Weddings Canceled by Coronavirus

Wedding Cancelled by Coronavirus? Here Are Your Legal Options

Weddings Canceled by Coronavirus

As wedding season approaches, couples across the nation are faced with the grim reality that their weddings have been involuntarily canceled due to the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. This problem can be compounded when the chosen wedding venue refuses to refund the deposit or allow the couple to get out of the original contract. Consequently, we are likely to see an onslaught of lawsuits against wedding venues and vendors in the year to come, particularly breach of contract claims by brides-to-be against wedding venues and vendors for refusal to refund advanced payments for a wedding that never occurs.

If your wedding was canceled by coronavirus, you do have legal options. Your first step should be to speak with an experienced California business dispute lawyer who understands the relevant statutes and who can help you get out of the contract.

Legal Claims for Couples Whose Weddings Were Canceled Because of COVID-19

Finding out that you can no longer have your wedding at the venue you chose is already devastating enough without the possibility that you may be forced to pay for the wedding anyway. Fortunately, there is some hope for couples who need to get out of written contracts. For example, some wedding contracts may contain force majeure provisions, which means that you may be able to rescind your wedding contract if it is impossible to execute. Along those same lines, your wedding contract may be considered an unenforceable contract because it is against public policy.

What Is the Law on Wedding Contracts in California?

Wedding contracts create special circumstances around would-be newlyweds. The United States government has declared a national emergency. Certain states, such as California, have issued orders implementing “shelter in place” of all residents, ordering closure of all nonessential businesses, and prohibiting gatherings of more than 10 people. These rules have arguably created a public policy that weddings cannot go forward during the crisis.

Generally, a legal claim fails if it is based on an agreement that violates law and is contrary to public policy. In Kashani v. Tsann Kuen China Enter. Co., a California Appellate Court ruled that the law “has a long history of recognizing the general rule that certain contracts, though properly entered into in all other respects, will not be enforced if found to be contrary to public policy.” Given the public prohibition in California regarding gatherings of 10 or more people during the COVID-19 pandemic, anyone attending, hosting, or working a wedding would be acting contrary to public policy by threatening public health. Consider the legal implications for a bride who hires a wedding photographer, only to later find out that the wedding was canceled because of coronavirus. Legally speaking, that bride might not be obligated to pay the photographer.

Contact the Los Angeles Business Dispute Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

The challenge with wedding vendor contracts is the prevailing industry standard, whereby all services are typically pre-paid in full. Given the unprecedented circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic, the best move you can make right now is to speak with an attorney who understands California contract law, particularly as it relates to businesses.

The Los Angeles business dispute lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP can advise you regarding your rights and obligations. We can also help you navigate the complex legal process. Call us at 310-590-3927 or send an email.

Richard Liebowitz Copyright Claims

Richard Liebowitz Refiles and Dismisses Copyright Claim

Richard Liebowitz Copyright Claims

When a plaintiff brings a copyright claim or any other type of lawsuit, there has to be some basis for the legal action. Unfortunately, some lawyers choose to use the threat of a civil suit as leverage to force a cash settlement, even when the case has little or no merit. Courts do not look kindly on this questionable tactic, and they can punish both the plaintiff and their attorney in these cases. Serial copyright litigant Richard Liebowitz recently found this out the hard way when a federal court awarded attorney’s fees against him for his practice of refiling and dismissing copyright claims without prejudice. This case was a good example of why it’s so important to be represented by a skilled attorney who can provide an aggressive defense against copyright claims.

To learn more about the best way to respond to an illegitimate copyright claim, keep reading this blog.

Attorney Richard Liebowitz Accused of Being a Copyright Troll

Richard Liebowitz has been called a “copyright troll” by federal judges based on the volume of lawsuits he has filed. These lawsuits often involve flimsy copyright claims alleging that the defendant has infringed on the plaintiff’s IP rights by publishing a photo or video. In a lot of these cases, the plaintiff may have no intention of actually going to trial. Instead, they simply want to pressure the defendant with the threat of costly litigation in state or federal court so that the defendant will pay a cash settlement. This is not how the law is supposed to work.

