NEW YORK — A federal judge in Madison, Wis., on Monday threw out a suit by Apple Inc. claiming that Google subsidiary Motorola Mobility is seeking unreasonably high license fees for the use of patents on wireless technology.
The suit is part of a world-spanning battle between Apple and Google, whose Android software powers the smartphones that compete with Apple’s iPhone. Google bought Motorola Mobility, a once pioneering maker of cellphones, this summer to gain control of its patents and gain leverage against Apple in its court battles.
In the suit filed last year, Apple said the license fee Motorola sought — of 2.25 percent of the price of devices that incorporate Motorola’s patented technologies — was too high. The devices at issue include the iPhone and iPod Touch.
Motorola is obliged by standards-setting bodies to offer licenses at “reasonable” rates when the patents are part of industry standards like Wi-Fi and cellular technology. There are, however, various answers as to what constitutes a “reasonable” rate.
Judge Barbara Crabb at the district court for the Western District of Wisconsin did not give a reason for dismissing the suit.
Motorola spokeswoman Jennifer Weyrauch-Erickson said the company was pleased that the suit was dismissed.
“We remain interested in reaching an agreement with Apple,” she said.
Apple representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
ANNAPOLIS — Opponents of expanding gambling in Maryland have filed a lawsuit saying a majority of registered voters in the state would need to approve the proposal, not just a majority of people who vote on the ballot question.
Thomas Dernoga, an attorney representing eight plaintiffs who oppose a casino in Prince George’s County, filed the lawsuit in Annapolis on Friday.
Dernoga says the plaintiffs want the courts to review the threshold required for approval of the ballot question.
He says the state’s constitution states expansion requires a majority of the qualified voters in the state. But Dernoga says the measure passed in an August special session has wrongly redefined that threshold to mean simply a majority of people voting on the question.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling has called a lawsuit brought against him by Rhode Island‘s economic development agency “political” and denied wrongdoing in connection with a $75 million loan guarantee the state gave his failed video game company, 38 Studios.
The Rhode Island Economic Development Corp. on Thursday sued Schilling, some of its former employees and others, saying they committed fraud and other acts that misled the state into approving the deal. 38 Studios laid off all its employees and declared bankruptcy earlier this year.
In his first public comments on the lawsuit, Schilling, in a written statement sent Friday to The Associated Press, said the EDC’s decision was made “with its eyes wide open and with full understanding of any risks.”
Schilling said he had not yet seen the lawsuit, but believes he’s being sued in part because of critical comments he made about Gov. Lincoln Chafee’s handling of the situation.
The deal with 38 Studios was struck in 2010, under the leadership of former Republican Gov. Don Carcieri. Chafee, an independent, was harshly critical of the deal as a candidate, but said he wanted to see the company succeed once he became governor.
In 2009, 38 Studios bought Timonium-based Big Huge Games, which employed 110 people when it closed in May.
Schilling has accused Chafee of not doing enough to help 38 Studios stay afloat and publicly called him a “buffoon” and a “dunce of epic proportions.” Chafee opposed giving the company more financial support after it began having money troubles, saying it did not have a viable plan for survival.
“I am confident that when the claims against me are adjudicated, it will be determined that the claims were brought against me for political reasons, not based on any alleged wrongdoing on my part,” Schilling said in the statement.
Chafee, who serves as the EDC board chairman, would not comment on Schilling’s statement, and when asked about the lawsuit Friday would say only, “My job is to protect the taxpayers of Rhode Island.”
The lawsuit claims that Schilling and various 38 Studios executives, as well as former EDC Executive Director Keith Stokes and others, knew the company would run out of money by 2012, but concealed that from the EDC board, which made the final decision on whether to back the deal.
The suit asks that Schilling and others pay back the bonds floated on the company’s behalf, an amount that could top $100 million when interest is included. It also asks for triple damages. Schilling on Friday also held out the possibility of filing a lawsuit of his own.
“To the extent my attorneys advise me that these claims were improperly filed, I will consider taking such action as necessary against those filing the claims,” he said.
Also Friday, State Police Col. Steven O’Donnell told the AP a criminal investigation of the deal continues. He said he had read part of the lawsuit and learned details that were new to him, although he would not be specific. He would not say whether he believes the state probe of the company will lead to criminal charges, or give a timetable on when the investigation might finish.
A separate federal probe is complete and did not result in charges.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Rhode Island‘s economic development agency is suing former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling and some of its own former officials, saying they committed fraud and other acts that misled the state into approving a $75 million loan guarantee to his failed video game company.
