- Class Actions
- Commercial Litigation
- Defective Products
- Drug Injury
- Personal Injury
- Securities Fraud
- Toxic Exposure
- Whistleblower Claims
- Ocella, Yasmin, Yaz
- Sleeping Pills
- Da Vinci Robot
- DePuy Hip Recall
- Stryker Recall
- Stryker Lawsuit
- Transvaginal Mesh
- Zimmer Hip Implant
- Aveeno Lawsuit
- Atlas Roofing Lawsuit
- Avon/Clarins Products
- AZEK Decking
- Chinese Drywall
- Chrysler Lock-Ups
- Demilec Insulation
- Electrolux Lawsuit
- Energy Drink Lawsuit
- Flushmate Systems
- Ford 5.4L Engine
- Ford & Mercury Transmissions
- Ford Mileage Claims
- GAF Decking
- Jeld-Wen Low E
- LP/ABTCO TrimBoard
- Norcold Lawsuit
- Pozzi and Jeld-Wen
- Remington Lawsuit
- TimberTech Decking
- Toyota Power Windows
- Trex Decking Lawsuit
Category : Claims
A “bounty scandal” within team leadership on the New Orleans Saints has exposed yet another major flaw regarding the safety of National Football League players. Saints coach Sean Payton and former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams were both formally reprimanded by the League for their involvement in a program that awarded money to players for injuring formidable opponents. The bounties all but openly encouraged members of the team to “fight dirty,” putting themselves and other players at risk. Yesterday, the NFL suspended Williams indefinitely and suspended Payton for one year.
While the NFL’s public rebuke is a step in the right direction, the entire affair adds to the ever increasing number of concerns about player safety. Late last year, Seeger Weiss LLP brought to light the League’s misuse of a dangerous drug called Toradol through a lawsuit that claims victims suffered brain damage at the hands of team medics. The personal injury attorneys of Seeger Weiss will review the claims of anyone who has been harmed by a sports related injury for free. To learn more, click here.
The new Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 took effect on January 6, 2012. It makes some significant changes to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (the diversity citizenship statute), §§ 1441 & 1446 (the removal and removal procedure statutes), and § 1391 (the general venue statute). It both resolves certain splits among the federal circuit courts as to the interpretation of those statutes and enacts new substantive provisions regarding diversity jurisdiction, venue, and removal. Read the new Act in full here.
The most significant changes are:
- where an action involves multiple defendants, each defendant now gets its own 30-day clock from when it’s served in order to remove the action to federal court.
- where all parties consent, a district court may now transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to a district even where the action could not have been brought originally in that district.
- for venue purposes, if a state which has more than one federal judicial district, a corporate defendant is now deemed to reside in any district in that state in which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate state; if there’s no such single district, the corporation is to be deemed to reside in the district in which it has the most significant contacts.
- for removal purposes and, specifically, for purposes of determining the amount in controversy of cases removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, a federal court may now look to the notice of removal for the amount in controversy if the plaintiff is seeking non-monetary relief, or if the plaintiff is seeking a money judgment but the law of the state doesn’t permit a demand for a sum certain or allows recovery for amounts in excess of what’s prayed for.
- discovery responses in state litigation that provide information allowing the defendant to ascertain for the first time the amount in controversy are now considered an “other paper” whose service can trigger the 30-day clock for removal.
- adoption of a bad faith exception to the 1-year time limit on removals of diversity cases – meaning that the action may removed even after the passage of one year from commencement of the action if the plaintiff “deliberately failed to disclose” the amount in controversy in order to prevent removal.
- in removed actions, mandatory severance and remand of claims that aren’t within the district court’s original or supplemental jurisdiction.
If you were one of the 111.3 million people watching the Super Bowl this past Sunday, you may have noticed that one of the big game’s much-anticipated commercials actually came from the National Football League itself. In the clip below, which originally aired during the Giants-Patriots match, the NFL describes the history of football in the United States. Using the tagline “evolution”, the League emphasizes developments in the rules to promote player health and safety. The website advertised at the end of the commercial, titled “NFL Evolution | Health & Safety” includes an interactive feature that details these improvements more fully.