Richard Liebowitz Loses PopMatters Copyright Claim

In Glen Craig v. PopMatters Media, Inc. (N.D. Ill.), the defendants raised objections to personal jurisdiction and venue in the Southern District of Illinois. Richard Liebowitz, the attorney representing the plaintiff, then voluntarily dismissed the action and refiled in the Northern District of Illinois. The defendants then filed a motion for attorney’s fees in the first action, as was their right under the law.

The following day, Liebowitz filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in the second action, presumably so that he would not be ordered to pay attorney’s fees in the first action. The defendants again moved for attorney’s fees, and Liebowitz opposed by arguing that no attorney’s fees should be awarded because the dismissal was “without prejudice.” The court did not find Liebowitz’s argument persuasive: in an order dated March 23, 2020, the court granted the defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees against Liebowitz and his client. The court reasoned that “[t]he privilege of dismissing a federal suit without prejudice to refiling may be used only once,” and Liebowitz “used that privilege when he dismissed the Southern District case, so his dismissal of this case operated as a with-prejudice dismissal, an adjudication on the merits.”

Tauler Smith LLP Has History of Defeating Copyright Trolls

The PopMatters order marks yet another legal setback for Richard Liebowitz, who now faces the increased specter of having to pay attorney’s fee awards to the defendants. Tauler Smith LLP is a California law firm that focuses on intellectual property claims, and we have a history of winning Liebowitz’ copyright claims. In fact, our experienced Los Angeles copyright lawyers have previously argued to the Southern District of New York that an award of attorney’s fees in cases brought by Liebowitz would serve dual objectives: (1) protecting our clients’ rights in defense of a dishonest copyright claim, and (2) deterring copyright trolls like Richard Liebowitz from their unrepentant abuse of judicial resources.

The truth is that the U.S. Copyright Act was not created to protect the rights of mercenaries like Richard Liebowitz who threaten law-abiding website operators with DMCA takedown notices and copyright demand letters. The idea behind the federal law was to provide legitimate copyright holders with the ability to file a lawsuit when their intellectual property rights have, in fact, been infringed.

Contact the Los Angeles Copyright Defense Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

If you have been sued by Richard Liebowitz or any other copyright trolls, the Los Angeles copyright defense attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP can help you defend your claims. Call 310-590-3927 or email us to schedule a free consultation.

Fake COVID-19 Cures

Beware of Fake Cures for the Coronavirus

Fake COVID-19 Cures

Companies peddling herbal remedies and other nutritional supplement products that protect against COVID-19 are violating the law. Consumers need to beware of fake cures for the coronavirus. If you purchased one of these over-the-counter supplements that supposedly treat coronavirus, you should consider taking immediate legal action. Your first should be to speak with a qualified California false advertising attorney who can explain your legal options.

To learn more about fake nutritional supplements that are being marketed as cures for coronavirus, keep reading.

FDA Warns Consumers About Fake Treatments for COVID-19

Growing fears about the COVID-19 pandemic have led to a dramatic rise in the sale of fraudulent nutritional supplements that claim to cure or prevent the disease. This phenomenon is not new. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) itself has acknowledged that “during emergency situations or outbreaks, fraudulent products claiming to prevent, treat or cure conditions associated with the emergency or outbreak almost always appear for sale.”

Thus, on March 6, 2020 the FDA issued warning letters to several companies selling fake treatments for the coronavirus. The most infamous recipient of the warning letters, televangelist Jim Bakker, marketed a product that would “kill” coronavirus. Bakker’s promotional videos claimed that the “Silver Solution” supplement was “tested on other strains of the coronavirus, and has been able to eliminate it within 12 hours, totally eliminate it, kills it, deactivates it.” Although these statements were arguably framed to evade false advertising lawsuits from consumers of coronavirus remedies, the statements are still considered unlawful.

