|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
Public Justice (formerly Trial
Lawyers for Public Justice) opened its doors 25 years ago to pursue an inspiring
vision -- building the
trial lawyers' public
interest law firm. We
have done that and more. Over the past quarter century, no public interest law
firm in the country has been involved in a broader range of high-impact,
cutting-edge litigation. So we've become Public Justice to pursue an expanded,
inspiring vision -- building
America's public
interest law firm.
Public Justice is the
principal project of the Public Justice Foundation, a non-profit
membership organization.
We are supported by – and can
call on – a nationwide network of over 3,500 attorneys and others,
including trial lawyers, appellate lawyers, consumer advocates, constitutional
litigators, employment lawyers, environmental attorneys, civil rights lawyers,
class action specialists, law professors and law students. Public Justice and the Public Justice Foundation
are headquartered in Washington, D.C., and have a West Coast Office in Oakland,
California. New Mexico Supreme Court Blasts World Finance’s Arbitration Scheme Unanimous Decision Favors Borrowers and Consumers Who Were Targeted by One-Sided Clause
The New Mexico State Supreme Court Wednesday excoriated a major short-term lender’s one-sided consumer contract, which the company – World Finance – used as license to harass and intimidate its customers, all the while charging exorbitant interest rates for the loans.
The decision in Cordova v. World Finance brings a measure of justice to hard-pressed borrowers who faced lawsuits if they fell behind on their payments, but who had to rely on arbitration by a third party under contract with World Finance if they were wronged by the lender.
Wrote the Court, "Applying the settled standards of New Mexico unconscionability law, we conclude that World Finance's self-serving arbitration scheme it imposed on its borrowers is so unfairly and unreasonably one-sided that it is substantively unconscionable." READ MORE
Alaska Supreme Court Adopts “Bright-Line Rule” that Spares Workers Substantial Arbitration Costs in Employment Actions
Court also strikes one-sided appellate review provision as unreasonably favorable to employer
In a victory for workers who seek to vindicate their rights under the Alaska Wage and Hour Act (AWHA), the Alaska Supreme Court held on April 3 that employers may not require their employees to arbitrate their wage and hour claims unless the employer is willing to pay all of the costs of arbitration. Public Justice was co-counsel for Larry Gibson, the employee plaintiff in this appeal, along with Alaska civil rights specialist Ken Legacki of Anchorage.
Public Justice urged the Court to adopt a “bright-line rule” that would outlaw employers from imposing mandatory pre-dispute binding arbitration clauses where the employees would be required to pay significant arbitration costs to bring claims under the AWHA. The Court agreed with Public Justice that a “bright-line rule” is indeed necessary in AWHA cases because “substantial forum costs would run counter” to the AWHA’s policies of deterring employers from violating the act and encouraging employees to take action to remedy violations. READ MORE
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Federal Preemption Claims in Prescription Drug Labeling, 'Light' Cigarette Fraud Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued two resoundingly pro-consumer decisions rejecting federal preemption of state-law claims involving injured consumers.
In a March 4 ruling, the Court held 6-to-3 that federal law does not preempt lawsuits against prescription drug manufacturers for failing to warn of their drug's dangers. Public Justice had filed amici briefs in both cases urging the Court to rule as it did.
Not long before that, in another case critical to consumers, the Court held 5-to-4 that federal law does not preempt – or. wipeout – lawsuits against tobacco companies for defrauding the public by advertising that their “light” cigarettes deliver less tar and nicotine than “regular” cigarettes. FULL STORY
Third Circuit Rules that American Express May Not Escape Liability for Cheating Consumers by Banning Class Actions
In a triumph for consumers in New Jersey and across the country, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on February 24, held that held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not preempt—or wipe away—state laws that protect consumers from abusive contract terms.
In Homa v. American Express Company, the court emphatically rejected American Express’s attempt to immunize itself from liability by banning class actions and choosing less protective state law to govern its contracts with its customers.
“This is one of the most important consumer protection cases in years,” said Paul Bland, the Public Justice staff attorney who argued the case on behalf of the plaintiffs. “Corporations like American Express have been pushing the envelope, trying to use contractual class action bans to avoid accountability for cheating their customers, and arguing that federal arbitration law allows them to this. The Third Circuit saw through this, and recognized that this case was not about arbitration at all. It is an extremely well-reasoned decision that is likely to be influential throughout the country.” FULL STORY
Egregious Medical Neglect Leads to Another Detainee's Death; Public Justice Joins Lawsuit Battling 'Unconscionable System'
Public Justice Suit Prompts Indiana High School Athletic
Association to Allow Girls Opportunity to Participate in
'America's Pasttime ' Association's Rules Still Discriminate Against Girls in Other Ways
Settlement Reached to Improve Access to Hotels.com and Expedia Reservation Services for Disabled Travelers
|
|
|
The Public Justice trademark is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by the Public Justice Foundation."America's Public Interest Law Firm," "The Nation's Public Interest Law Firm," and the Gavel logo trademarks are all registered by Public Justice, P.C. and are used with permission. |
|
|||
|