Former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling, center, is followed by members of the media as he departs the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation headquarters in Providence, R.I.
The suit was filed Thursday in Rhode Island Superior Court four months after 38 Studios filed for bankruptcy following a spectacular collapse that has likely left the state on the hook for $100 million.
Two public auctions were held to dispose of items formerly owned by the company. The first, held last Oct. 16 at the former Big Huge Games, a Timonium studio acquired by 38 Studios in 2009, brought in $180,000, according to the firm’s court-appointed receiver.
Among other things, the lawsuit filed Thursday claims that executives at 38 Studios, as well as former Economic Development Corp. Executive Director Keith Stokes and others, knew the company would run out of money by 2012, but concealed that from the EDC board, which made the final decision on whether to back the deal.
The board in 2010 lured 38 Studios to Providence from Massachusetts with the loan guarantee.
The lawsuit also alleges that Schilling, 38 Studios executives and others engaged in racketeering and conspiracy. The suit does not ask for a specific dollar amount but wants Schilling and others to repay the bonds and seeks triple damages.
In addition to Schilling, who founded the company, and Stokes, the suit names Michael Saul, a former top official at the EDC; two law firms that worked with the agency; a financial adviser for the state; Wells Fargo Securities and Barclays Capital, investment banks hired by the EDC to assist in issuing bonds for the deal; and an insurance company for 38 Studios.
Gov. Lincoln Chafee said the EDC board authorized the legal action in an attempt to recoup some of the state’s money.
“My message to Rhode Islanders is this: I know that you work hard for your paychecks, and for your tax dollars to be squandered is unacceptable,” Chafee said in a video statement. “The Board’s legal action was taken to rectify a grave injustice put upon the people of Rhode Island.”
Chafee said in the message he would not comment further and that the filing of the complaint is “only the beginning.”
EDC spokeswoman Judy Chong said the agency has no comment. Messages left for Schilling, Stokes and Saul weren’t immediately returned.
38 Studios collapsed into bankruptcy in June. Rhode Island is expected to be responsible for about $100 million when interest is factored in on the bonds the state issued on the company’s behalf.
The EDC in June hired an outside firm to determine whether anyone might be held legally liable in connection with the loan guarantee. The board was briefed in private last month by attorney Max Wistow on possible litigation.
The suit says that EDC board members who approved the loan guarantee in 2010 were not experts in “law, lending, video gaming or economic development” and relied on information from advisors including Stokes and Saul at the EDC, as well as Schilling and others at 38 Studios. The suit says the video game company failed because of risks that were not disclosed to the board “but were or should have been known” by all of the defendants.
The suit also says the EDC board was misled about whether 38 Studios would have enough money to finish the video game, codenamed Copernicus, that was critical to its success or failure. It says the company’s own financial projections showed a shortfall of about $22 million of the estimated $75 million needed. The company was due to get only a portion of the $75 million in bond funds because some was to be kept in reserve.
The suit says the defendants should have known that the company was on track to exhaust its funds and it was “likely that 38 Studios would run out of cash and go out of business by 2012.”
Schilling’s firm tried to raise millions of dollars more in outside capital, but was unable.
The suit also says that an EDC analyst who raised questions about the loan guarantee — and suggested he could not support it — was later excluded from doing further work on it by Saul, who oversaw the agency’s financing programs at the time. As a result, the agency’s customary analysis of the risks of the deal was never completed or submitted to the EDC board, according to the suit.
The suit also accuses Saul and attorney Robert Stolzman, who served as EDC secretary, of withholding from the board “negative” opinions about the proposed deal, including from two consultants who said wouldn’t invest $75 million in 38 Studios if they were in the EDC’s position.
In May, the company laid off its nearly 300 employees in Providence and more at a studio in Maryland it acquired in 2009.
The suit says Wells Fargo also earned $473,000 in “hidden commissions” from 38 Studios that the state didn’t know about — and which ate into the total available to run the company.
Dana Crothers Obrist, a spokeswoman for Wells Fargo said the company does not believe the lawsuit has merit, and it is prepared to defend itself vigorously.
A spokesman for Barclays had no comment.
One of the law firms named in the suit, Adler Pollock & Sheehan, which had served as general counsel to the EDC, and employs Stoltzman, said in a statement the suit reflects a “misappreciation” of its role and said the firm will “vigorously defend itself.”
