Welcome to Critical Mass, Law.com’s weekly briefing on class actions and mass torts. Here’s what’s going on: Marriott's data breach has spawned lawsuits, with many lawyers among the plaintiffs. The "Judicial Hellholes" report is out-- guess who's No. 1 again? And fraud claims have fueled the legal fight between Jay Edelson and Christopher Bandas, a lawyer for objectors to class actions.
Send your feedback to abronstad@alm.com, or find me on Twitter: @abronstadlaw.
Marriott Breach 'Hits Close to Home' for Lawyers
Marriott's data breach impacted 500 million guests of its Starwood properties whose personal information could have been stolen, the company revealed. And lawyers had no problem finding plaintiffs to sue Marriott, according to my story.
In fact, they barely had to look past their own mirrors. At least four lawyers were plaintiffs in class actions filed against Marriott, including the very first one. That’s because the Marriott case “hits close to home,” said Gary Mason (Whitfield, Bryson & Mason), a lawyer I spoke with who acknowledged he's a Marriott platinum elite member.
His client also is a lawyer: Philip Friedman (Friedman Law Offices). Friedman, who is on the advisory board of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told me this is why he got involved as a plaintiff:
“What concerns me greatly is the fact that passport information may have also been taken as part of this breach. The combined passport information with email information and addresses and who knows what else was collecting under the Starwood database -- those are real keys to messing with your personal identity and security.”
Hell Hath No Fury Like...California?
The American Tort Reform Association came out with its annual “Judicial Hellholes” report and--in not much of a surprise--ranked California No. 1. My coverage of the report focused on why California, after dropping to No. 2 last year behind Florida, topped the list once again. The answer? The California Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals -- the first ruling in the nation to impose innovator liability on brand-name drugmakers for tort actions involving generic pharmaceuticals.
But Florida still came up No. 2 because the state’s highest court refused to adopt the more defense-friendly Daubert standard for expert evidence this year. Florida Justice Association spokesman Ryan Banfill had this perspective from the plaintiffs’ side:
“Just as the Legislature writes its own rules without outside interference and passes laws that affect substantive rights, with its decision on Daubert vs. Frye, the Florida Supreme Court asserted its proper role in setting the rules of the state’s courts on matters of procedure. That’s how the founders designed our constitutional-based American system of divided government.”