Latest news with #USDistrictCourt
Boston Globe
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
An email with the word ‘ladies' cost him the top job at Easthampton schools. Now, the same email has cost him his lawsuit.
Perrone argued in court papers that Easthampton was bound by an oral contract that took effect when he accepted the job during a telephone call with Cynthia Kwiecinski, who then chaired the school board. But in a 17-page opinion, US District Court Judge Mark G. Mastroianni concentrated his analysis on the contents of the controversial email, which Perrone sent to Kwiecinski and the committee's executive assistant on March 29, 2023. Advertisement Kwiecinski had told Perrone in a telephone call that he had gotten the job and should be ready for formal approval by the full panel, according to court records. In response, Perrone wrote an email that began with 'Ladies,' a word choice that sparked a broad debate on the definition of 'microaggression' and In his ruling, Mastroianni noted that Perrone asked in the email for a 3 percent raise in the second and third years of the contract, as well as 30 vacation and 18 sick days annually. Advertisement 'All other language and provisions are acceptable to me,' he concluded the email. 'Thank you!" Mastroianni ruled that Perrone was still negotiating the terms of his contract. 'It is undisputed that [Perrone] did not sign an actual employment contract. [Perrone] nevertheless argues he had a valid contract (and a protected property interest),' Mastroianni wrote. 'There is no plausible support, whether direct or inferential, for [Perrone's] legal conclusion that an enforceable contract was created by the March 29 email.' Perrone's contention that he had a valid contract conflicts with Massachusetts law that sets stringent conditions on the hiring of public school superintendents, the judge said. 'Massachusetts public policy requires an affirmative vote of the School Committee to accept any alterations to a previously offered employment agreement,' he wrote. 'As a matter of law, no enforceable contract is formed until such a vote occurs.' He threw out Perrone's 14th Amendment claim with prejudice, meaning it cannot be filed again. He also dismissed several other claims but left open the possibility for Perrone to bring a new lawsuit in the future. Perrone's attorneys could not immediately be reached for comment. He is now the superintendent of the Kwiecinski is no longer on the school board and Nicole LaChapelle, who as mayor was a voting member of the committee in 2023, left office on July 14 to become commissioner of the state's department of Conservation and Recreation. John R. Ellement can be reached at
Fashion United
19 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Fashion United
Labubu vs. 7-11: Global boom fuels Pop Mart's legal offensive against imitators
Labubu, a fluffy-eared elf character with a wide-toothy grin, has become the unassuming centrepiece of an intellectual property dispute. Once a niche collectible, the keychain figurine has evolved into a fashion-forward accessory that has garnered a cult-like following, and competitors have taken notice. Now, Pop Mart, the Chinese toy giant behind Labubu, is aggressively defending its rights. Its latest target is convenience store chain 7-Eleven. In a lawsuit filed with the US District Court for the Central District of California, Pop Mart has accused the retailer, along with eight of its California-based franchisees, of selling counterfeit versions of the popular character. With this filing, 7-Eleven joins a growing list of companies facing legal action from Pop Mart, as the brand works to solidify its position in the accessory toy market. First things first, what is Labubu? Where did it come from? And why is it so popular? Despite first hitting the market in 2015, Labubu's viral rise to fame didn't take off until early this year. Originally created by Hong Kong artist Kasing Lung, who based the figurines of characters from his 'The Monsters' book series, the elf-like character had initially gained modest recognition in niche circles. It wasn't until 2019, when Lung secured a partnership with Pop Mart, Labubu's commercial reach expanded, laying the groundwork for its global appeal. Now considered a cultural sensation by some, Labubu's current popularity-spike has often been accredited to an initial endorsement of the figurine by Blackpink star Lisa, whose social media posts about her own Labubus are said to have aided in the doll's trajectory into the mainstream. Other celebrities, like Kim Kardashian and Rihanna, only nurtured the hype, further facilitating social media buzz for the products. In the world of fashion, brands like Uniqlo, Pronounce and Pharrell's Joopiter bet on the doll through collaborations. Its upsurge also went hand-in-hand with a wider trend of handbag customisation, seen at recent fashion weeks. As such, Labubu can now most often be found hanging from the designer bags of their respective owners, making them the 'must-have' fashion accessory. Labubu's exclusivity has enticed trendsetters, and eventually their followers, many of whom are encouraged by the figurine's limited availability and collectible status. Pop Mart's fervour for Blind Boxes, the contents of which are unknown to buyers, further exasperates anticipation, reaffirming the intended premium status of the product. The Labubu-craze has escalated so much so that stores in regions like the UK and South Korea were forced to either halt or suspend in-store sales of the fluffy companions due to the outbreak of fights. In just a few short months, the