Thomas Moses, president of Moses Afonso, which worked on the bond sale and was named in the suit, said he had not been served with it by Thursday afternoon and had not seen it. But he called any lawsuit against his firm or its attorneys “frivolous and without merit.”
Almost a year to the day after Rogelio Mondragon was fatally assaulted at a maximum-security state psychiatric hospital, the personal representative of his estate has filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against his accused killer.
Mondragon was one of three people who died at the Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center in Jessup over the course of one year. He was killed on Oct. 27, 2011, allegedly by Andre Mayo.
Both men were patients at Perkins, which is operated by the state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to evaluate and treat suspected felons who, because of mental health issues, may not be competent to stand trial or have been found not criminally responsible for their offenses.
Mondragon was remanded to the hospital after a judge determined that he was not competent to stand trial on charges of second-degree rape.
The lawsuit, a survival action based on the assault and battery Mondragon suffered before his death, seeks $15 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages from Mayo.
According to the complaint, Mayo walked into Mondragon’s cell and threatened him with “serious, imminent, bodily harm,” and then made good on his threats.
Hospital staff found Mondragon unresponsive on the floor of his room and he could not be revived. “He was pronounced dead at the scene in his hospital cell,” the complaint says.
Police said video showed Mayo going into Mondragon’s room, twice, while Mondragon was otherwise alone. Police also said evidence on Mondragon’s hands and face suggested that he may have been in a fight.
Mayo was charged with first-degree murder, but in April a judge deemed him not competent to stand trial.
The civil lawsuit, which was filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court Oct. 26, does not name the hospital as a defendant.
However, it alleges that “proper risk and detention unit classification and ongoing monitoring of patients at [the hospital] was reportedly inadequate.”
It also alleges that there was inadequate patient and staff security, and that Mayo had “an extensive history of criminal conduct, including a history of violent conduct towards others, and that he was a person with dangerous tendencies.”
Paul R. Rivera, an attorney in Rockville, filed the suit on behalf of S. Ricardo Narvaiz, a Silver Spring lawyer who is the personal representative of Mondragon’s estate. Rivera and Narvaiz did not return calls for comment.
Dr. David S. Helsel, who took over as the chief executive officer at Perkins a month after Mondragon’s death, said no psychiatric institution can ever be completely safe. He noted, though, that 93 new staff hires were filled this past summer, and that this has resulted in additional opportunities for training and additional safety.
Jeffrey Pittman, spokesman for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees of Maryland, which represents 323 staff members at the hospital, agreed that employee morale has improved with the additional staff.
“The staffing and security seems much better,” Pittman said.
Helsel said that, in addition to an electronic monitoring system, a hall monitor now continually walks and checks every room. He said the hospital has also increased the amount of group, individual and art therapies that it provides to patients.
However, Sarah Rhine, an attorney at the Maryland Disability Law Center, said that while her organization has seen some progress by staff and the CEO toward a change in culture, it continues to see issues with patient neglect and abuse and rights violations.
“Steps have been taken, but there is still a way to go,” she said.
Arguing that “football has become the site of perhaps the gravest health crisis in the history of sports,” lawyers for thousands of former NFL players asked a judge to reject the league’s bid to dismiss their lawsuits about concussions.
In a brief filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, the players dispute the league’s framing of the cases as a labor issue that should be governed by the sport’s collective bargaining agreements instead of the legal system.
Among the players’ arguments: Relevant collective bargaining agreements, or CBAs did not address long-term brain injuries, the NFL committed fraud by concealing risks of repeated head trauma, and the league has a common-law duty to protect players.
“The NFL knew that players were exposed to risks of severe neurological injuries, yet did nothing to prevent them,” the brief says, adding that the league “failed to warn players about the dangers of concussive and sub-concussive impacts,” did not advocate preventative rule changes and did not “implement equipment standards adapted for head trauma.”
The league filed its motion to dismiss the lawsuits in August and now will have the chance to respond to the players’ reply. The NFL repeatedly has stated publicly it did not intentionally mislead players and has tried to better protect their health.
More than 100 concussion lawsuits against the NFL have been brought together before U.S. District Judge Anita B. Brody. Unless Brody agrees to dismiss them, or an umbrella settlement is reached, she probably would decide what evidence can be used at trial, whether a class can be certified for medical monitoring and other pretrial issues. The cases might then return to their home districts for trial.
In its motion two months ago, the NFL argued that the CBAs cover safety and health rules — while delegating to individual teams and their doctors the decisions about players’ conditions and when they should return to play. The league also said the former players’ suits lack specific proof that medical links between concussions and brain disease were concealed.
