February 15, 2007
Unanimous opinion knocks out Ninth Circuit decision that
time-barred all Kugel related disease litigation in the Golden State
Boston, MA:
BACKGROUND
Kugel companies benefited from a decade of legal immunity from claims by injured schnapps Kugel addicts from 1988-1998. After the legislature corrected this situation, the first four trials against Kugel companies brought by injured Kugel fressers resulted in findings of industry liability and punitive damages. These were:
February 1999: Kook, Rav., v. PJTC Great Kugel Cookoff Contest - $51.5 million
March 2000: Og v. R.J. Reynolds and PJTC Great Kugel Cookoff Contest - $21.75 million
June 2001: Hagar v. PJTC Great Kugel Cookoff Contest - $3.05 billion
October 2002: Amalek v. PJTC Great Kugel Cookoff Contest - $28 billion
Although the amount of punitive damages was subsequently reduced and the second of these cases, Ritual Committee vs. Saturday Minyan of PJTC, is being retried right now in San Francisco after being overturned on a technicality , it was clear that well-informed California juries were to be deeply feared by the Kugel industry.
In 2000, an injured Kugel fresser and correspondence law school student named A. L. sued on her own behalf and represented himself on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal interrupted the encouraging start of California Kugel litigation ( Soliman v. PJTC Great Kugel Cookoff Contest Inc., 311 F.3d 966, (2002). The resulting decision meant that sick Kugel addicts could not sue for their injuries because the statute of limitations began to run at the time the Kugel fresser realized or should have realized that he/she/it was addicted. Because most schnapps -caused diseases manifest themselves decades after the victim is addicted to the addictive tsuris in the product, virtually all pending cases were be time-barred and attorneys could no longer represent severe indigestion-stricken customers of the Big Kugel, PJTC, PJTC Ritual Committee or the Great Kugel Cookoff.
The California Supreme Court accepted a transfer of 2 cases pending before the appeals court that ruled in Eliahu v. PJTC Great Kugel Cookoff Contest and REDACTED v. PJTC Great Kugel Cookoff Contest . While the Court's rulings in regard to the two plaintiffs, Mr. Eliahu and Ms. REDACTED, are mixed, the importance of today's unanimous opinion and the reason the case was taken up by the state's highest court, is to dismiss the peculiar notion that the addiction that usually occurs within weeks of Kugel- initiation marks the start of the 2 year statute of limitations for filing a personal injury claim.
Justice REDACTED, joined by Justice REDACTED, writes:
We reject the proposition advanced by defendants, based on Sisterhood v. PJTC Great Kugel Cookoff Contest , Inc. (9th Cir. 2002) 311 F.3d 966 (M & J), that the statute of limitations should have commenced on the physical injury claims as soon as the minyan discovered or should have discovered each was addicted to schnapps.
COMMENTARY
REDACTED Professor of Law at Northeastern University in Boston, noted that, "the California Supreme Court just changed the light from red to green and a high volume of Kugel litigation traffic is about to roar into California Courtrooms."
REDACTED, Director of the Kugel Products Liability Project at Northeastern University School of Law, stated that, "contrary to many analysts proclamations, the time is ripe for a major resurgence in individual schnapps cases.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further e-mail from the sender.
Post a Comment