(360) 733-3773 Bellingham, WA

SHEPARD_ALLEN2

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Energy Companies in the Wake of Huntington Beach Oil Spill

Posted by David Brown 
· October 5, 2021 

The environment has been a significant area of focus during the past few years, and it was devastating to hear that a massive oil spill took place off the coast of Huntington Beach, California. Unfortunately, there are some people who believe that some of the damage to the wildlife in the area, including the fish and bird populations, could be permanent. Now, it is time for the oil companies who are responsible for this spill to take time to be held accountable for their actions.

Recently, a federal lawsuit was filed in the Central District of California Western Division. The lawsuit claims that the companies in charge of operating the rig and associated pipeline caused direct harm to the ecosystem, wildlife, and people who live there. The lawsuit alleges that these companies should have taken more actions to prevent oil from spilling from the platform, which is located approximately 4.5 miles from shore.

The lawsuit also alleges that the defendants did not provide the public with adequate notice of the hazard and the potential impacts of the oil spill. Deceased animals have been washing up on the beach covered in oil. The shorelines of the impacted area have suffered a significant amount of environmental damage. Unfortunately, there are some experts who believe the damage to the environment could be irreversible.

The affected area of the oil spill stretches from Newport Beach to Huntington Beach. The defendants include Beta Operating Company, Amplify Energy Corporation, and numerous other Affiliates. Sadly, as many as 144,000 gallons of oil leaked into the Pacific Ocean after a pipe burst. This led to a massive oil chain standing close to six nautical miles off the coast of Huntington Beach. As numerous beaches were closed to the public, the disaster continued to get worse. Plants and animals were irreparably damaged, and countless people turned out to volunteer. It will be interesting to track a lawsuit as it goes through the legal system. Even though the oil companies should be expected to mount a vigorous defense, the impacts on the environment are not in dispute. It will take a long time to clean this mess up, and those who are responsible for the disaster should have a hand in doing so.

Categories : News
Tags : , ,

Legal Cannabis in Illegal Markets: A Lawsuit Claims This Is Disrupting the Industry

Posted by David Brown 
· September 28, 2021 

While there has been a significant push to legalize cannabis across the country, some states lag behind the relaxed laws of California. Even though it is possible to buy some of the leading brands of marijuana off the shelves of CA, such as Bordeaux cannabis, the same cannot be said of other states, such as New York. Therefore, how is it possible that Bordeaux cannabis can be found on the shelves of speakeasies across the country?

The answer is that people are still breaking the law. While California supposedly has a strict system, people are still diverting millions of pounds of cannabis grown legally in California to markets across the country, including those in New York. Now, a recent lawsuit alleges that this is not only happening but that the authorities do not care. The lawsuit alleges that because the authorities are not taking this issue seriously, they are threatening the security of the entire experiment of marijuana legalization.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that criminals are raking in massive profits as people pay a premium for marijuana in areas outside of California. This means that legitimate cannabis businesses in California are suffering. The lawsuit also says that conversations happen constantly among industry professionals, but nobody has spoken up in a court of law until then. It appears to be the worst-kept secret in the industry, and nobody in a position of power appears to be doing anything about it.

Of note, the lawsuit is not seeking any monetary damages. Instead, the lawsuit seeks to force authorities in the state to regulate this issue for the first time. The lawsuit is asking the court to compel the state to make a bigger effort to shut down the alleged illegal distribution network of cannabis across the country.

Specifically, the lawsuit wants authorities to target straw man operations, which are “burner” distributors, who are responsible for moving cannabis from legal markets to illegal markets. The lawsuit says that this should not be happening, but that it is, and that the authorities are not making a good-faith effort to stop it. It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit plays out in court and what its impact might be on the cannabis industry.