The players’ response Wednesday says “a party cannot shirk its own duty by pointing to the duties of others” and that the “NFL deceived club doctors (as well as players) by insisting repeatedly that head trauma carried little long-term risk for football players.”
Wednesday’s brief argues that the NFL “orchestrated a disinformation campaign” and says: “On the NFL’s watch, football has become the site of perhaps the gravest health crisis in the history of sports.”
5,000 plaintiffs
According to an Associated Press analysis, more than 3,500 former players — including at least 26 members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame — have sued the NFL, saying not enough was done to inform them about the dangers of concussions in the past, and not enough is being done today to take care of them. The complete number of plaintiffs in those cases tops 5,000, counting spouses and other relatives or representatives.
The lead plaintiff in one of the earliest concussion lawsuits filed against the NFL last year, former Atlanta Falcons safety Ray Easterling, committed suicide in April at age 62. An autopsy found he had the degenerative brain disease CTE, or chronic traumatic encephalopathy. His widow remains a plaintiff.
Other players have told the AP they returned to play after hits that left them with concussions and regularly were given painkillers by team doctors before games.
A Frederick woman with multiple sclerosis is suing Owings Mills Mall, J.C. Penney and Macy’s, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Deann Walter and her lawyer, Brien Penn, have filed nearly 20 such cases since 2010.
Penn acknowledged Monday that filing these types of lawsuits under the ADA, first enacted in 1990, is viewed either as “a great way of advancing civil liberties or ambulance-chasing.”
Because of her condition, Walter relies on a scooter or cane to move from place to place. She alleged in a complaint filed last week in U.S. District Court that, during her visits to the mall and at those two stores, she experienced “serious difficulty accessing the goods and utilizing the services … due to the architectural barriers.”
She said the barriers include inaccessible parking, inaccessible routes from the parking areas because of sidewalks that have excessive slopes and a lack of curb-cut access from designated accessible parking spaces.
Walter also alleged that the payment and service counters at the food court are inaccessible because they are too high.
She is asking that the court direct the mall and the stores to “alter their facilities to make them accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” She is also seeking attorneys’ fees and costs.
The mall is owned by General Growth Properties Inc. and Kimco Realty.
A spokesman for General Growth Properties did not immediately return a call for comment on Monday.
Penn, of Yungmann Madden & Penn in Glenwood, said Monday that the goal in filing these lawsuits is to make the premises named in the suit more accessible.
“Usually, these suits are filed and the defendants get their own expert to look at the property and see if they agree that there are problems,” he said. “We enter into a settlement agreement whereby they agree to make the changes and pay the attorneys’ fees.”
Walter and Penn have four other pending ADA cases in federal courts in Maryland. She has sued the record owners, lessors and/or operators of a shopping center located at 5425 Urbana Pike in Frederick; a Boston Market located at 1350 W. Patrick St. in Frederick; a Pizza Hut located at 2709 N. Philadelphia Ave. in Ocean City; and Forest Plaza, located at 55 Forest Plaza Rd. in Annapolis.
Walter and Penn have filed 14 other lawsuits alleging violations under the ADA in the past two years. All were settled or voluntarily dismissed.
‘Traceable’ injuries
In a separate action, Penn represented a Pasadena man in his ADA lawsuit against the Lexington Market in Baltimore. While it was revived in April by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, it ended this month after the death of the plaintiff, Gilroy J. Daniels Sr.
Daniels alleged that the market, located at 400 W. Lexington St., had inaccessible ramps, restrooms and counters.
A federal judge originally dismissed the lawsuit, finding that Daniels failed to allege “a concrete and particularized injury” and failed to allege facts that suggested that the injuries were “traceable” to Arcade L.P., one of the market’s owners and operators.
The 4th Circuit, however, disagreed.
“We conclude that Daniels sufficiently alleged an ‘injury in fact’ that was ‘fairly traceable’ to Arcade’s actions,” Judge Barbara Milano Keenan wrote for the appellate court on April 24.
The 4th Circuit vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case. Penn said the parties entered into a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice on Oct. 15 because Daniels had died and, as a result, no longer had standing to sue under the ADA.
The agency that oversees the Washington-area Metro subway system cannot be sued for injuries caused by negligent maintenance of its passenger stations, Maryland‘s top court held on Friday.
One woman was awarded about $19,000 after she fell on melted snow that had been tracked into the Prince George's Plaza Metro station.
