette.Fishing guides had been permitted to catch up to 40 steelhead, according to media reports. Those fish were used to bolster the genetic viability of the natural population. Biologists would breed fish that were genetically more robust, using a combination of hatchery and wild stock. Now, scientists are fearful that the fish population will suffer because of the lawsuit's stranglehold on the state's natural resources. Just 2,000 wild steelheads were counted at the North Fork Dam near Estacada; if the breeding program is not permitted to resume, that number could drop precipitously.
In addition, the restrictions could affect local fish guides' businesses. Most clients are reluctant to turn their fish over to the state. Local fishermen are concerned that even a year break in the broodstock program could affect not only their recreational opportunities, but also their ability to earn a living. The quick resolution of this problem will benefit parties on both sides of the fishing debate.
Source: The Oregonian, "Oregon fish program caught in a bind on Sandy, Clackamas rivers," Feb. 22, 2013.
]]>Oregon and two other states have been targeted by recurring civil litigation since they first requested permission to kill the sea lions in 2006. The NMFS renewed authorization for the program in 2012 through 2016, asserting that the sea lions posed a substantial threat to local fish reserves and noting that nonlethal efforts have failed to scare them off. The reserves include several types of steelhead and salmon protected by the Endangered Species Act. The NMFS granted the participating states the right to kill up to 92 sea lions each year by shooting or lethal injection.
According to the Humane Society, sea lions consume around 4 percent of the affected fish near the dam. Because recreational and commercial anglers typically catch as much as 17 percent of the fish, the Society argued that the NMFS was arbitrary in authorizing the program without also imposing limits on fishermen.
]]>The judge rejected the Humane Society's claim, ruling that the NMFS "did not act arbitrarily or capriciously" and asserting that its decision to reauthorize the lethal take program was appropriate. The judge noted that government records of the sea lion's consumption of salmon meet the Marine Mammal Protection Act's standard for having a "meaningful" impact on local wild fish.
Additionally, the judge said that official data likely unrepresented the actual amount of fish consumed by the sea lions. He also explained that while commercial fisheries can reduce their fishing efforts when salmon stock is low, the lethal take has proven to be the only way to stop sea lions from eating more fish.
Source: Oregon Live, "Judge dismisses Humane Society lawsuit that opposed killing sea lions at Bonneville Dam," Scott Learn, Feb. 15, 2013
]]>According to the lawsuit, Sea Shepherd's high-speed boat was destroyed after a Japanese whaling ship brutally rammed the vessel and sliced it in half. Following the collision, the whalers reportedly failed to respond to the crew's May Day calls and shot them water from high-pressure cannons. Sea Shepherd claims that at least one crew member was injured in this attack. Additionally, the lawsuit accuses the whalers of blasting a shrill, loud noise with long range acoustic devices immediately prior to and during the ramming, which dangerously hampered communication between crew members on board the damaged craft.
]]> The lawsuit names several Japanese parties as defendants in the federal suit, including the Institute of Cetacean Research and Kyodo Senpaku. Sea Shepherd noted that the incident was investigated by a government body in New Zealand, which found that the whaling ship "failed to take early and substantial action to keep clear" of the group's craft.Almost two years after the incident, the defendants sued the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society through an Oregon law firm, arguing that the group had wrongfully interfered with its whaling efforts, which it contended were for scientific research. Sea Shepherd is known for disrupting and harassing whaling operations in efforts to hamper the international whaling industry.
In March of 2012, Sea Shepherd filed a counterclaim against the defendants for the destruction of its boat. The group also hopes to overturn an injunction prohibiting it from "physically attacking" or coming within 500 yards of any of the defendants' crafts.
Source: Oregon Live, "Portland lawsuit: Sea Shepherd takes new tack, suing Japanese whalers for ramming its vessel," Bryan Denson, Feb. 11, 2013
]]>A representative with the IRS said the agency could not comment on the plaintiff's claims and would neither confirm nor deny that the defendant was still employed with the agency. The defendant also declined reporters' requests for comment on the case.
]]> The plaintiff says he first became acquainted with the agent when she contacted him regarding a 2011 tax audit, informing him that "she knew who he was, and that it was lucky for him that this was the case, and that they should meet." The meaning behind that cryptic alleged statement appears to be unclear. However, the plaintiff said he was soon repeatedly contacted by the agent, who reportedly flirted with him over phone calls and text messages. He claims she even sent him an image of herself stripped to her underwear.After he continued to rebuff her advances, the woman allegedly told the plaintiff that she could impose a 40 percent tax penalty or none at all. She reportedly showed up at his door in 2011, dressed "proactively," and coerced the man into having sex with her. Throughout his encounters with the defendant, the plaintiff claims he never reported the alleged misconduct out of fear the agent would impose significant tax penalties on him.
However, the man ultimately filed suit against the agent after the incident left him wrought with distress and damaged his relationship with his significant other. The lawsuit demands that the government provide him damages in lieu of the agent, as the IRS's supervision of the woman was insufficient to prevent abuses such as those detailed in the filing.
Source: Oregon Live, "Northwest News: Female IRS agent wanted sex, threatened tax penalty, lawsuit alleges," Feb. 1, 2013
]]>In 2001, the man, then a woman, was diagnosed with gender identity disorder. Sufferers of this condition generally identify with the opposite gender of their birth for prolonged periods of time. The plaintiff was prescribed testosterone to help him take on more masculine traits, but was forced to take particularly large doses in order to cancel out the estrogen produced by his ovaries. As such, his doctor determined that removing the ovaries was a medically necessary procedure, as high doses of testosterone are associated with an increased risk of cancer and other ailments.
]]> Because the man was a public employee, he asked the state to cover the cost of his hysterectomy. The state has long covered such procedures for women when they are recommended by a physician. However, the coverage was denied. The lawsuit he filed in response accused Oregon of denying him coverage due to his status as transgender.The plaintiff's attorney argued that by refusing to offer coverage that his female co-workers would have had access to, the state was essentially compensating the man less due to his gender. The attorney noted that a 2007 state law makes it illegal for private insurance firms to discriminate against clients based on their sexuality or gender, arguing that the PEBB should be compelled to abide by the same rules.
To settle the case, the state will pay $36,000 to the plaintiff to cover his expenses.
Source: The Columbian, "Oregon man who needed hysterectomy settles lawsuit," Jan. 24, 2013
]]>