The release of the multimillion dollar advertisement comes in the midst of much heated criticism of the medical supervision of players. As CNN reported just hours before the Super Bowl, the discussion was sparked as a result of hundreds of former players filing lawsuits against the NFL for a host of ailments (mostly related to brain damage) they say they developed because of inadequate treatment of injuries. One of the most notable cases was brought in early December on behalf of 11 former players by Seeger Weiss LLP, a national plaintiff’s law firm based in New York City. With extensive experience in drug injury, personal injury and medical malpractice, Seeger Weiss offers to review the case of anyone who has been harmed by a sports injury at no cost. Learn more here.
The Honorable Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. Eastern District Court, New Orleans, Louisiana, announced on Friday that Seeger Weiss LLP and the other members of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, along with defendant Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin (KPT) had proposed a settlement in the toxic Chinese drywall case affecting thousands of American families. The victims in the case, who own close to 5,000 properties, alleged that German manufacturer Knauf sold defective drywall that was installed in their homes. The toxic ingredients in the faulty imported products caused the plaintiffs a host of problems, ranging from the corrosion of plumbing and electrical systems to respiratory problems and other physical injuries. The final settlement, which will cover remediation of the affected properties and claims of personal injury and equity loss, is expected to be between $800 million and $1 billion. Read more about the groundbreaking settlement.
For Seeger Weiss LLP, the victory is one of many in a long and complicated battle against Knauf on behalf of several homeowners who have fallen victim to the manufacturer’s defective product. In 2009, founding partner Christopher Seeger along with Stephen J. Herman of Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar became the first to take KPT, a division of Knauf, to trial. In the bellwether verdict, the plaintiffs were awarded $164,049. Since then, Mr. Seeger has gone on to win close to $3 million for other victims of the toxic drywall.
Seeger Weiss continues to investigate toxic Chinese drywall claims. Our defective products practice has the expertise and the track record you need to settle your claims. Learn more about our Chinese drywall investigation here.
A major report published by Bloomberg Businessweek today found that Takeda Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturers of the drug Actos, could face as many as 10,000 drug injury lawsuits in the United States. The claimants allege that the diabetes medication caused them to develop bladder cancer. In fact, the number of drug injury suits involving Actos being brought to court has become so massive that a group of judges is being polled to decide whether or not to consolidate the litigation. Learn more about the link between Actos and bladder cancer.
In a legal environment like this one, victims of Actos drug injury need an experienced and dedicated law firm in their corners in order to ensure their claims receive the attention they deserve. If you or someone you know has suffered complications as a result of taking Actos, contact Seeger Weiss LLP today. An attorney with our award-winning drug injury class action practice will assist you in evaluating your claim. Attorney consultations incur no obligation on your part and all initial consultations are free of charge. Seeger Weiss LLP has office locations in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California.
Yesterday the UK Supreme Court denied an appeal of a Scottish law, and ruled that victims of asbestos exposure who develop pleural plaques should in fact be allowed to receive compensation for their harm. The insurance companies that brought the appeal argued that since pleural plaques don’t cause any symptoms, they should not have to pay the claims of those who claim to suffer from the condition. However, the Supreme Court sided with Scottish ministers who noted that pleural plaques can lead to more serious diseases like lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis. As a result of the ruling, the insurance companies are likely to have to pay claimants between 7 and 9 million pounds (about 11 to 14 million dollars). One of the victims involved in this case, former shipyard worker John Ferguson said, “I now have pleural plaques and that hangs over my head. I’ve got to get on with my life, but I don’t know how much life I’ve got left in me – I’d like to see people higher up pay for this in some way.”
Both the effects of asbestos exposure and the difficulties of receiving just compensation persist in the United States as well. Click here to learn more about Seeger Weiss’ ongoing asbestos investigation.
Click here to watch the court’s decision and read the full BBC article.