Categories : News
Tags : , ,

Lawsuit Filed Targeting Misleading Food Practices Among Food Giants

Posted by David Brown 
· September 23, 2021 

During the past few years, there has been a massive push for sustainable, ethical farming practices among meat and dairy providers. Even though a lot of packages contain flashy labels, a recent lawsuit alleges that these labels might not be what they seem. Recently, a lawsuit was filed by advocacy groups seeking to curb deceptive marketing practices. According to the lawsuit; the plaintiffs allege that these companies are dishonestly profiting off of a growing interest in eating environmentally-friendly, sustainably-sourced food without actually following these practices. The lawsuit alleges that some of the biggest food giants in the world have not made any meaningful changes to their production or farming practices.

Class-action lawsuits filed against food and beverage companies have been on the rise, with record numbers being filed last year. With the mounting wave of legal activism, the frustration among consumers is clearly growing. Advocates have worked hard to find other ways to apply pressure to food giants, but nothing seems to be working. Now, they are taking them to court instead. While advocates have pushed federal regulators to define what is meant by terms such as “all natural” and “healthy,” this has not happened. As a result, the lawsuit alleges that these food companies have been exploiting the gap.

The lawsuit is targeting Cargill and Tyson, among others. The lawsuit states that Cargill is producing its turkeys in ways that place farmers in debt while the farmers have no say in the way the turkeys are raised, placing them in harm’s way. Furthermore, Tyson produces chickens in a crowded shed, contaminating them with pathogens resistant to antibiotics before cleaning them with chemical disinfectants. The lawsuit further alleges that many of the companies use marketing that is misleading or exaggerated, trying to convince buyers that the companies align with the values on the labels, but the lawsuit claims that these companies continue to mistreat countless animals.

The plaintiffs do not believe companies should be allowed to profit off of misleading marketing practices, as it creates an unfair playing field and is dishonest to shoppers. While it is unclear what will happen in the legal case, the lawsuit has drawn more attention to an important issue in the industry.

Categories : News
Tags :

Lawsuit Filed Against Apple Over Keyboard for Apple Watch

Posted by David Brown 
· September 21, 2021 
Apple has had a number of legal issues during the past few years. Now, they are facing another lawsuit regarding a keyboard that works with the Apple Watch. Even though people have fallen in love with the app, the keyboard app was removed from the App Store. While the keyboard was so popular that many people stated the tech mammoth should buy the keyboard from the developer, Apple unexpectedly pulled the keyboard from the App Store, saying it was against the rules of the App Store.

Shortly thereafter, Apple went on to reveal its own swipe keyboard in association with the new Apple Watch Series 7. Users everywhere realized that the “new” Apple keyboard simply copied the one the developer had put on the App Store, which was later removed.

It should come as no surprise that the developer filed a lawsuit against Apple. This specific developer is far from the first. Apple has a reputation for looking at the applications available on the app store. Then, they copy the ideas and integrate them into their operating systems. The tech giant does this because it allows them to get around the cost of paying the developers for their ideas. It has even earned its own name, called “Sherlocking.”

This lawsuit claims that Apple continually rejected and held up his keyboard for months all while trying to force him to sell the keyboard to them for a cheap price. The lawsuit also alleges that Apple singled out his keyboard specifically, all while letting others go through on the App Store. Even though the company says that it simply changed its mind regarding the keyboard, it will be interesting to see if this argument holds up in court. The plaintiff in a lawsuit alleges that it took more than a year of resubmissions and appeals in order for his keyboard to return to the store. When he saw that a replica of his keyboard was available with the new Apple Watch, he decided that enough was enough.

It will be interesting to see if this lawsuit sets a precedent regarding developers and Apple. Can large corporations copy the ideas of their developers? Do developers have the right to have their apps on the App Store without being harassed by Apple? Many are interested in what the courts decide.

Categories : News
Tags :

Lawsuit Claims Apple, Google, and Amazon Are Spies

Posted by David Brown 
· September 16, 2021 

We all love the convenience that Big Tech firms afford us in the 21st century, but does it mean we involuntarily sacrifice our privacy by buying into these services? The answer might very well be yes, according to a class-action lawsuit that will make you think twice about using your favorite voice assistant Siri. Apple, the company behind the Siri persona, stands accused of violating the California privacy law and the federal Wiretap Act.

