Oklahoma judge miscalculated how much Johnson & Johnson would pay for the state's opioid crisis
- As part of the landmark verdict in August, Judge Thad Balkman set aside $107,683,000 to help combat neonatal abstinence syndrome, or NAS.
- On Tuesday, Balkman agreed with Johnson and Johnson regarding the error.
- This was the first state trial attempting to hold a pharmaceutical company accountable for one of the worst epidemics in history.
- The judge still needs to decide if the court will continue to monitor the opioid crisis for the next 20 years and potentially award more money to the state.
- He also needs to decide if Johnson & Johnson should receive credit for the $300 million Oklahoma will be receiving from Teva Pharmaceuticals and Purdue Pharma -- those two companies settled with the state before the judge's initial ruling.
- Balkman didn't say when he would rule.
- Johnson & Johnson has already indicated they will appeal any decision.
Virginia law requiring couples to disclose race is unconstitutional, judge says
- The lawsuit against the Virginia State Registrar and others was filed after three couples said they were denied marriage licenses in the state after they refused to check a box disclosing their race on their applications.
- Alston wrote in his ruling Friday that requiring the couples "to disclose their race in order to receive marriage licenses burdens their fundamental right to marry," Alston wrote.
- Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring last month directed that applicants would now be able to check a box that says "declined to answer" instead of checking a box that defined their race, and clerks of court across the state received the new form and a memo.
- And although the clerks of court "swore to uphold General Herring's interpretation," they are still required to "uphold the statute, and General Herring's interpretation lacks the force of law," the judge said.
Judge grants mega-rich Sackler family reprieve from legal costs of opioid crisis
- Further ReadingAfter Sacklers shift at least $1 billion around, Purdue files for bankruptcyUS bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain temporarily halted state lawsuits against Purdue as well as the Sacklers—though only Purdue has filed for bankruptcy protections.
- In pausing the states' cases, Judge Drain cited Purdue's mounting legal expenses, which he noted is money that could otherwise go toward addressing the opioid crisis and its victims, according to The New York Times.
- Purdue had sought a 180-day injunction on the state's cases, but Judge Drain's pause only lasts until November 6.
- Those differences primarily hinge on whether the Sacklers are offering enough of their allegedly ill-gotten fortune to address the opioid crisis in thousands of lawsuits on the matter.
- To sweeten talks during the legal hiatus, Purdue and the Sacklers said it would share more financial information with the states.
Elon Musk broke US labor laws on Twitter
- An administrative judge says Tesla tried to sabotage efforts to unionize factory workers in California.
- A California judge ruled Friday that the Tesla CEO and other company executives have been illegally sabotaging employee efforts to form a union.
- That includes letting security guards harass workers who were passing out union pamphlets in the parking lot, banning employees from wearing pro-union T-shirts and buttons, repeatedly interrogating union organizers, and eventually firing one of them.
- In February 2017, the effort went public when Moran wrote a blog post on Medium titled, “Time for Tesla to Listen.” He said factory workers were constantly getting hurt because the company made them work long hours on machinery that wasn’t ergonomically safe.
- In June, workers delivered a petition to Elon Musk, saying that they were worried about their safety at work and that they wanted to form a labor union.
LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles
- The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals let stand an August 2017 preliminary injunction that required LinkedIn, a Microsoft Corp unit with more than 645 million members, to give hiQ Labs Inc access to publicly available member profiles.
- Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon said hiQ, which makes software to help employers determine whether employees will stay or quit, showed it faced irreparable harm absent an injunction because it might go out of business without access.
- Berzon said, however, hiQ had raised serious questions about LinkedIn’s conduct, including whether it could invoke a federal law targeting computer fraud and abuse to block “free riders” from accessing user data.
- Donald Verrilli, a solicitor general under President Barack Obama, represented LinkedIn. Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe was one of hiQ’s lawyers.
- The case is hiQ Labs Inc v LinkedIn Corp, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 17-16783.
Trump has been clobbered by the courts -- and there may be more ahead
- The dissenting judge on the Circuit's tax return case, Trump-appointee Neomi Rao, appeared to endorse many of the White House's arguments.
- During Watergate, President Richard Nixon faced multiple fast-moving court cases that ultimately forced details to Congress and prosecutors that prompted his resignation before the full House voted on articles of impeachment.
- Judge Edgardo Ramos in the Southern District of New York made a similar decision to Mehta's on a case about a subpoena for Trump's bank records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One, taking only 23 days to rule.
- Some of the cases between Trump and the House have landed in the hands of this President's appointees, including at the DC District Court, which has four new judges.
- And on Monday, Judge Victor Marrero of the federal court in Manhattan ruled against Trump two and a half weeks after getting a case regarding a subpoena of Trump's tax returns.