shopping frenzy could see Pop Mart triple its half year revenue, while, according to a report by Forbes in May, the company's CEO, Wang Ning, became 1.6 billion dollars richer in a single day due to an influx in sales. An influx of lawsuits It is therefore no surprise that Pop Mart has set about battering down the hatches when it comes to protecting the IP of Labubu. The company has long initiated legal counters to companies that it alleges to have attempted to ride on the coattails of the elf's success, and such challenges have only risen as the popularity of the figurine skyrockets. Many such cases refer to claims of unauthorised sales, counterfeiting or IP infringement. Labubu takes over European fashion weeks. Credits: ©Launchmetrics/spotlight Last month, courts in China ruled in favour of Pop Mart for two cases; one against an online platform accused of using the Labubu Sports Series without authorisation, another against merchants selling 3D-printed replicas of the products. More broadly, the region has also aided Pop Mart's attempts to protect its positioning. Recent reports have suggested that all Labubu figurines have been removed from Yiwu, a market once rife with counterfeit toys, while customs in Shanghai are said to have seized around 6,000 unauthorised Pop Mart products from cross-border shipments. Pop Mart's legal pursuits have not only been limited to China. The company has issued cease-and-desist orders against companies in Singapore and Taiwan, addressing cases related to everything from food products to influencer-related issues. Its attention has now also turned to the US, which has emerged as a leading market for Labubu. Here, sales were said to be up 5,000 percent in June compared to the year prior, according to estimates from research platform M Science, cited by the BBC. Pop Mart currently operates around 40 stores in the US, compared to 400 in China, the media outlet stated, while the resale market for the keychain accessory has simultaneously boomed. Labubu vs convenience stores The Labubu's prominence in the US as a cornerstone of the wider business only underlines the critical nature of Pop Mart's lawsuit against 7-Eleven. According to Pop Mart, the cited franchisees sold products that both closely resembled the official doll and were poor in quality, with manufacturing defects like faulty stitching and distorted heads noted within the complaint. Labubu's design is described by Pop Mart as a legally protectable trade dress, with its wide grin and pointed ears referenced as distinctive, recognisable traits that contribute to its brand identity. Images portraying the differences between the original and allegedly infringing products were shared as exhibits in the filing, as was video footage of a customer visiting a 7-Eleven store with the intent of purchasing a Labubu, only to find a poor quality alternative instead. With this in mind, Pop Mart has made claims in the realm of trademark, copyright and trade dress infringement, as well as unfair competition against 7-Eleven and the stated franchisees. The toy maker further accuses the convenience store chain of failing to exercise control over its Californian counterparts, several of which were said to be selling the alleged infringing products without interference from their parent company. Pop Mart therefore finds 7-Eleven liable for the infringing activity. In the lawsuit, Pop Mart said it was seeking monetary damages, a correction to advertising that is said to have harmed the brand and an injunction to halt future sales by the franchises of the counterfeit products. FashionUnited has contacted 7-Eleven with a request to comment.
The Star
a day ago
- Automotive
- The Star
Tesla driver testifies Autopilot failed to prevent fatal crash
MIAMI: The driver of a Tesla car that killed a woman in 2019 testified July 21 in federal court that the company's Autopilot driver-assistance system failed to warn him of an impending accident or engage the brakes. The driver, George Brian McGee, was driving his new Tesla Model S on a dark, two-lane road in South Florida when his phone fell to the floor and he bent to find it. That's when he failed to see that the road was ending in a T-intersection and that an SUV was parked on the other side, with two people standing next to that car. Neither he nor Autopilot hit the brakes, and the Tesla crashed into the SUV at 62mph (99kmph), killing a 22-year old woman and gravely injuring her boyfriend. In a civil case in federal court in Miami, McGee said on the witness stand that he was responsible for keeping his eyes on the road even with Autopilot engaged. But he also said he had been relying on Tesla's semi-automated driving system to serve as his co-pilot, and thought it had the ability to avoid such a crash. 'I thought it would assist me if I made a mistake,' said McGee, 48, a partner in a Florida private equity firm. 'It didn't warn me of the car and the individuals and hit the brakes.' The case, in the US District Court for Southern Florida, was filed by the family of the woman killed in the crash, Naibel Benavides, and her companion, Dillon Angulo. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages from Tesla and aim to convince the jury that Tesla was partly responsible for the crash. The case claims Autopilot has defects that kept the car from braking or warning McGee of the collision. The plaintiffs also contend that the system's design is flawed because it allows drivers to become distracted. The judge in the case, Beth Bloom, previously ruled that the plaintiffs could seek punitive damages against Tesla, saying in a recent order that 'a reasonable jury could find that Tesla acted in reckless disregard of human life for the sake of developing their product and maximising profit.' The case represents a considerable risk to Tesla. The automaker and its CEO, Elon Musk, have built Tesla's brand on the idea that its cars are nearly capable of driving themselves. Tesla offers an advanced version of Autopilot that it calls Full Self-Driving and last month started trials of a limited autonomous taxi service in Austin, Texas. A loss in this case could dent Tesla's reputation and hurt its sales and stock price, at least in the short term, said Sam Fiorani, an analyst at AutoForecast Solutions, a market research firm. 'All of the stock value in the company is based on the future and the future is autonomous,' Fiorani said. The automaker's car sales have been falling in recent months partly because of a backlash against Musk, who has become a leading supporter of conservative political parties around the world. He was also one of President Donald Trump's closest advisers and donors until the two men fell out recently. In court, Tesla lawyers have argued that McGee was solely responsible for the crash. 'He's rummaging around for his phone and he runs through the intersection,' Joel H. Smith, of Bowman and Brooke, said in his opening statement. 'This can happen in any car, at any time. This is not about Autopilot.' Court documents and other testimony have revealed that McGee had his foot on the accelerator pedal just before the accident. That pushed his car's speed to 62mph (99kmph), above the 45mph (72kmph) limit that Autopilot would normally enforce on the road where the crash took place, Card Sound Road near Key Largo. Pressing the accelerator also overrode the part of Autopilot that is able to brake when it detects obstacles or other vehicles. The plaintiffs have presented videos from the car that showed that the Autopilot system identified the parked vehicle, the end of the road and Angulo but did not activate the brakes. Expert witnesses have also told the jury that the car was equipped with two other systems that were capable of slowing or stopping the car. One, called automatic emergency braking, is standard on most vehicles sold in the United States and is supposed to brake even if the accelerator is depressed. McGee's vehicle had a third system that is supposed to stop the car if it determines that the vehicle is about to leave the roadway. The SUV was parked on a gravelly area that Autopilot had marked as outside of 'driveable space,' video from his car showed. Autopilot can be activated on Card Sound Road although Tesla owners' manuals say the system should not be used on such undivided roads. General Motors and Ford Motor Co. offer similar systems that can be used only on divided highways and can't be used on Card Sound Road. 'My professional opinion is that Tesla Autopilot is defective because it allows it to be operated in domains it wasn't designed for,' Mary Cummings, a George Mason University professor who is an expert in autonomous driving systems and for a time worked at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, testified last week as a witness for the plaintiffs. Part of the plaintiffs' case also focuses on what they said was Tesla's ineffective way of getting drivers to pay attention to the road while they were using Autopilot. McGee's 2019 Model S monitored whether he was paying attention simply by requiring him to touch the steering wheel, sometimes only very briefly. But it could not tell if he was looking at the road, and at times his Autopilot system continued operating even when his hands were off the steering wheel for several minutes. Tesla's means of monitoring driver behavior 'cannot prevent misuse' and represent a 'crucial safety gap' in Autopilot, Cummings said in her testimony. In 2023, Tesla issued a recall of all Autopilot-equipped vehicles to make its driver monitoring system safer. An earlier civil suit filed by the plaintiffs against McGee was settled. The parties have not disclosed the terms of that deal. – ©2025 The New York Times Company This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Justin Baldoni's Insurer Sues Him & Wayfarer Saying Its Policies Don't Cover Blake Lively Harassment Suit
The company providing liability insurance to Justin Baldoni and his Wayfarer Studios has filed a lawsuit against them in federal court, saying that its policies don't cover the claims asserted by Blake Lively in her sexual harassment lawsuit stemming from the making of It Ends With Us. Harco National Insurance Company filed the lawsuit Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It is seeking a declaration that its two policies issued to Wayfarer — one effective from July 15, 2023-July 15, 2024 and one effective from July 15, 2024-July 15, 2025 — were signed after 'Lively and others complained of sexual harassment during pre-production and production of the Film,' as early as May 2023, outside the time parameters of the policy. More from Deadline A Full Timeline Of Blake Lively & Justin Baldoni's 'It Ends With Us' Feud In Court, Online & In The Media Judge Dismisses Social Media PR Expert From Blake Lively's Justin Baldoni Lawsuit Judge Rules Blake Lively Can Choose Deposition Location In Justin Baldoni Legal Battle 'Despite the acknowledged pre-July 2023 complaints by Lively and others, Wayfarer's July 2023 Application for the 2023 Policy includes a letter from Wayfarer which warrants that no person or entity for whom the insurance is intended has any knowledge or information of any act, error, omission, fact or circumstance which may give rise to a claim which may fall within the Employment Practices Liability coverage if issued by Harco (the '2023 Warranty'),' the lawsuit states. 