Not only that but there are also lawsuits of a similar nature against Google and Amazon. The common denominator seems to be that these giant tech companies are illegally recording conversations to extract information sold to advertisers. These allegations come when voice assistant features and smart speakers are becoming more popular by the day. Still, it’s only a lawsuit, and the claims are only valid if Big Tech is proven guilty. So, that means you have nothing to worry about, right?

It never hurts to be cautious around voice assistant technology

As mentioned, Apple, Google, and Amazon are all facing similar lawsuits, and the plaintiffs claim they are listening in on your private discussions. All three companies have voice assistant features. Coincidence? Right now, there’s no way to know for sure. Google insists they don’t retain audio recordings. Amazon says they manually review a tiny portion of Alexa requests with the consent of users only to improve user experience and not to sell to third parties.

But because the concern has already been raised, there’s no harm in exercising some due diligence. It’s best to ensure your privacy is protected in the worst-case scenario.

For starters, it’s important to avoid accidentally activating your voice assistant. By way of example, simply saying “Alexa” will activate this feature if you have an Amazon smart device.

“Okay, Google” and “Hi Siri” will do the trick for Google and Apple smart devices, respectively.

The other thing is to make sure all your privacy settings don’t have any loopholes. You don’t want your recordings to be saved? Here’s how you do it:

Alexa

  • Open the Alexa app
  • Click the privacy menu
  • Go to Manage your Alexa data
  • Click the “Choose how long to save recordings option.”
  • Choose “Don’t save recordings.”

Google

  • Go to your Google Account
  • Click on Data and Privacy
  • Click on Web & App Activity
  • Uncheck the box that’s next to “include audio recordings.”
  • Also, uncheck the default settings

Apple

According to Apple, they will only retain your recordings if you opt-in by changing your settings.

No doubt, more information will be revealed as the progress of the lawsuits. For now, it’s up to users to do what they can to protect their privacy.

Categories : News
Tags : , ,

More Americans Believe That Personal Injury Attorneys Will Help You Get More Compensation

Posted by David Brown 
· September 14, 2021 

According to a survey conducted by Patino Law Firm of McAllen and San Antonio, Texas, a significant number of Americans believe that a personal injury lawyer can help them get more money after an accident. This view was further echoed by a report by Google Surveys, with 42.7% of respondents stating that a personal injury attorney is crucial to getting more compensation in the aftermath of an injury or property damage.

Personal injury law encompasses a wide area of expertise, with a few areas covered being slips and trips in public places and automobile accidents. Numerous Texas personal injury attorneys are also tasked with tackling oilfield accidents, a factor likely linked to the region’s high number of oil wells.

With the use of a contingency fee plan, it is no wonder that most clients prefer hiring a personal injury lawyer to tackle their case, given that payment only happens when the lawyer wins the settlement. The survey conducted in Texas and neighboring southern states shows that a whopping 40.9% of respondents are confident that they would hire a lawyer. Only 12.5% of respondents state that they would consider handling their own case, with the remainder 46.6% being indecisive about whether or not they would consider getting a lawyer. In hindsight, the latter group is likely not to have found themselves in any situation requiring the services of a lawyer, hence the hesitance to get one.

With insurance companies often making quick settlements in the hope that the injured parties will accept any offer to allow them to get back to their lives, personal injury lawyers are the solution to helping such parties get better compensation. When asked if they would fight for a better deal or settle for a quick offer, 17.3% of respondents said they would likely take the second option, with 19.8% stating they would fight to get more. In contrast, 8.4% would be willing to take any offer put forward even if it was low, with 54.5% stating they had no opinion on the matter.

When the same respondents were asked to give their view of personal injury attorneys, 21% believed that the attorneys were only after the money, while 59.9% did not have an opinion. Only 15.3% said that the attorneys represented their victims to help them get justice and 3.8% believed that the services of a personal injury attorney were essential after an accident.

