Blog

Locks Law Firm represents people in civil rights cases who have been injured by police or prison guards or other government officials. The civil rights case that affected me most deeply occurred in Jersey City, NJ. A woman who had mental health problems was threatening her husband with a knife. Her husband called the police to try to get mental health help for her. When the police arrived, the husband was safely outside. Police knocked on the door. The lady opened the door a small amount. She did not have a knife. Police asked her to let them in. She closed the door. The lady was now alone inside her apartment with many police in the hallway.

A colleague of mine, here at the Firm, is fond of quoting a line from the 1961 Inauguration of one of our Country’s greatest Presidents, John F. Kennedy: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.”

While President Kennedy was referring to our foreign policy, his approach to our country’s adversaries can be applied just as effectively today to contested issues in our civil justice system.  Representing Plaintiffs in personal injury matters requires a dedication to a process.  That process entails knowing who you are representing, understanding the harms suffered by them, and establishing the facts to support why the injured are entitled to compensation from another person, company, or entity.  The key in civil litigation is how to present those key elements in a manner to effectively achieve the end result: the recovery of money damages to make up for the harms and losses.  Preparation is at the heart of such an undertaking.  Then, once armed with all of the necessary facts and proofs, a plaintiff is ready to present the case for consideration of money damages.  How does that presentation occur?  The traditional approach has been a jury trial in a courthouse.  But while trial by jury, established by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, remains an effective means of redress, in recent years, the concept of mediation has provided an equally effective alternative.

Newspapers around the country recently reported on the Erin Andrews trial in Nashville, Tennessee. Ms. Andrews, a famous sportscaster, had filed a lawsuit against a Nashville hotel and a stalker after she was secretly videotaped several times in 2008, and nude images of her had been distributed on the internet. Ms. Andrews’s stalker allegedly called the hotel specifically to book a room next to hers. He admitted in a deposition that he used a hacksaw to alter the peepholes of Ms. Andrews’s hotel rooms. On Monday, March 7, 2016, a Tennessee jury awarded Ms. Andrews $55 million for the invasion of her privacy and the emotional damages she suffered as a result.

They call them “Never Events” - events that can be prevented or avoided, such as a pressure ulcer (PU) or a fall. Simply, the hospital or Long Term Care (LTC) facility, by and through its staff, must have a game plan (known as a “Plan of care”) to prevent such occurrences. No two patients are the same. They differ in age, body shape, underlying medical conditions and many other ways. Each person’s unique characteristics make him susceptible to injuries, such as falls or pressure ulcers.

The New York Times recently reported on the pending San Diego trial of a law school graduate suing her alma mater for allegedly inflating its employment data to lure students to enroll; the first case of its kind to go to trial.

Last week, the United States Supreme Court denied certification in Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, a Seventh Circuit case in which the Court refused to apply the Third Circuit’s ascertainability requirement onto Rule 23’s requirements for class certification, joining the growing number of jurisdictions to reject the doctrine.

In Mullins, the Court addressed the requirement in the context of a consumer class action alleging fraud in the sale of dietary supplements (specifically alleging that the “joint supplement” sold by Defendant  was nothing more than a sugar pill, with no support for its advertised health benefits).  Plaintiff filed for class certification and the Court certified the case as a class action.  Defendant appealed, arguing that the class was not “ascertainable” and that Plaintiffs must bear the burden of showing an “administratively feasible way to determine whether a particular person is a member of the class.”  The Defendant also argued that consumer affidavits would be insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the requirement.

Two months ago, I watched the entire season of “Making a Murderer” over the course of two days.  I watched because the story is fascinating and because I have an affinity for the accent and approach to adversity found in the areas I have traveled from Milwaukee to Green Bay.  I’ve spent a good amount of time up that way and have never met people who treat tragedy in such a seemingly unemotional manner.

Regardless of reminding me of the particular idiosyncrasies of people from Manitowoc, the show reminded me of something that I have seen several times in my practice.  Inconceivable facts, facts that sound ridiculous upon first hearing them, sometimes turn out to be true. Only by investigating those seemingly preposterous issues, can it be determined whether, indeed, the unexpected is true.

Finding out your neighborhood or your home has been polluted from nearby industry can be a terrifying experience.  Our homes are where we feel most safe, are where we raise our families, and are usually the biggest financial investment we will ever make.  Such an invasion can result in tremendous emotional and physical harm.

We have fought for the victims of environmental contamination for many years. We are pleased that in the past two years, courts in both New York and New Jersey have upheld our argument that the class action is the best way to protect the residents' rights and ensure justice.

Office Building Janitor Secretly Videotaped Women Over 11-Month Period

An invasion of privacy case involving a group of 29 women surreptitiously videotaped using a restroom by a janitor working in a Somerset, NJ, office building was settled yesterday in Bergen County Superior Court for $940,000.

The women were represented by Neel Bhuta, an attorney for Locks Law Firm, and Franklin Solomon, of Solomon Law Firm, LLC, along with co-counsel Hill Wallack LLP.

The defendants in the trial included the building security company, Planned Security Services; and the collective building management (the janitorial company, CRS Janitorial Services; the building owner, I&G Garden State; and the property manager, Jones Lang LaSalle). The janitor who did the taping, Teodoro Martinez, was criminally charged and released on bail, but subsequently fled the country and is thought to be hiding in Mexico.

An astonishing article appeared in the March 2, 2016 edition of The New York Times.  In what they called a “startling accusation,” lawyers in litigation against drug manufacturers Johnson & Johnson and Bayer concerning the prescription anti-clotting drug Xarelto, claim that important data was omitted by researchers from Duke University in a letter to the editor published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.

Xarelto, which had sales of close to two billion dollars in the United States alone last year, is a blockbuster drug in the area of blood thinners.  It is marketed in the United States by Johnson & Johnson and overseas by Bayer. The two pharmaceutical manufacturers hired the Duke Clinical Research Institute to conduct a three-year clinical trial involving 14,000 patients in order to get Xarelto approved for sale by the regulatory agencies.