Court Digest

Arizona
High court rejects major part of suit against CVS
PHOENIX (AP) — An Arizona Supreme Court ruling rejects a major part of a Tucson hospital’s lawsuit accusing a pharmacy chain of negligence and seeking compensation for care provided to opioid-addicted patients.

The justices ruled  Wednesday that Tucson Medical Center can’t sue CVS Health Corporation for alleged negligence through distribution of opioids.

The 2018 lawsuit said CVS was part of a conspiracy of drug manufacturers and others who promoted the use of opioids and fueled the national opioid epidemic, causing huge losses for hospitals.

The court agreed with CVS, saying that state and federal law don’t create a legal duty for pharmacies to hospitals under the facts underlying the case and that the medical center can only resort to filing liens against the addicts to try to recover costs of uncompensated care.

The justices “recognize the tremendous costs imposed by the opioid crisis on society generally, and hospitals specifically. The human costs are tragic. However, it is for Congress and the legislature, not the courts, to create methods to alleviate those costs,” Justice Clint Bolick wrote.

The case now returns to trial court for consideration of claims — not considered in the appeal decided Wednesday — alleging public nuisance and unjust enrichment.

Hawaii
Officer sues police chief for racial discrimination
HONOLULU (AP) — A police captain on the Hawaii island of Kauai has filed a lawsuit alleging his police chief discriminated against him for being Japanese American, including an episode when the chief squinted his eyes, bowed repeatedly and said he couldn’t trust Japanese people.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Honolulu last week names Police Chief Todd Raybuck, Kauai County, the Kauai Police Department, the Kauai Police Commission and multiple unnamed individuals to be determined.

The police commission in April suspended Raybuck without pay for five days for making discriminatory comments after an investigation found he mocked people of Asian descent.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit, 55-year-old Paul Applegate, is part Japanese and has worked for the police department since 2000.

His lawsuit alleges multiple instances of Raybuck — who became Kauai’s police chief in 2019 after he retired from 27 years as a police officer in Las Vegas — squinting his eyes at Applegate and mocking Asians.

The lawsuit alleges the department internally announced a white officer had been selected as assistant chief of the administrative and technical bureau even though no formal selection process had taken place. When Applegate applied for the job anyway, Raybuck interviewed him one-on-one even though prior department practice called for two people to conduct such interviews.

When Applegate met with Raybuck afterward to discuss the selection process, criteria and scoring, the lawsuit said the chief mocked the appearance of Japanese people.

“Chief Raybuck proceeded to squint his eyes and repeatedly bow to plaintiff, stating that he could not trust Japanese people because they do not always tell the truth,” the lawsuit said. “He then stated that the Western culture ‘tells it like it us,’ whereas the Japanese culture says ‘yes, yes, yes’ to your face even when they think the person’s idea is stupid.”

Alden Alayvilla, a spokesperson for Kauai County, said the county was unable to comment because of pending litigation. Coco Zickos, a spokesperson for the police department and Raybuck, said neither could comment because of pending litigation.

The lawsuit said Applegate filed complaints with the Kauai Police Commission, the county and the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.

When the police commission suspended Raybuck, the police department said the chief would be required to complete Equal Employment Opportunity anti-discrimination training and cultural sensitivity training.

The department didn’t provide details about the violations found by the commission’s investigation, only the dates: Nov. 13, 2019 and July 29, 2020. These dates correspond with episodes detailed in Applegate’s lawsuit.

Raybuck said in a statement upon his April suspension that he values and appreciates diversity in the workplace and community.

“I accept responsibility for my comments and will continue to use this experience to expand my cultural awareness and increase my knowledge and understanding of different cultures,” he said.

Applegate’s lawsuit said Raybuck continued to discriminate after returning from his suspension. The lawsuit said Raybuck denied Applegate’s request to be temporarily assigned with pay to an assistant chief position while an assistant chief was temporarily assigned to the chief’s office. Other officers were treated differently, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit said that in June, Raybuck brought three individuals on to his command staff — all of them white.

The lawsuit seeks damages and attorneys fees.

Minnesota
Race horse owners accused in Ponzi scheme
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A Minnesota couple whose race horses have been among the most successful at Canterbury Park over the years is accused of defrauding 200 investors of nearly $18 million in an investment scam.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission alleges that Jason Bullard and his wife, Angela Romero-Bullard, of Shakopee, operated the Ponzi scheme from 2007 to 2021. The Bullards own Empire Racing Stables LLC, a 24-horse operation that has been one of the top winners at the Shakopee track in recent years.

This year, the couple’s horses have won 23 races and collected $366,425 in purse earnings, ranking second among all owners, according to course officials. Their stables shared the top spot in 2019 with 32 wins and earnings of $471,088, the Star Tribune reported.

The SEC lawsuit states that the Bullards told investors they could earn annual returns of 10% to 12% by putting their money into two family-controlled funds used to trade foreign currencies. However, the SEC said Jason Bullard “admitted that he has not traded foreign currencies with investor funds since approximately 2015.”

The Bullards did not respond to requests from the newspaper for comment. Minneapolis attorney Randy Sparling, who is representing Jason Bullard, said his client is “cooperating” with the authorities.

“We are not making any admissions or denials in terms of what has happened,” Sparling said.

