Two logos side by side with Critical Legal Content in a red square on the left and HB Litigation in blue on the right

Heavy Metals in SFO Bay

October 16th, 2020|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Environmental Torts, HB Tort Notes|Tags: , , , |

Legal Writer Law Street Media San Francisco Baykeeper Sues Aviation Part Manufacturer Over Heavy Metal Pollution Reposted with permission of Law Street Media and Fastcase. On Tuesday in the Northern District of California, plaintiff San Francisco Baykeeper filed a civil action against defendants Allied Engineering & Production Corp., Allied Land Co. (collectively Allied), and Stone Boatyard to rectify the alleged past and ongoing contamination of canal shoreline near the San Francisco Bay. The plaintiff brings the suit under the private attorney general provision, asserting rights on behalf of the public against the defendants for supposedly dumping metal shavings in the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal in violation of the law. Baykeeper is an environmental non-profit organization with approximately 3,500 members who live and recreate in and around the San Francisco Bay area. The organization’s mission is “to defend San Francisco Bay from the biggest threats and hold polluters accountable to create healthier communities and help wildlife thrive.” It monitors and investigates pollution as part of its efforts to ensure that the bay is clean and safe for recreation. Defendant Allied Engineering operated a machine shop from 1951 to about 2011, located in Alameda, Calif., on a property that Allied Land owned. The machine shop manufactured aviation industry components and stored hazardous materials, hydraulic oils, [...]

Read More

Progress of Roundup Settlement in Question, Verus Reports

September 2nd, 2020|Categories: Class Actions, Complex Business Litigation, Environmental Torts, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: , , , , , |

Manager of Research Services Verus LLC klavin@verusllc.com 609-466-0427 Progress of Roundup Settlement in Question Judge Would Likely Not Have Agreed to a Stay Had He Known About the Contingency On August 27, plaintiffs’ counsel in the multi-district litigation involving Monsanto and its widely used weed killer Roundup, advised the court that parent company Bayer AG appeared to be going back on the settlement agreement announced in June. At that time, the company had agreed to settle about 75% of the 125,000 claims filed by plaintiffs alleging that their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was linked to Roundup use; the settlement was for an estimated $10 billion. At the hearing, Judge Vince Chhabria advised that he had received confidential letters from a number of plaintiffs’ counsel with cases pending in the MDL who were concerned that Bayer AG was going back on the settlement, noting that the company had terminated settlement term sheets and refused to execute master service agreements that would finalize their settlements; Bayer conceded that there were currently no final agreements. Bayer did advise Judge Chhabria that about 667 of the cases currently pending in the MDL had been resolved, a figure that the judge noted was only a fraction of the 4,000 currently filed.  The judge also pointed to Bayer’s June 24 announcement of the settlement, [...]

Read More

CNN — Jury returns $2 billion verdict against Monsanto for couple with cancer — the biggest so far

June 5th, 2019|Categories: Class Actions, Environmental Torts, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: , |

[one-half-first] [/one-half-first] [one-half] A California jury returned a $2.055 billion verdict against Monsanto and their popular weed killer, Roundup. “The verdict in Oakland includes more than $55 million in compensatory damage and $2 billion in punitive damages.” The septuagenarian plaintiffs, represented by attorney Michael Miller of The Miller Firm, were a California couple that said long-term exposure to Roundup caused both of them to be diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer that usually cannot be traced back to a source according to the American Cancer Society. The particular carcinogen in Roundup is glyphosate, which the EPA has stated was not a carcinogen in a 2015 assessment, which contradicts WHO’s statement that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans”. While a Monsanto spokesperson previously denied any manipulation, a jury found that a series of texts and emails between Monsanto and the EPA that proved Monsanto culpable of manipulating science. [/one-half] Read the complete post by Michael Nedelman on CNN.com here!

Read More

Cognitive Shortcuts: Assessing Case Value & Litigation Risk with Homer Simpson and Spock

September 11th, 2018|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Environmental Torts, HB Tort Notes|Tags: , , , , , |

By Jeff Trueman, Esq. Mediator The central question on the minds of counsel, their clients, and insurance professionals in civil litigation is, of course, “What’s the case worth?” Although lead paint litigation may be going through some changes, it remains a mature tort where enough historical settlement and verdict data exist for counsel to argue why a particular case should or should not fit within a certain settlement range. In the midst of these discussions, the human brain plays tricks on us. For example, litigators sometimes assume that their trial experience can determine how jurors will negotiate with one another and resolve factual discrepancies after closing arguments. This assumption is a “heuristic” – a cognitive shortcut called attributional error or illusion of control. Underneath the games of litigation “chicken” that are the hallmark of settlement negotiation, heuristics lead to erroneous valuations and assessments of risk. Although more than one hundred heuristics exist, approximately 15-20 occur commonly in the context of settlement negotiations. It is easy for potential clients to employ a heuristic similar to the illusion of control by imagining a connection between something they desire, such as a favorable case outcome, and the past successes of their prospective lawyer. Representative and confirmation biases influence how we connect “model” to “outcome.” When differences over case value intensify, litigators return to threats [...]

Read More
Go to Top