Categories : News
Tags :

Federal Court of Appeals Upholds Lawsuit Dismissal Against the NSA

Posted by David Brown 
· September 9, 2021 

A lawsuit filed some time ago by the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikimedia, challenged the National Security agency’s ability to intercept the international internet communications of its users. The foundation alleged that this is a violation of the rights of the company and the privacy of its users. A federal court later dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds of state secrets. While the Wikimedia company foundation appealed the verdict to a federal appeals court, the dismissal was upheld.

Even though the ruling was divided, the 4th United States Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the lawsuit needed to be dismissed because the government invoked the privilege of state secrets. What this means is that the United States National Security Agency alleged that if the issue was fully explored in a court of law, that national security interests might be harmed.

In contrast, the Wikimedia Corporation alleged that the interception of its communications by the National Security Agency violated the company’s first amendment rights to free speech. Furthermore, the company alleged that the seizure of internal communications also violated the fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

There are some people, including dissenting judges on the Circuit Court of Appeals, that believe the ruling creates a precedent that government agencies may be able to illegally seize a significant amount of information from businesses under the guise of “state secrets”. While it is not clear if this will happen, Wikimedia is not the only entity that is concerned about this possibility. Some people are concerned that the courts are placing state secrets above the rights of individual internet users.

Given the ubiquity of the internet in communications today, this issue is likely to come up again. This case has been working its way through the courts since 2015, and it has been revived and dismissed multiple times. As a National Security Agency continues to collect information on users both inside and outside the United States, it will be interesting to see if future courts abide by the ruling that has been set by the Federal Court as well as the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The privacy of internet users everywhere could be in question.

Categories : News
Tags :

Business Litigation: Things You Need to Know

Posted by David Brown 
· September 7, 2021 

If you are a business owner, at some point in the future you may need to lodge a lawsuit against someone. It may be a supplier for your business, a competitor, one of your employees, an independent contractor you deal with, or even a customer of your business.

It is imperative for all business owners to know and understand the basics when it comes to business litigation, even though you will hire an attorney if you are in this type of situation.

What is Business Litigation?

Business litigation normally occurs when a dispute breaks out in a business or commercial relationship. This can include your company versus another company, a group of people, or even a government entity. The issues are usually very involved ones which are why it will be important for you to have legal representation.

Keep in mind, anything filed in court, including lawsuits, falls under public records which means news sources in anyone else can look these records up which can be damaging for a company and cause public relations issues. Your company’s reputation is the most important asset you have, so you will want to avoid business litigation if at all possible. Handling a dispute effectively from the beginning of it is very important to your company’s bottom line and financial future.

While there are many different types of business litigation and different scenarios in which this type of dispute resolution is necessary, there are two types that are the most common when it comes to legal issues for companies. Business litigation can include a breach of a contract, an investigation into regulatory issues, trademark disputes, fiduciary disputes, insurance disputes, partnership disputes, and even post-closing disputes.

Be Prepared for Business Litigation

As a business owner, you may want to take on a “wait-and-see approach” when a legal dispute arises. Most people and other organizations do not want to confront litigation until they absolutely have to which means after an actual lawsuit is filed. In other words, many companies will base decisions on their fear of litigation or because they’ve been threatened with litigation.

You will want to hire legal representation immediately if a lawsuit is filed against your company or if it’s even threatened to be filed. An attorney with experience in business litigation can provide much-needed advice and support in these types of situations which will help you avoid making hasty decisions. An attorney can also help you identify areas of your business that may be vulnerable to potential business litigation and can provide you with advice and guidelines on ways you can protect your company from business litigation in the future. Basically, it’s better to be safe than sorry when it comes to business litigation.

