McDonald's sued to stop it from offering toys in Happy Meals; Opponents of personal responsibility celebrate

According to Reuters, the Center for Science in the Public Interest is representing a mother of two in a suit agasint McDonald's.  The suit alleges violation of California consumer protection laws.  McDonald's removed the suit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

I have a kid.  I sometimes let her eat McDonald's.  I could say no to a request to eat there.  That's my choice.  But if McDonald's axes Happy Meal toys to deal with these claims, then I will have less choice, thanks to people that think they can do a better job than I can of raising my child.  Have we completely lost our minds?  Plenty of companies do actual, real, bad things.  We just dilute attention from real misconduct when we shove responsibility for our sloth and inattention onto businesses.  Underpaying employees: bad.  Undisclosed toxins in food or medication: bad.  Defrauding investors: bad.  Kids eating too much junk food: lack of parental discipline (unless the children are out buying their own food, in which case it is a lack of parental oversight).

Finally a legal blog that isn't a snooze-fest: Law and the Multiverse

It has been some time since I last mentioned a new legal blog.  I think that's mostly because I tend to black out while reading about legal topics, awakening later with a keyboard imprint on my forehead and no recollection of what happened.  Luckily, I found one that is unusual enough that I made it through several posts still coherent enough to write about it.

Law and the Multiverse tackles the topics nobody else would, like how to insure against destruction by supervillians, whether RICO can be used against the Legion of Doom, and what happens when a murder victim comes back to life.

Thanks to Mike Braun for the tip to the New York Times story.

AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion set for oral argument next week

and the Los Angeles times notes that "Consumers' right to file class actions is in danger."  David Lazarus, Consumers' right to file class actions is in danger (November 5, 2010) www.latimes.com.

Wal-Mart ramps up spin control following decision in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Following the decision in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 2010), Wal-Mart is already in full spin control mode.  In a statement released through PR Newswire, Wal-Mart expressed how happy it was that a class action involving hundreds of thousands of employees would proceed against it:

We are pleased that the court agreed with our position on several critical issues. The court significantly reduced the size of the originally certified class by as much as two-thirds. Finding that the trial court 'abused its discretion,' the appeals court also set aside the ruling on punitive damages.

Perhaps the rosy glow will fade when Wal-Mart realizes that several issues are simply returning to the trial court for further analysis.  For example, punitive damages may very well be certified on terms identical to the original order:  "With respect to the claims for punitive damages, we remand so that the district court may consider whether to certify the class under Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3)."  Slip op., at 6147.  Don't say anything to Wal-Mart about this just yet; even Wal-Mart deserves some happiness, no matter how brief.

Other coverage of Coito v. Superior Court

Coito v. Superior Court (March 4, 2010) is apparently generating a fair bit of interest, based upon the search engine traffic viewing this blog's post about this new opinion.  Other articles that may be of interest include: 

• Witness Interviews Aren't Privileged Work Product, Says Calif. Court (National Law Journal
• Court: Witness Statements Taken By Counsel Not Work Product (Metropolitan News-Enterprise)
• Blog:  California Appellate Report on Coito
• Blog:  The California Wage And Hour Blog For Employees on Coito
• Blog:  Cal Biz Lit on Coito
• Blog:  Legal Ethics Forum on Coito

More commentary will likely follow; this decision seems to have hit a nerve.

in brief: More commentary about Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc.

Whether it is the intensity of the Opinion, the facts discussed in the Opinion, or a combination of the two, Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (October 9, 2009) is generating a fair bit of commentary.  Workplace Prof Blog encourages everyone to read the entire opinion.  Storm's California Employment Law agrees, saying, "You have to read this opinion."  I agree.  You should read the opinion.

Media coverage of Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc.

Mike McKee's Recorder column on the recent decision in Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (October 9, 2009), previously available only by subscription, is now available without a subscription from Law.com.  Mike McKee, On Summary Judgment, Judge Gets a Spanking (October 13, 2009) www.law.com.