The decision is a loss for two women who slipped on wet floors at the Cheverly and Prince George’s County Plaza stations.
In such personal injury cases, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority enjoys the same immunity from suit that states have, the Court of Appeals held in consolidated appeals by two injured customers.
The high court found the WMATA was entitled to sovereign immunity, under which states cannot be sued for money damages without their consent.
WMATA is similar to a state because it was formed through a compact among Maryland, Washington and Virginia, in which the three jurisdictions conferred “their respective sovereign immunities upon it,” the Court of Appeals said.
The compact waives WMATA’s sovereign immunity, permitting it to be sued, only for its proprietary functions — not for its governmental activities, the court added.
The maintenance of passenger stations is a governmental function because it “involves an element of discretion or choice that is grounded in social, economic and political policy,” Judge Lynne A. Battaglia wrote for the high court.
In its decision, the Court of Appeals upheld lower court rulings dismissing on sovereign immunity grounds lawsuits brought by Veronica Tinsley, who fell on a wet floor at the Cheverly Metro Station, and Kim Hodge, who fell on a wet floor at the Prince George’s Plaza Metro Station.
Tinsley claimed she fractured her right ankle due to the negligent manner in which the floor was cleaned and the timing of the cleaning, which under WMATA policy was not to be performed before 7 p.m. The accident took place about 4:45 p.m. on the day in question, she said.
Hodge said WMATA was negligent in not cleaning melted snow on the station’s floor.
But the high court said the manner and timing of cleaning station floors involves WMATA’s discretionary decision-making authority.
“WMATA’s decision to clean the entire station floor at the time Ms. Tinsley was using the Metro system was one based on economic and policy considerations,” Battaglia wrote.
“WMATA employees, in determining when is the best time to clean, are balancing concerns of ensuring safe conditions against not impeding pedestrian traffic, as well as how often to clean, balancing concerns involved in creating a cleaning schedule against WMATA’s budget,” she added. “Similarly, WMATA’s decision to allow water to evaporate in the station Hodge visited, as opposed to mopping it up after patrons tracked it into the station, was based on policy and economic decisions related to the most efficient method for conducting maintenance operations.”
Attorney James S. Liskow, who represented Hodge, said the high court’s expansive interpretation of state sovereign immunity “sets a pretty bad precedent for people traveling in government buildings: Any government would have the right not to clean the floor.”
Nevertheless, Liskow said, “I don’t think I’m going to take it to the Supreme Court” on the scope of sovereign immunity.
Liskow said the chances of the Supreme Court granting review are slim and the expenses of litigating the case would exceed the nearly $19,000 verdict Hodge received at trial. However, he added, the ultimate decision of whether to appeal is up to Hodge.
“I believe we’re probably done,” added Liskow, of Decaro, Doran, Siciliano, Gallagher & DeBlasis LLP in Bowie. “[But] it is really her call more than mine.”
WMATA counsel Gerard J. Stief declined comment, referring all inquiries to the agency’s public relations office.
“We are pleased with the decision,” WMATA stated.
Tinsley’s attorney, James W. Taglieri, did not return telephone messages seeking comment Friday afternoon. Taglieri is with Cadeaux, Taglieri & Notarius P.C. in Washington.
Tinsley had won her lawsuit at the trial court level, as a Prince George’s County Circuit Court jury awarded her $64,213 in damages. But the Court of Special Appeals overturned the verdict, ruling on Nov. 30, 2011, that WMATA had sovereign immunity.
That same day, a Prince George’s County Circuit Court jury awarded Hodge $18,945 in damages.
Based on the intermediate court’s decision in Tinsley’s case, the trial judge granted WMATA’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in Hodge’s case.
Tinsley and Hodge filed separate petitions to the Court of Appeals, which heard arguments in both cases on Sept. 11.
The high court consolidated the two cases in issuing its decision on Friday.
Battaglia was joined in her opinion by Chief Judge Robert M. Bell and Judges Clayton Greene Jr, Sally D. Adkins and Mary Ellen Barbera.
Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. concurred in Battaglia’s decision but wrote separately to state that WMATA might not have had sovereign immunity in Hodge’s case, had the Plaza Metro Station qualified as a “structure” under the Prince George’s County Code.
The maintenance of structures is not a discretionary act under the code and thus would not be a governmental function, Harrell wrote in a concurring opinion that Judge Robert N. McDonald joined.