Fraudulent claims about coronavirus remedies are not limited to televangelists. Many dishonest sellers of herbal products have also peddled homeopathic cures to the novel coronavirus that have no basis in reality. These include Amy Weidner of Herbal Amy, Inc., who claimed without any scientific support that “a number of herbs are strongly antiviral for corona viruses” in order to sell a formulation of various herbs on her website that she claimed were “preventative” and would protect consumers against the virus. Other websites have gone even further, selling four (4) different herbal remedies to treat coronavirus and dangerously instructing their customers who are infected with coronavirus to “take all 4 products and use the infection dosage.”

The dangers of marketing herbal products to treat a novel and deadly disease cannot be understated. At worst, consumers without access to medical care may forego medical treatment based on false claims. At minimum, consumers will shell out hard-earned money for fake products that will do nothing to keep them safe. Moreover, these negative consequences could get worse in the weeks and months ahead. As the pandemic spreads, so too will the opportunities for fraud. In the short time that coronavirus has impacted daily life, a variety of fake remedies have evolved in products ranging from colloidal silver, ionic silver, herbal teas, and even essential oils like eucalyptus – all claiming they can cure or treat coronavirus.

Contact the Los Angeles False Advertising Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

If you purchased nutritional supplements or any other products that claim to cure or prevent coronavirus, it’s possible that you were misled by false advertising from unethical and immoral companies attempting to capitalize on the public health crisis for their own financial benefit. The Los Angeles false advertising attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP can investigate your claims and potentially help you get financial compensation.

Call 310-590-3927 or send us an email to schedule a free consultation.

COVID-19 & Broken Contracts

Coronavirus and Broken Contracts

COVID-19 & Broken ContractsThe COVID-19 pandemic has left a trail of thousands of broken contracts in its wake, and this has come in a wide range of industries. From event cancelations to broken supply chains, coronavirus has caused millions of dollars in commercial losses and business interruption. Moreover, coronavirus and broken contracts could be a familiar theme in the coming months, as travel restrictions, event postponements, school and business closures, quarantines, supply-chain disruptions, cash flow problems, and worker shortages are expected to increase. This has left many California business owners to wonder: who is liable for the disruption caused by COVID-19? The answer could lie in what is known as the “force majeure” provision found in many contracts.

To learn more about the legal consequences for businesses that are forced to break contracts because of the coronavirus, keep reading.

What Is the Force Majeure Provision in Contract Law?

One provision often contained in comprehensive contracts is that of “force majeure.” Typically, force majeure provisions are included in contracts to excuse a breach if unforeseen circumstances prevent a party’s performance of the contract. This often means an act of God, such as hurricanes, war, earthquakes, etc. The force majeure doctrine is also commonly referenced as “impossibility of performance.”

Force majeure is literally French for “superior force,” and the concept originated in the Napoleonic Code of 1804. The breaching party to an agreement was condemned unless their non-performance or delay in performance resulted from a cause that could not be imputed to them, such as a superior force or a fortuitous occurrence.

What Could Force Majeure Mean for Broken Contracts Caused by COVID-19?

For most businesses, coronavirus is an unforeseen circumstance out of their control. But these cases can still result in litigation because the application of force majeure to any particular contract must be done by applying the law of the relevant jurisdiction. In California, the law recognizes that parties may not be held liable when unforeseen circumstances prevent them from fulfilling their contractual obligations, regardless of whether or not the contract has a force majeure clause. The leading California Supreme Court case defines force majeure as an “insuperable interference” occurring without the party’s intervention that “could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care.” Insuperable in this context means “impossible to overcome.” Although the case dates back to World War II, it has been cited as recently as 2015 as proper guidance for the interpretation of contracts in California.

Support for this court decision comes from the State of California definition of “force majeure.” In its standard Judicial Council contracts, California defines force majeure as “a delay which impacts the timely performance of work for which neither Contractor nor the State are liable because such delay or failure to perform was unforeseeable and beyond the control of the party.” The standard contract goes on to specifically list “quarantine or epidemic” as such a circumstance. Thus, quarantines resulting from the coronavirus pandemic would render this provision operable and could excuse any California businesses that are forced to break a contract because of COVID-19.