'The 2023 Warranty also states that 'IT IS AGREED THAT IF SUCH KNOWLEDGE OR INFORMATION EXISTS, ANY CLAIM ARISING THEREFROM (WHETHER OR NOT DISCLOSED HEREIN), … IS EXCLUDED FROM THE PROPOSED COVERAGE.' The defendants in North Carolina-based Harco's suit include Baldoni, It Ends With Us Movie LLC, Wayfarer CEO Jamey Heath and Wayfarer co-founder and co-chairman Steve Sarowitz. Lively sued Baldoni, Wayfarer, his publicity team and others at the end of last year after she accused him of sexual harassment and retaliation on the set of It Ends With Us, which was released in August 2024 and grossed $351 million at the worldwide box filed a countersuit against her for defamation and extortion, with The New York Times also named as a defendant. A judge dismissed the latter claim in June. Lively's harassment suit is schedule to go to trial in March 2026 in New York. Best of Deadline Everything We Know About 'The Devil Wears Prada 2' 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery Solve the daily Crossword
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Health
- Boston Globe
R.I., Mass., among states suing Trump administration over immigration status-based restrictions to safety net programs
The lawsuit, filed in US District Court in Providence, asks the court to halt the new federal rules and act quickly to ensure continued access to the social services programs. 'For the first time, millions of people are facing a new demand before they can access the Nation's most essential programs: 'show me your papers,'' the lawsuit states. 'This is not America, and it is not the law.' Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up Rhode Island Attorney General Advertisement 'By changing the rules with no notice, agencies and organizations that receive federal funding for critical services must quickly pivot or risk shuttering,' Neronha said in a statement. 'For example, if access to mental health and substance use disorder services is lessened or eliminated, already overburdened hospitals across the country could become further overwhelmed. These federal funding streams are critically important to the health and well-being of all Rhode Islanders, as well as our health care system, and we will fight to ensure they remain uninterrupted.' Advertisement Attorneys general from every New England state except New Hampshire joined the lawsuit, along with Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Wisconsin, Washington, and the District of Columbia. People in the country illegally are ineligible for federal public benefits such as food stamps, student loans and financial aid for higher education. However, they have been able to access community-level programs. And, for nearly 30 years and through five presidential administrations, according to the lawsuit, the federal government was consistent on the requirements of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, known as PRWORA. States needed to verify a person's lawful status before allowing them to access certain federal programs, such as Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. At the same time, the federal agencies told the states that PRWORA didn't require them to check someone's papers to allow them access to other community programs, such as food banks, Head Start, shelters, or rehabilitation clinics. Not anymore. On July 10, the US Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, and Justice changed the rules. The new rules restrict states from using federal funds to provide services to individuals who cannot verify immigration status. That means state safety net programs — soup kitchens, domestic violence shelters, Head Start, crisis counseling centers, senior nutrition programs, health centers in schools — must screen for immigration status. Under the new rules, undocumented immigrants will be prevented from Advertisement The Departments of Education and Labor placed education and workforce training programs within the statute's scope. The rules took effect with minimal notice and affect not only undocumented immigrants, but also, Neronha said, some lawful visa holders and even US citizens who lack access to formal documentation. The state programs are expected to comply immediately, but most providers can't implement major regulatory changes overnight, so they face losing federal funding. Neronha said these abrupt restrictions could impact the 'tens of millions' of dollars funding programs related to opioid treatment, homeless services, and mental health program in all public schools in Rhode Island, according to the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities & Hospitals. Funding changes to those community programs could lead to a health care crisis. The lawsuit argues that the federal government acted unlawfully by issuing these changes without following required procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act, and by misapplying PRWORA to entire programs rather than to individual benefits. The changes also violate the Constitution's Spending Clause by imposing new funding conditions on states without fair notice or consent. The coalition is asking the court to declare the new rules unlawful, halt their implementation through preliminary and permanent injunctions, vacate the rules and restore the long-standing agency practice, and prevent the federal government from using PRWORA as a pretext to dismantle core safety net programs in the future. Amanda Milkovits can be reached at