Battaglia
WHAT THE COURT HELD
Case:
Tinsley and Hodge v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority., CA Nos. 1 and 25 (consolidated), Sept. Term 2012. Reported. Opinion by Battaglia J. Concurrence by Harrell, J. Argued Sept. 11, 2012. Filed Oct. 26, 2012.
Issue:
Does the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority have sovereign immunity against lawsuits alleging the negligent maintenance of Metro stations?
Holding:
Yes; WMATA has state sovereign immunity under its tri-jurisdiction compact for governmental functions, which include discretionary decisions regarding the maintenance of Metro stations.
Counsel:
James W. Taglieri and James S. Liskow for petitioners; Gerard J. Stief for respondent.
A jury has awarded damages of $5.6 million to a disc jockey who was arrested and jailed in 2009 after the Prince George’s County Sheriff’s Department mistakenly entered a warrant against him into the National Criminal Information System database.
DJ Christopher Harper sued after he missed 10 appearances and lost his job as a bank customer service representative because he was jailed on an erroneous warrant.
The jury reached its verdict Thursday in Prince George’s County Circuit Court. It deliberated for roughly two hours after a four-day trial, with Judge Leo E. Green Jr. presiding.
During the trial, the jury was presented with a state audit of the county’s Sheriff’s Office conducted in 2009. The audit concluded that the Sheriff’s Office showed a “lack of sufficient care” in maintaining its wanted-person file and deemed there to be “significant risks” as a result of that lack of care.
The audit states that this lack of care could “result in the arrest of an innocent citizen.”
The DJ, Christopher Harper, said he was stopped by a Washington police officer on Jan. 16, 2009, because of a missing front tag on his car. He said the police officer ran a warrant check, which revealed an open warrant that Harper said had been entered by the Prince George’s County Sherriff’s Department by mistake.
Harper, 43, spent five days in jail and was released only after Prince George’s County officials discovered the mistake. He alleged that, because he was in jail, he missed 10 events where he was booked to perform to celebrate the presidential inauguration. He also was fired from his job as a customer account executive with Chevy Chase Bank, according to the complaint.
Harper, who lives in Upper Marlboro, said in an interview on Friday that it was a horrific experience.
“I lost everything,” he said. “My DJ jobs got canceled, and I lost my job. The bank repossessed my car. My lights and electricity turned off. I am not a criminal, but my entire future and entire life got taken away from me because the Prince George’s County Sherriff’s Department did not do their job.”
He said he felt vindicated after the verdict.
“To know that a jury of my peers got to hear everything and for them to come back with their verdict was a vindication,” he said. “I am sure that some of the jury members realized that this could happen to them.”
Harper filed his lawsuit on March 17, 2010. He alleged negligence, violations of his rights under the Maryland Declaration of Rights and a pattern or practice of police misconduct.
“The Prince George’s County Sheriff’s Department has no meaningful system of oversight, routine check or other policies and procedures in place which would ensure the accuracy of information maintained in the various warrant systems, or checks to ensure timely response to warrant inquiries from other jurisdictions,” Harper said in his complaint. “As a result, there has been a regular pattern and practice of conduct similar to that complained of here.”
Capt. Nancy Ridgely, a spokeswoman for the Prince George’s County Sherriff’s Department, referred calls for comment to Assistant Attorney General Roger L. Wolfe, Jr., who represented the defendants. Wolfe did not return calls.
Timothy F. Maloney and Kara L. Fischer, of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake P.A. in Greenbelt, represented Harper.
“The jury was impressed by how this one inaccurate warrant had turned Mr. Harper’s life upside down,” Maloney said.
The verdict included $628,000 for economic damages and $5 million for noneconomic damages.
Generally, the Local Government Tort Claims Act limits tort damages against counties to $200,000. However, Maloney said in an email that, because the jury found in his client’s favor on the pattern-and-practice and constitutional tort claims, any cap on damages will probably be subject to further litigation.
HARPER V. MARYLAND ET AL.
Court:
Prince George’s County Circuit Court
Case No:
CAL10-07875
Judge:
Leo E. Green, Jr.
Outcome:
$5.6 million verdict. $628,000 for economic damages and $5 million for non-economic damages.
Dates:
Event: Jan. 16, 2009
Suit filed: March 17, 2010
Verdict: Oct. 25, 2012
Platintiff’s Attorneys:
Timothy F. Maloney and Kara L. Fischer of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A.
Defendant’s Attorney:
Assistant Attorney General Roger L. Wolfe, Jr.
