July 3, 2019, 4:27 pm CDT
Image from Shutterstock.com.
• Even though the Association of Trial Lawyers of America changed its name to the American Association for Justice in 2006, the Washington, D.C.-based bar association is suing the California-based Association of American Trial Lawyers for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The suit says the American Association for Justice sent the Association of American Trial Lawyers a cease-and-desist letter in December, but the AOATL still attempted to register its mark. (Law.com)
• A New Jersey appeals court severely admonished Superior Court Judge James Troiano for refusing to try a 16-year-old boy who was accused of rape as an adult. The case now moves from family court to a grand jury, where the defendant—who the judge said came from a “good family” and had high test scores—will decide whether to indict him on the sexual assault accusation. (The New York Times)
• A temporary restraining order to prevent Ohio’s “heartbeat” abortion ban from taking effect July 11 was issued by Judge Michael Barrett of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The law aims to prevent doctors in Ohio from performing abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, typically around six weeks of a woman’s pregnancy. (The Columbus Dispatch)
• The Georgia Department of Driver Services is discriminating against Puerto Rican driver’s license applicants by requiring them to submit to extra testing and more document reviews than other U.S. citizens, alleges a federal class action filed in Atlanta by attorneys with LatinoJustice and the Southern Center for Human Rights. (Courthouse News Service)
• Amazon.com can be held liable for defective goods sold by third-party vendors on its site, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia has ruled. The decision related to a case in which a Pennsylvania customer was blinded after a retractable dog leash she purchased from a third-party vendor on Amazon.com suddenly recoiled while she was walking her dog. (CNBC)
• A new lawsuit appears to be the first to target gun manufacturers, arguing that the design of the AR-15-style rifles used in the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas violates federal law. Lawyers in the case say plaintiffs aim to prove that gun manufacturers made the decision to allow their firearms to easily transition into fully automatic weapons. (The New York Times)