The case involved a class action suit brought by child advocate lawyers to improve conditions in Georgia’s foster care system. It was settled by the state in 2005, leading to the hiring of 500 additional child welfare workers, and improvements in abuse investigations, overcrowded conditions in foster homes, and worker case loads. Judge Shoob felt the extra compensation was due to the lawyers based on their success despite the state’s resistance to reform.

Source: http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/Court-to-decide-if-good-lawyers-can-get-more-money

Tthe 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York had dismissed the cases brought by Vietnamese plaintiffs, finding that Agent Orange was used to protect U.S. troops against ambush and not as a weapon of war against human populations.  The other two suits were filed by U.S. veterans who got sick too late to take part in the $180 million settlement with makers of the chemical in 1984.

Source: http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/Court-turns-down-Agent-Orange-cases

Target says it will upgrade its website to include software that can assist the sight impaired with transactions and will provide training sessions for its web developers to better address such needs.

Source: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9113750&intsrc=hm_list

Earlier this week, a Massachusetts man who worked as a coffee bar server for Starbucks also filed a lawsuit against the corporation over tips. Hernan Matomoros claims he was required to share tips with his supervisors. His attorney alleges the practice was a violation a state law that “prohibits managerial employees from sharing tips reserved for waiters and other employees who can legally be paid below the minimum wage.” Matamoros is seeking to have the case certified as a class-action lawsuit.

Last week, a California judge ordered Starbucks to pay baristas in that state more than $100 million in back tips and interest in a related case which received class-action status. Starbucks says it will appeal the California ruling.

Sources: http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080328/NEWS02/803280366,

http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080327/0380628.html
 

Airborne was first sued in 2006 after a news report revealed that its clinical testing trials were not conducted by scientists or physicians. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) joined the lawsuit in 2007 and the Federal Trade Commission, along with state attorney generals commenced an investigation of the company’s advertising.

According to the CSPI, no evidence exists to support Airborne’s claims that its products prevent colds by boosting the immune system. Airborne will begin specific advertising regarding how consumers can receive their refund. The settlement will not be finalized until a hearing on June 16.

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/04/news/companies/airborne_settlement/?postversion=2008030413; http://www.airbornehealthsettlement.com/

According to the complaint filed, these PCs could only support a stripped down version of Vista.

Microsoft had asked a judge to dismiss the complaint last year. Instead, Judge Marsha Pechman has now opened up the lawsuit to include all potential consumers who purchased the Windows XP PC advertised as “Vista Capable.”

Source: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206900043

In 2005, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit ruling that Agent Orange was used to protect US troops from ambush and not as weapon against people. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling.

The case is Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin v. Dow Chemical Co., # 05-1953-cv.

Sources: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5562863.html

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE5NTMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1953-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysquery/irl50d9/3/hilite

This effectively ends a $40 billion class action lawsuit. Shareholders have already agreed to $7.2 billion in settlements.  

The Court declined to hear the Enron case without comment. However, last week it ruled in an unrelated case with similar legal questions. In the Stoneridge case, the Court  held 5-3 that shareholders could not sue third parties, such as banks or accountants in securities fraud cases, unless investors relied on them  when making investment decisions.

The case is the Regents of the University of California v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc., 06-1341.

Sources: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5474607.html 

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200801221340DOWJONESDJONLINE000750_FORTUNE5.htm

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-43.pdf

A recent district court order appointed Foti guardian ad litem for 350,000 unrepresented victims with tort claims against the government under the Admiralty Extension Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act resulting from flooding. Foti filed the lawsuit on Wednesday prior to the Fifth Circuit granting the government’s writ of mandamus and vacating the order of appointment. According to the Fifth Circuit, U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval did not have the authority to make such an appointment.

Duval’s previous ruling in February that the U.S. Corps of Engineers could be held liable for flooding allegations spurred a lawsuit claiming the dredging of a canal caused most of the city’s flooding. The U.S. Corps of Engineers argued that it has immunity under the 1928 Flood Control Act and that the canal did not cause significant flooding.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/08/fifth-circuit-blocks-louisiana-ag-class.php