Counts:
Negligence, Violation of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, Articles 24 and 26, and Pattern or Practice.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. agreed Thursday to pay $95 million to settle federal whistleblower allegations that it illegally marketed unapproved, off-label uses of its anti-hypertension and anti-stroke drugs, made exaggerated claims about its products and paid kickbacks to doctors who prescribed the medications.
In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Baltimore, the government alleged that Connecticut-based BIPI unlawfully marketed the drugs Aggrenox, Combivent and Micardis between 2000 and 2008 and caused false reimbursement claims to be made to the federal government’s Medicaid program, which funds health care for the indigent.
BIPI admitted no wrongdoing in agreeing to the civil settlement, which the company said it signed “to avoid the time and expense of continuing litigation.”
Robert Heiden, the whistleblower who brought the claims, will receive more than $17 million — nearly 20 percent of the settlement — under the provisions of the False Claims Act, the U.S. Justice Department said.
Heiden is a former BIPI sales representative from Sarasota, Fla. The case was brought in Maryland because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is based here and the U.S. attorney’s office has a unit dedicated to prosecuting health care fraud, said Maryland U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein.
Deterrent
Rosenstein said he hopes the multimillion-dollar settlement serves as “an important deterrent to pharmaceutical companies” from marketing the non-FDA-approved uses of their drugs.
“Our hope is that they will realize that the law prohibits them from giving doctors financial incentives to prescribe certain medicines,” he said.
Heiden’s share will come out of the federal government’s cut of the settlement, which totals about $78.5 million. State Medicaid programs will share the remaining $16.5 million.
Rosenstein said he did not know what Maryland’s share of the settlement would be. Bloomberg News reported that New York will receive more than $3.1 million, and Ohio, almost $1.4 million.
Under the settlement, the company will also enter into a five-year integrity agreement under which it will adopt procedures and to avoid the allegedly illegal conduct, the company said.
“The pharmaceutical industry as a whole has undergone significant changes in the past decade and continues to be under intense scrutiny,” BIPI President Greg Behar said in the statement. He added that the company’s compliance practices “have evolved significantly over the years.”
In the lawsuit, the government alleged that BIPI marketed Aggrenox to treat heart and circulatory diseases when the FDA had approved it only to prevent secondary strokes. The company also illegally advertised Combivent for use prior to other treatments for pulmonary disease and Micardis for treating early diabetic kidney disease, when the drug was approved only to combat hypertension, the government claimed.
The government also alleged that BIPI knowingly promoted the sale and Combivent and Atrovent, an anti-wheezing medicine, at doses above those covered by federal health care programs and made unsubstantiated claims about Aggrenox, including that it was superior to Plavix, a heart medication made by New York-based Bristol-Myers Squibb.
“Such improper conduct by pharmaceutical companies also causes the government to pay significant amounts for products for which it would not otherwise pay,” said Stuart Delery, acting U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, in a separate statement. “This civil settlement by Boehringer demonstrates that such conduct will not be tolerated.”
A Baltimore County-based investment adviser is suing his attorneys for $215 million after agreeing to pay more than $750,000 to settle an action that accused him of violating state securities regulations.
Steven and Karen Yarn of Owings Mills are seeking $15 million in compensatory damages and interest and costs, as well as $200 million in punitive damages. In an action removed last week to federal court, they allege that their attorneys at the New York- and New Jersey-based Hamburger Law Firm LLC “failed to exercise a modicum of legal expertise, were negligent and grossly negligent in their advice,” and practiced law in Maryland without a license.
“Although required to be a member of the Maryland Bar in order to practice in Maryland, the Defendants negotiated, filed documents and represented the Plaintiffs in Maryland without having ever associated with a Maryland attorney, without an admission pro hac vice and without having been a member of the Maryland Bar,” the Yarns said in their complaint.”
Steven Yarn spent the majority of his career as an insurance broker, and his wife is his business partner. The Yarns hired the Hamburger Law Firm and its affiliated consulting firm, MarketCouncil LLC, to help them branch out into the securities business.
The lawsuit alleges that the attorneys also had Steven Yarn “sign forms for submission to the Maryland Securities Division in blank” which their attorneys would then submit without Yarn’s prior approval or review.
The attorneys then allegedly changed the address of a Maryland-based investor in submissions with the Maryland Attorney General’s Securities Division to make it appear that the investor lived in Washington.
“At no time did the Defendants advise the Plaintiffs that they had fraudulently changed an address of the Maryland investor to make it appear that he lived in the District of Columbia,” the Yarns allege in their lawsuit, originally filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court in September.
