Latest news with #plaintiffs
Al Arabiya
31-07-2025
- Al Arabiya
Iran amputates hands of three convicted thieves
Iranian authorities have amputated the hands of three convicted thieves, the judiciary said Thursday, a relatively rare sentence generally reserved for repeat offenders. 'The sentence of hand amputation for three professional thieves with a history of multiple thefts was carried out in West Azerbaijan province,' in Iran's northwest, the judiciary's Mizan Online website said. The report gave few details, but said the convicts were arrested several years ago and 'had more than 40 private plaintiffs across four provinces.' Mizan said the amputations had been carried out after Iran's top court upheld the sentences against the trio, and after they had not cooperated with 'many' attempts to negotiate the return of the stolen items – mostly gold jewelry – which would have allowed them 'to benefit from legal leniency and repentance.' The sharia-based penal code introduced in Iran after the Islamic Revolution of 1979 provides for amputation as a punishment for certain offences, although human rights groups have condemned its use as 'cruel' and 'inhumane.' Last month authorities amputated the hands of two men who had been repeatedly convicted of theft.
Reuters
31-07-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Uber says some sexual assault accusers submitted fake receipts
July 31 (Reuters) - Uber (UBER.N), opens new tab said it found more than 100 instances in which passengers who claimed its drivers sexually assaulted or harassed them offered bogus or doctored receipts to prove ridership, or did not explain their inability to provide receipts. In a Wednesday court filing, Uber urged U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco to order 21 plaintiffs with suspect receipts to justify why their claims should not be dismissed, and 90 plaintiffs to provide receipts or "non-boilerplate" reasons for their absence. At least 11 law firms represent the various plaintiffs, court papers show. Those firms had no immediate comment or did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Thursday. They were not accused of wrongdoing. Uber is trying to reduce its liability in nationwide federal litigation comprising more than 2,450 lawsuits alleging driver misconduct. It faces several hundred additional lawsuits in San Francisco Superior Court. The San Francisco-based company has maintained it should not be liable for criminal conduct by drivers it connects with passengers, and that its background checks and disclosures were sufficient. On July 8, Breyer dismissed some fraud and liability claims that were based on ads promoting Uber's ride-sharing service as a safe alternative to drunk driving. In Wednesday's filing, Uber said some fake receipts appear to have been generated through third-party websites. Uber said some receipts contained math errors or bogus surcharges, changed female driver names to male names, were timestamped before rides occurred, had stray marks, or used formatting that does not match its own. One plaintiff submitted two receipts for a single ride, while two plaintiffs submitted different versions of the same receipt, the company said. "Nothing is more critical to the integrity of our judicial system than honesty," Uber said. "It is difficult to conceive an act of misconduct graver than the outright fabrication of evidence that plaintiffs here undertook." The case is In re Uber Technologies Inc Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 23-03084.
CBS News
15-07-2025
- Health
- CBS News
Florida and transgender Medicaid patients clash over Supreme Court rulings in coverage dispute
Florida and plaintiffs' attorneys are battling about whether two new U.S. Supreme Court decisions should clear the way for the state to block Medicaid coverage for transgender people seeking hormone therapy and puberty blockers. Lawyers for both sides filed briefs Friday at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with the state contending that the Supreme Court decisions should lead to overturning a district judge's ruling that said Florida violated federal laws by prohibiting Medicaid coverage for the treatments. One of the Supreme Court decisions, in a case known as United States v. Skrmetti, upheld a Tennessee ban on doctors providing hormone therapy and puberty blockers to minors to treat gender dysphoria. The other, in a case known as Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, restricted the ability of beneficiaries to file Medicaid lawsuits against states. Florida and plaintiffs debate discrimination In their brief Friday, Florida's lawyers argued that the Skrmetti decision "makes clear" that Florida's ban on Medicaid coverage for the treatments "easily passes muster." The brief disputed that the ban violates equal-protection rights because it involves a medical diagnosis. "There's no medical consensus on gender-dysphoria procedures," the state's brief said. "Those procedures can cause permanent, negative consequences for patients. The state gets wide berth to take the steps it deems necessary to protect its citizens." But attorneys for plaintiffs who challenged the ban argued in a brief that the Skrmetti decision was "fairly limited in its scope and breadth" and that Florida's Medicaid coverage exclusions "discriminate based on transgender status and therefore sex in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment," which includes equal protection. "It is not - and cannot be - the law that transgender people are strangers to our Constitution's protections against invidious governmental discrimination," the plaintiffs' brief said. "Skrmetti does not bless nor give license to such discrimination. To the contrary, the Fourteenth Amendment protects persons from governmental enactments, like the exclusions, that facially discriminate based on transgender status and/or are 'designed to effect an invidious discrimination against transgender individuals.'" The lawsuit was filed in 2022 on behalf of two transgender adults and the parents of two transgender minors after the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration adopted a rule that barred the coverage. The lawsuit was later updated to include a 2023 state law that similarly prevented Medicaid reimbursement for the treatments. Unlike the law at issue in the Skrmetti case, which dealt only with treatment of minors, the Florida Medicaid restrictions applied to minors and adults. U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that the Florida restrictions violated equal-protection rights, a federal Medicaid law and a federal Affordable Care Act prohibition on sex discrimination. The state appealed to the Atlanta-based appeals court, where the case has remained pending. Broader context and legal nuances After the Supreme Court issued the Skrmetti and Medina decisions last month, the 11th Circuit directed attorneys to file briefs about what effects, if any, the decisions could have on the Florida case. Florida approved the Medicaid limits as Gov. Ron DeSantis and many other Republican leaders across the country made a priority in recent years of trying to restrict treatments for transgender people with gender dysphoria. The Mayo Clinic website defines gender dysphoria as "a feeling of distress that can happen when a person's gender identity differs from the sex assigned at birth." A key dispute in the briefs filed Friday centered on whether the Florida restrictions were discriminatory or were focused on a medical condition. The plaintiffs' attorneys contended that the state law refers to "sex reassignment prescriptions or procedures," rather than a medical condition, and is unconstitutionally discriminatory. "Critically, Skrmetti's analysis hinges on the (Supreme) Court's finding that Tennessee's law classified based on age and medical condition," the plaintiffs' brief said. "That is not the case here, where the exclusions irrationally target transgender people of all ages; it prohibits coverage of gender-affirming medical care for Medicaid beneficiaries regardless of age." In their brief, the state's lawyers acknowledged that the case involves adults and minors but said that "doesn't matter." "These experimental procedures raise concerns for minors and adults alike, and the state gets to protect its minor and adult citizens from such procedures," the state's brief said. The other issue in the briefs centered on the Supreme Court's decision in the Medina case restricting Medicaid beneficiaries from suing states for allegedly violating rights. Florida's brief Friday, partially quoting from the Medina decision, said that when a "state purportedly 'violates' a Medicaid 'condition,' the (Supreme) Court said, the 'typical remedy is not a private enforcement suit' ... 'but rather action by the federal government to terminate funds to the state.'" But the plaintiffs' attorneys said Florida did not make such arguments earlier in the appeal and can't do so now. "Defendants made the strategic decision not to raise enforceability of the Medicaid Act provisions in this case on appeal," the plaintiff's attorneys wrote. "As such, the argument has been abandoned without exception."
Reuters
14-07-2025
- Business
- Reuters
LinkedIn settles antitrust lawsuit, agrees to contracting changes
July 14 (Reuters) - Business social network LinkedIn has agreed to make temporary changes to its contracting practices to settle a lawsuit by U.S. users who claimed it schemed to prevent potential rivals from entering the market. The preliminary class action settlement, opens new tab, which does not include a financial payment, was filed on Friday in the federal court in San Francisco and requires a judge's approval. LinkedIn was accused in the 2022 lawsuit of illegally fashioning some business contracts to bar third-parties from competing with the company, allowing it to overcharge for premium services and upgraded account features. The plaintiffs said LinkedIn, now owned by Microsoft (MSFT.O), opens new tab, was 'effectively paying potential competitors not to enter the market.' LinkedIn did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Microsoft was not a defendant. LinkedIn denied any wrongdoing. The plaintiffs' lawyers declined to comment. Under the terms of the deal, LinkedIn said for three years it will not enforce provisions in current or future contracts for "application programming interfaces" that would restrict a third-party potential rival from competing. The contracts at issue in the lawsuit allowed LinkedIn business partners to access private user data "in exchange for restraints against competing with LinkedIn," according to the settlement filing. The plaintiffs said the pause would allow potential rivals to compete more effectively, facilitate reduced prices and increase consumer choice. There are about 9 million people in the settlement class, which includes LinkedIn members who purchased LinkedIn Premium services between January 13, 2018, and the present, according to the settlement. Members of the class can opt out of the settlement to sue individually for alleged damages, the settlement said. The plaintiffs said they planned to present expert testimony at the time of final approval to show the overall value of the settlement, since there is no money being paid to LinkedIn users. The plaintiffs' lawyers said they would seek up to $4 million in legal fees. The case is Todd Crowder et al v. LinkedIn Corp, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 4:22-cv-00237-HSG. For plaintiffs: Yavar Bathaee and Brian Dunne of Bathaee Dunne; Christopher Burke of Burke LLP; and Carol O'Keefe of Korein Tillery For defendant: Russell Cohen and Julia Chapman of Dechert
Japan Times
10-07-2025
- Japan Times
Trial challenging Japan's 'hostage justice' opens
A trial challenging Japan's lengthy and grueling detention of criminal suspects opened in Tokyo Wednesday, with plaintiffs decrying "subhuman" treatment they say ignores the presumption of innocence. Campaigners argue that lengthy pretrial detention is meted out too easily in Japan, especially if suspects remain silent or refuse to confess. The lawsuit is challenging the constitutionality of the system of "hostage justice" in which confessions become a de facto condition for their release.
