Archive for the ‘Intriguing Legal Theories’ Category

I learned today that I may go down in the annals of local family law history.  As I was sitting in the District Clerk’s office, perusing some files, I happened to glance over at the computer terminal next to mine…and clearly saw that the people sitting there were looking at a case I handled last year.  Of course I was curious as to what was causing the folks to view my case over a year after it was concluded–I might add that it was a memorable case for a variety of reasons.  It turns out that they were pursuing a claim to get a court’s authority to sell real estate without the consent or signature of the person’s spouse, which is allowed in very narrow circumstances by Section 3.301 of the Texas Family Code.  This was the claim I helped bring for my client last year, and the people I met today had been told by one of the clerks that such a thing had only been done once before in Travis County…in my case!  So I suppose that makes me famous, sort of.
To clarify a bit, Section 3.301(a) states that:

A spouse may file a sworn petition stating the facts that make it desirable for the petitioning spouse to manage, control, and dispose of community property described or defined in the petition that would otherwise be subject to the sole or joint management, control, and disposition of the other spouse if:
(1) the other spouse has disappeared and that spouse’s location remains unknown to the petitioning spouse, unless the spouse is reported to be a prisoner of war or missing on public service;
(2) the other spouse has permanently abandoned the petitioning spouse; or
(3) the spouses are permanently separated.

A little-known and rarely-used provision of the Family Code, to be sure. I’m just enjoying my fleeting moment of minor fame.

Having once been a professional coffeemaker myself, I took great interest in the multi-million dollar judgment against Starbucks in California:

In a two-page letter to counsel, San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett said the Seattle-based coffee company must pay baristas $86 million, plus interest, for using some of its employees’ tips to pay shift supervisors.A plaintiffs attorney in the case said the total judgment will exceed $100 million.Cowett’s Thursday ruling follows on her finding last month that the company was liable for sharing tips with managers such as shift supervisors. California’s tip-pooling law says that gratuities meant for hourly workers can’t be taken by an employer or its “agents” — and Cowett found that Starbucks supervisors were “agents.”

Plaintiffs attorney David Lowe asked the judge to award restitution and interest to a statewide class of about 120,000 baristas, or coffee servers, employed by the chain’s California branches since 2000. Based on expert testimony, Cowett pegged the average tip rate at $1.71 an hour and multiplied it by the 50,694,694 hours worked by shift supervisors.

It’s hard to fathom how those plastic boxes full of pennies could lead to a $100 million-plus verdict, but then again Starbucks has 6,793 company-owned stores and 3,891 joint-venture and licensed outlets in the U.S. alone (as of November 2007, h/t Wikipedia). I still remember Starbucks’ mantra of the 1990’s to have “2,000 stores by the year 2000.” I think they made it and then some.

This case does bring up some interesting issues regarding employment law. I’m not an expert in that field even in Texas, and I am puzzled by the sheer size of the judgment–still, it seems to be a proper vindication of the rights of a traditionally-underpaid, under-appreciated part of the workforce (i.e. food servers).

The lawsuit was filed in October 2004 by Jou Chou, a former Starbucks barista in La Jolla, who complained shift supervisors were sharing in employee tips.The lawsuit gained ground in 2006 when it was granted class-action status, allowing for the suit to go forward for as many as 100,000 former and current baristas in the coffee chain’s California stores.

It was not immediately clear how many current and former employees are affected by the ruling.

“I feel vindicated,” Chou said in a written statement released by attorneys. “Tips really help those receiving the lowest wages. I think Starbucks should pay shift supervisors higher wages instead of taking money from the tip pool.”

California is Starbucks’ largest U.S. market, with 2,460 stores as of Jan. 8, the latest count available. The company has more than 11,000 stores nationwide.

Starbucks employs more than 135,000 baristas in the U.S. The company did not immediately respond to a request for a head count in California.

I’m looking for a copy of the actual letter from the judge–the court hasn’t posted it, but I’ll keep looking.

I always enjoy a novel litigation theory. Here’s one from D.C. via MSNBC and AP:

The customer is always right, said a judge who testified Wednesday in his $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner who lost his pants.

Administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson argued that he is acting in the interest of all city residents against poor business practices. Attorneys for the dry cleaner call his claim “outlandish.”

The attorneys delivered closing arguments Wednesday, and Judge Judith Bartnoff said she would rule by the end of next week.

Under cross-examination, Pearson said the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act, under which he is suing Custom Cleaners, should grant a customer whatever he or she wants if there is a “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign.

Pearson, 57, originally sued Custom Cleaners for about $65 million by adding up violations under the act and almost $2 million in common law claims. He is no longer seeking damages related to the pants, focusing his claims on two signs in the shop that have since been removed.

How much is one man’s satisfaction worth? In this case, the plaintiff, to his credit, has higher aspirations for an award:

Pearson said that he wants only $2 million in damages for himself — for his mental anguish and inconvenience — plus $500,000 in attorney’s fees for representing himself. Anything more that Bartnoff might award him would go into a fund “to educate people of their rights under the Consumer Protection Act,” he said.

After closing arguments, Bartnoff said she was taking the issues in the case seriously.

“I do think that this is a very important statute to protect to consumers, and I also think it’s important that statutes like this are not misused,” she said.

Consumer protection is a very important issue. And satisfaction is clearly very valuable.