On Sept. 22, 2009, the Maryland Attorney General’s Securities Division issued a cease and desist order against the Yarns. The order charged the Yarns with, among other things, borrowing money from advisory clients, taking custody of client funds without notifying the Maryland Securities Division, failing to comply with the net capital requirements for the funds raised, failing to maintain supervisory procedures, failing to maintain funds in escrow by Hamburger Law Firm and failing to maintain compliance procedures.
Steven Yarn entered into a Consent Agreement with the Maryland Securities Commissioner in January 2010, in which he agreed not to engage in the securities or investment advisory business in Maryland and to pay civil monetary penalties.
In the current lawsuit, the Yarns allege that the securities violations were the result of their attorney’s gross negligence, negligence and fraud, and that they relied on their attorneys to comply with the regulations.
“As a result of the Professional Malpractice of the Defendants, both directly and by their duty to supervise an employee, the Plaintiffs have lost their license to sell investments, have obligated themselves to pay over $750,000, have lost over $300,000 in income per year, have lost and will continue to lose standing in the community and with their commercial partners,” the Yarns allege in their complaint.
Rhonda I. Framm, who now represents the Yarns, said the Hamburger attorneys negotiated the Consent Agreement “over my client’s strong desire to try the case.”
The defendants “self-servingly told Mr. Yarn that he would have to pay defendants an additional $30,000 (to the defendants) for the defendants to defend him from the effects of the defendants’ fraud and mismanagement,” she said in an email.
Framm said the attorneys had an ethical obligation to withdraw from the case and advise the Yarns to seek other counsel.
Instead, according to the complaint, the Yarns’ attorneys sent them a letter on Sept. 25, 2009, stating that there was no conflict.
Jeffrey J. Hines and Christopher M. Corchiarino of Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann LLP represent Hamburger Law Firm. Bill McGuire, a spokesman for MarketCouncil, said it is the firm’s policy not to comment on pending litigation.
Framm, a solo practitioner based in Owings Mills, said Steven Yarn has suffered greatly as a result of his attorneys’ misconduct.
“It has not only kept him from doing anything in the securities field but he has become a pariah in the insurance industry,” she said. “There is no way this man can come up for air.”
City Comptroller Joan Pratt took questions outside the courthouse after Thursday's ruling.
Judge Jeffrey M. Geller denied Pratt’s request for a temporary restraining order Thursday in Baltimore City Circuit Court. The judge ruled that Pratt failed to show that her lawsuit was likely to succeed at trial, a requirement for obtaining a TRO. The court also found that Pratt failed to show that irreparable harm would occur if the administration is allowed to proceed with the contract.
City Solicitor George Nilson said he expected Thursday’s ruling.
“I was confident that we would prevail,” Nilson said. “I wasn’t surprised at the reasons cited by the judge.”
Pratt, who is being represented pro bono by the Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, claims the administration circumvented the city’s competitive bidding process in contracting with Rockville-based Digicon Corp. to install a Voice Over Internet Protocol phone system.
She is suing to prevent the city from moving forward with the contract.
Angelos attorney Charles G. Bernstein said Thursday he was still confident about Pratt’s position.
“We didn’t meet the standard of irreparable injury now but we’re confident that we will be able to prove our case down the road,” he said. “While this is going on the city is wasting $400,000 of the taxpayer’s money every month. We will continue on to try to protect the taxpayers.”
Pratt’s lawsuit is the most recent development in a long-standing disagreement between the mayor and comptroller over the phone system.
Pratt sought to bid out the contract for a new phone system, but the mayor’s office of technology is proceeding under an existing contract with Digicon.
According to a report last month by Baltimore’s inspector general, the city has already spent $1 million on the new phone system.
Manage Consent
This website uses cookies, web beacons, pixels, tags, software development kits, and related tracking technologies, as described in our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy, for purposes that may include website operation, analytics, analyzing site usage, enhancing site navigation optimizing a user's experience, and third-party advertising or marketing purposes. Through these technologies, we and certain third parties may automatically collect information about your interactions with our website, such as your browsing behavior and page views. We also may share this information about your activity on our website with our social media, advertising, analytics, and other business partners. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of these technologies and that we can share information about your activity on our website with third parties in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy. If you do not agree with our use of non-essential tracking technologies, please click “Reject All.” You may opt out of certain non-essential technologies by clicking “Cookie Settings.”
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Advertising
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Sign In
Free Newsletter