Contact the Los Angeles Business Dispute Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Many contracts do not contain specific language in force majeure provisions. Thus, each contract must be carefully analyzed with the law of the jurisdiction in order for businesses to understand their options. Force majeure is one of many tools that business owners and individuals can use to mitigate the fallout from the current crisis. If you are a business owner who was forced to break a contract due to coronavirus, you have options to escape ruinous consequences.

The Los Angeles business dispute attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP can help you. Call 310-590-3927 or send us an email.

Diet Supplement Criminal Penalties

DNP Distributor Gets Prison for Selling Deadly Diet Pills

Diet Supplement Criminal Penalties

In recent legal news, a DNP distributor was sentenced to prison for selling the deadly diet pill to consumers. Barry Clint Wright used to run a website called CrystalDNP.com, which he used to reach consumers who would purchase the diet pill DNP. Wright was accused of using deceptive marketing strategies for DNP, which included mislabeling the drug and selling it on websites for candles and bee pollen. Like a lot of unapproved weight loss supplements, the DNP pills posed significant health risks for users: multiple people died after consuming the pills sold by Wright. As a result, Wright eventually pleaded guilty to the criminal charges and was sentenced to a term of incarceration of seven (7) years.

California consumer fraud lawyer Robert Tauler provided commentary on the Barry Clint Wright criminal case, which can be viewed here.

DNP Is a Deadly Weight Loss Drug

DNP is a chemical substance also known as 2,4-Dinitrophenol. When ingested, DNP can have severe health consequences for users, including cataracts, cardiac arrhythmia, and even death. In fact, DNP is considered so dangerous that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared it to be “extremely dangerous” and “not fit for human consumption.” In this way, DNP is similar to other nutritional and weight loss supplements that can cause adverse health effects. Additionally, when companies sell unapproved supplements for use by consumers, the companies may be both criminally and civilly liable.

Although there are some people like Barry Clint Wright who have claimed that DNP is not dangerous for consumption, those people are wrong. The evidence on DNP is clear: the drug is extremely unsafe and poses significant health risks to consumers, which is why the FDA has made it illegal to market, sell, or otherwise distribute the weight loss drug.

Companies that violate the law by deceptively marketing DNP and then selling it as a dietary supplement may be exposed to civil liability. The experienced consumer fraud lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP help plaintiffs file nutritional supplement lawsuits in courtrooms throughout the country.

Barry Clint Wright Sentenced to Prison for Selling DNP to Consumers

Barry Clint Wright was recently sentenced to seven (7) years in prison for selling DNP as a weight loss drug. Wright was criminally indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a federal court with jurisdiction in the case. The crimes that Wright was indicted for related to the sale of DNP and how he marketed the weight loss drug to consumers. He later reached a plea agreement with federal prosecutors, in which he admitted his guilt.

What makes this case so interesting is that the federal government sought an enhancement of the federal sentencing guidelines. In this case, prosecutors wanted the judge to issue a sentence longer than what the guidelines called for. They did this because the way that Wright marketed DNP was particularly egregious and exposed consumers to significant health risks. The government said that Wright failed to label the product accurately, and he also sold it on multiple websites. Moreover, the government said that three (3) customers died after using the DNP – with the possibility that more customers may have died. Beyond that, Wright was accused of using “sophisticated tactics” to ensure that the dangerous diet pill would go unregulated. (E.g., he sold the DNP on a candle website and asked customers to claim that they were buying candles.)

The federal judge ultimately agreed with prosecutors and sentenced Barry Clint Wright to the maximum statutory sentence of seven (7) years in prison.

Contact the California Dietary Supplement Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

DNP has dangerous side effects, and the people who mislabel DNP and sell it as a weight loss pill are engaging in criminal activity. If you purchased DNP for use as a diet pill, you may be eligible to file a civil suit against the manufacturer or distributor. Call or send an email to the California dietary supplement lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP today.