Massachusetts
State reaches $27M settlement with auto lender
BOSTON (AP) — A national subprime auto lender has agreed to pay more than $27 million to settle allegations that it took advantage of thousands of Massachusetts borrowers, the state attorney general’s office said Wednesday.

The settlement with Credit Acceptance Corp. in Suffolk Superior Court will provide debt relief and credit repair to consumers, according to a statement from Attorney General Maura Healey.

“Thousands of Massachusetts consumers, many of them first-time car buyers, put their faith in CAC to help them with an auto loan, but were instead lured into high-cost loans, fell deeper in debt, and even lost their vehicles,” she said. “With this significant $27 million settlement, eligible Massachusetts drivers who have been suffering under the weight of a crushing car loan due to CAC’s deceptive practices will be able to receive relief and avoid new defaults.”

More than 3,000 borrowers across the state are expected to be eligible for settlement funds, many of them in Boston, Springfield, Worcester and Brockton.

The settlement also requires the company to make changes to its loan handling practices.

A voicemail seeking comment was left with the Southfield, Michigan-based company.

According to the lawsuit filed in August 2020, the company made high-interest loans to Massachusetts borrowers it knew or should have known they would be unable to repay; subjected some borrowers to hidden finance charges, which resulted in violations of the state’s 21% usury cap; and engaged in harassing and illegal collection practices.

The suit also alleged that the company did not inform investors that the company topped off the pools of loans they packaged and securitized with higher-risk loans.

Healey’s office has now settled with several subprime auto lenders she said engaged in deceptive and unfair practices.

Colorado
Mental health of suspect in supermarket shooting questioned
DENVER (AP) — A lawyer for a 22-year-old man accused of shooting 10 people to death at a Colorado supermarket in March is raising questions about whether he is mentally competent to proceed with the case, according to a notice filed in court Wednesday.

Details on the concerns about Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa’s mental health and how it might affect his ability to understand and participate in court proceedings are not known because the motion is sealed as required under state law.

However, a notice that such a motion was filed and the judge’s initial response is public.

Judge Ingrid Seftar Bakke said she would consider the issue at a previously scheduled court hearing Monday to determine whether there is enough evidence for Alissa to stand trial.

Shannon Carbone, a spokesperson for District Attorney Matthew Dougherty, said prosecutors expected the hearing on the evidence to go ahead as planned.

Alissa’s attorney has previously said he has an unspecified mental illness.

A defendant’s ability to understand and assist in their defense is a separate legal issue than a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, which hinges on whether someone’s mental health affected their actions when a crime was committed.

Raising the issue of competency has the potential to delay proceedings. Under state law, proceedings that require defendants to participate and assist their lawyers in defending them must be suspended if they are deemed incompetent. But hearings before a case goes to trial that do not require their participation can proceed.

Florida
Lawyer: Parkland suspect should not be referred to as  ‘the killer’
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) — Attorneys for the former student accused of murdering 17 at a Florida high school want prosecutors and their witnesses barred at trial from referring to him as “an animal,” “a thing,” “the killer” or in any manner they believe is derogatory.

Nikolas Cruz’s lead attorney also argued Wednesday that prosecutors and their witnesses should be barred at trial from calling the  Feb. 14, 2018, shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School  in Parkland “the massacre,” “the schoolhouse slaughter,” “an execution” or other “inflammatory” terms.

Assistant public defender Melisa McNeill told Circuit Judge Elizabeth Scherer that Cruz should only be referred to by his name or as “the defendant” at trial and the shooting should be called “the incident,” “the tragedy,” the “mass shooting” or other neutral terms. She said both the U.S. and Florida supreme courts have ruled that death penalty cases require stricter standards than normal trials because the verdict and sentence must be beyond reproach and based solely on the law.

“Can those terms be used outside the courtroom? Yes. Everyone has a First Amendment right to refer to Mr. Cruz in any manner they see fit,” McNeill said. “However, the rules inside a courtroom are different.”

Prosecutor Nicole Chiappone said even Cruz himself has used some of the terms his attorneys want barred. She said he refers to himself in a cellphone video as “the next school shooter” and, shortly before the killings, recorded himself saying, “this is the day of my massacre.”

Chiappone said Scherer should not make any pretrial list of barred terms. If someone at trial refers to Cruz or the shootings in a manner his attorneys believe is prejudicial, they can object then and make their argument to strike the wording, she said.

“Referring to this as ‘an incident’ or ‘a tragedy’ is insulting. This is far more,” she added.

Cruz has pleaded not guilty, but his attorneys have said he would plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence. Prosecutors have rejected that offer.

Cruz’s attorneys also asked to review testimony given in secret to a statewide grand jury empaneled after the shooting that examined systemic failures in school security, mental health counseling and other programs.

They want to see if anything was said specifically about Cruz during the hearings that could provide some mitigation for the shooting, either in the main trial or during the sentencing phase. They said if they aren’t allowed to see the testimony, they want Scherer to review it.

Prosecutors and an attorney for the state said the grand jury testimony discussed problems and issues broadly and not Cruz specifically and should remain sealed.

Scherer said she would rule on the defense motions by Friday. No date has been set for the trial.

An Oct. 4 trial date was set Wednesday on separate charges that Cruz attacked a Broward County jail guard in November 2018, nine months after the shooting. A jail security video  shows Cruz charging at Sgt. Raymond Beltran and initiating the fight. The defense has indicated it will argue that Beltran mistreated Cruz previously and goaded him into the assault.