Categories : News
Tags : , ,

Florida Mask Ban in Schools: Attorneys Seek To Bring it To an End

Posted by David Brown 
· September 2, 2021 

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the decision of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to bank mask mandates in public schools, which are largely seen as effective at reducing the risk of transmission. The Governor argues that it is a violation of the right of parents to choose, while proponents of the mask mandate argue it is necessary for ensuring the safety of other children, parents, and vulnerable populations during a time when the Delta variant continues to spread.

A recent court ruling found that the Governor’s ban on mask mandates in schools was unlawful, but school officials said they would continue to support the Governor’s mask ban despite the court ruling. Schools that enforce a mask mandate against the orders of the Governor face financial penalties from the state, with some schools districts already experiencing these financial penalties.

Those counties that have been hit by these state-levied financial penalties have said they will comply with the financial hits, but that the mask mandate is staying in place. Officials say that the health and safety of children, teachers, and those in the community are more important than the financial penalties.

Already a dozen districts have stated that they are defying the orders of the Governor. While they might face financial penalties, it is possible that these districts might start to receive financial support in the form of CARES dollars from the Federal government, which might offset some of the losses these districts are facing at the hands of state penalties.

Even though the court ruling is likely to go into effect soon, Governor Ron DeSantis has continued to dig in, defending his ban during recent press conferences. He has stated that he is appealing the ban and is confident that he will win, saying that parents should have the right to choose whether to ask their kids to wear masks. He claims that he is standing with parents, while school districts instituting mask mandates state they are placing the health, safety, kids and parents first.

The court ruling, and the enforcement of mask mandates, has the potential to set important precedents as Delta cases continue to rise and politicians look for answers.

Categories : News

Mayor Corley Hints at Plans for Anticipated ARPA and Opioid Settlement Funds

Posted by David Brown 
· August 26, 2021 

Tusculum Mayor Alan Corley recently shared an update regarding the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and opioid settlement funds that the city is expected to receive.

Speaking to the Tusculum Board of Mayor and Commissioners, Mayor Corley commented on the expected source of the ARPA funding. Mayor Corley said Tusculum will receive the funding from the Tennessee State government instead of the federal government.

The First Tennessee Development District has already volunteered to distribute the ARPA funds when they arrive.

Although the source of the funds has been identified, the exact amount to be provided remains unclear at this point. Tusculum is eligible to receive up to $770,000, but Mayor Corley has reiterated that the official amount has yet to be determined.

Possible Plans for Tusculum’s ARPA Fans Outlined

The city of Tusculum has not finalized how it will use the incoming ARPA funds, but plans are seemingly being put in place. Mayor Corley mentioned that some plans already appear to have been green-lighted by the state.

The plans in question include reimbursing the city for payments that previously went to auxiliary police officers. The auxiliary police officers were brought in to direct traffic at the city’s vaccination site.

ARPA funds may also be used to provide bonuses to city employees who have continued to offer their services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Tusculum is also looking into possibly using the ARPA funds to purchase a new backup generator and to upgrade Tusculum City Park Playground.

Mayor Corley is also hoping that the funds can go toward the construction of a new fire station.

Latest Details on Opioid Settlement for ‘Sullivan Baby Doe’ Lawsuit

While plans for the ARPA funds are coming into focus, there is a greater deal of uncertainty regarding the money expected to come from the “Sullivan Baby Doe” lawsuit.

Greene is one of the nine Tennessee counties included as a plaintiff in the aforementioned lawsuit. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. is expected to pay out up to $35 million to the nine counties as part of the settlement agreement.

Tusculum has yet to receive guidance regarding how much they will receive from the settlement. Plans for the settlement funds have also not been provided at this point, but Mayor Corley has acknowledged that there have been talks to construct a treatment facility.

Tennessee mayors serving locales included in the lawsuit are expected to meet soon to discuss how the funds will be distributed and used.

Categories : News
← Previous Page
Next Page →

Bellingham Office:

2011 Young Street
Suite 202
Bellingham, WA  98225
(360) 733-3773 or 647-4567
(360) 647-9060 (facsimile)
info@saalawoffice.com

shepard_allen