ESA Seeks Legal Fees for Brown v. EMA from California

July 25, 2011 -

The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) is seeking $1.1 million in legal fees from California for its work related to Brown v. EMA. The move is not an unfamiliar one for the trade group, who has successfully sued and won fees in the lower courts in states throughout the country (notably Louisiana, Michigan, and Illinois), but this is a first at the highest level of the U.S. court system.

"It's unfortunate that some officials continue to believe that unconstitutional laws are the answer, when time and time again courts have thrown out these bills and proven them to be a waste of taxpayers' dollars," the ESA said in a statement... four years ago. Hopefully California's government will listen after this expensive lesson in constitutional law.

SCOTUS Blog has an excellent analysis of the challenges the ESA may face in collecting the fees it wants at this level and what precedents it could set for the future of lawsuits. You can read all that here. Below is the most interesting part:

"Presumably, the Supreme Court has the authority to order a fee shift, or to pass the motion down to the Ninth Circuit Court or the District Court to consider. It is unknown whether the fact that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the state’s appeal — something it had the discretion not to do — would play a part in its consideration of the motion.

Because the Supreme Court seldom is asked to shift fees in cases before it, the Justices may be a bit surprised at how high those fees can go when well-compensated, experienced lawyers are involved, and bring with them a sizeable team of associates. Lower courts, of course, routinely are faced with often pricey fee requests."

Source: Ars Technica


Comments

Re: ESA Seeks Legal Fees for Brown v. EMA from California

This state is broke anyways. The other 49 and Guam will bail us out.

 

Which sucks since I've tried everything I can to get hack politicians out of office in this state. Hell it's insanity that people didn't want a "3rd Arnold term" yet they elected Moonbeam for a 3rd time.

Re: ESA Seeks Legal Fees for Brown v. EMA from California

Interestingly, the amount that the ESA and EMA is seeking is just over three times the total amount of legal fees they've won from California after the District Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals combined(about $370,000 total) and more than double what Illinois paid($510,000).

California brought it on themselves. Shame that the legislators that voted for the bill won't have the money docked from their salaries, although I feel that them, former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, current governor Jerry Brown(attorney general at the time), and Leland Yee should each pay an equal 25% of that $1.1 million.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Pelicans. Solidarity for the Saints = No retreat, no surrender. 2013 = Saints' revenge on the NFL. Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always.

Re: ESA Seeks Legal Fees for Brown v. EMA from California

I personally think the Ethics committee should investigate Mr. Yee for this disaster. I have a hunch he knew that the law was unconstitutional, but just didn't care. I hope they do investigate him and recommend ousting his sorry butt from California politics, therefore disqualifying him from the mayoral election he's trying to enter.

Re: ESA Seeks Legal Fees for Brown v. EMA from California

Its hard for me. I'm not paying California taxes, but I feel for those who live there. If they win this I hope that Yee actually has to explain it in a future election while explaining how they can't afford welfare and medicaid. Though the issue will probably never come up.

-Austin from Oregon

Feel free to check out my blog.

Re: ESA Seeks Legal Fees for Brown v. EMA from California

Good. I hope the ESA wins this as well. Its even more california taxpayer money that yee wasted on his stupid law.

Re: ESA Seeks Legal Fees for Brown v. EMA from California

.....although, it should really be coming out of HIS pocket. Not the poor taxpayers who really had nothing to do with it and were probably against the law as well. poor bastards

Re: ESA Seeks Legal Fees for Brown v. EMA from California

I'm sure a lot of the money in his pocket is from the taxpayers anyways.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Jessy HartIs this stuff about Windows 10 legit? Is it actually called Windows 10 or is it just some stupid joke?09/30/2014 - 6:57pm
ZippyDSMleeSo I been trying to play Bioshock Infinite I got all the DLC,ect but do not want the extras to make your charatcer over powered from the start.....they force you to take them which is quite annoying......09/30/2014 - 6:45pm
Craig R.I need to upgrade to an SSD, still seriously debating moving to Win8.1 from 7 at the same time09/30/2014 - 6:07pm
Craig R.Win10 is probably Win8.1 with more cleanup and the Start button back.09/30/2014 - 6:06pm
Sora-ChanAhh, it's just weird seeing someone's post all of a sudden have replies from days prior before it was posted due to that.09/30/2014 - 5:49pm
MechaTama31sora: I broke the ordering intentionally, as AE's and my conversation had squeezed the text boxes down to be quite slim. I replied to an earlier post of his instead of the one I was actually replying to.09/30/2014 - 5:46pm
MechaTama31So, 9 would have been the good one, but they are skipping it to do two crap ones in a row?09/30/2014 - 5:41pm
Sora-ChanSo, judging from the poll post for #gamergate, it looks like too many thread replies breaks the ordering of posts, as seen with the recent post from Infophile.09/30/2014 - 5:31pm
Andrew EisenOr no! It wasn't Y3K compliant. Microsoft thought it best to super future proof its OS and skipped straight to 10 which is Y3K compliant!09/30/2014 - 5:01pm
Andrew EisenJust tell them it wasn't Y2K compliant.09/30/2014 - 5:00pm
Craig R.Looking forward to having to explain to coworkers down the road what ever happened to 9 *sigh*09/30/2014 - 4:57pm
Craig R.2k was crap. XP was solid, 7 is good, 8.1 is actually really good once you make it look like 7 :)09/30/2014 - 4:52pm
Sora-Chan@MP As someone who has used each version of windows since 3.1... I prefer Vista over 7 for various reasons. The only thing I give 7 over Vista is preformance. They really screwed up a bunch of things when making 7. Also, XP was a pain. 2k was better.09/30/2014 - 4:13pm
Jessy Hart@E. Zachary Knight Is that show called Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures?09/30/2014 - 3:34pm
IanCWin 8 isn't bad, it just can't decide whether to be a desktop OS or a tablet OS.09/30/2014 - 2:40pm
IanCI think its a way of getting round giving it free to Win 8 users...09/30/2014 - 2:39pm
MaskedPixelanteWindows alternates between bad and good versions. XP was good, Vista sucked, 7 was good, 8 sucked, therefore 10 will suck, QED.09/30/2014 - 2:18pm
E. Zachary KnightPerhaps they are calling it "10" because on a scale of 1-10 of how awesome it is, it is a clear 10.09/30/2014 - 2:06pm
E. Zachary KnightTo be fair. Microsoft has had a bit of a numbering issue lately. What with going from XBox 360 to XBox One.09/30/2014 - 2:06pm
NeenekoI remember the pac man show from the 80s, but I was more picturing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWL6j0SvqV0 which is probably more source accurate then Tetris will be...09/30/2014 - 1:42pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician