Mass-marketing enhancement applies to widespread Medicare solicitation

Summary: Judge Lewis Liman awards $407,000 to Blake Lively Award is about 5 percent of $8.04 million sought by Lively Case involved defamation claims linked to movie "It Ends With Us" A federal judge on Aug. 26 awarded Blake Lively $407,000 to cover her legal fees and costs after successfully defending against fellow actor Justin Baldoni's defamation lawsuit stemming from their movie "It Ends With Us." The payment authorized by U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Liman in Manhattan is only about 5% of the $8.04 million that Lively sought. She had received no money when she settled her own lawsuit in May against Baldoni's production company Wayfarer Studios. Liman said that while the case was "extremely well-litigated" and billing rates that sometimes exceeded $2,000 an hour were "not unreasonable" given the complexity and high stakes, Lively sought reimbursement for an unreasonable number of hours and did not sufficiently explain what much of the work was for. The judge limited Lively's recovery primarily to defending against the defamation claim and excluded other costs, including for media relations and defending against a motion for sanctions. Baldoni, 42, sued Lively, 39, for defamation in January 2025, the month after she sued him and Wayfarer over alleged sexual harassment and retaliation in connection with "It Ends With Us," in which both starred and which Baldoni directed. That case settled after Liman dismissed Lively's harassment claims and all claims against Baldoni, but the judge said she could sue Wayfarer for retaliation. The judge let Lively seek expenses under a 2023 California law designed to protect sexual harassment accusers from retaliatory defamation lawsuits by their alleged perpetrators. Baldoni has denied Lively's claims. In a joint statement, Lively's lawyers, Michael Gottlieb and Esra Hudson, said: "This first-ever award of fees and costs under this California law is historic, and demonstrates that there are real consequences of bringing retaliatory lawsuits. As we have said from day one, Blake Lively’s case was never about money — it was about accountability." Bryan Freedman, a lawyer for Baldoni, said in a statement: "The ruling is a significant victory for my clients and sends a clear message that, no matter how powerful you may be, the courtroom is not a place to take advantage of the law for your own personal gain.” Both sides agreed in advance not to appeal Liman's decision on legal fees. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York, Editing by Franklin Paul)

Summary: 6th Circuit panel denies dismissal of King lawsuit Judge Kenneth King accused of gross misconduct Judicial tenure commission investigates King’s actions A lawsuit accusing a Detroit judge of gross misconduct when he had a teen girl who fell asleep in his court detained, subjected to a mock trial, and threatened with jail may proceed, according to a ruling from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The three-judge panel in Cincinnati denied 36th District Court Judge Kenneth King's request to dismiss the civil suit filed by the teen and her mother, suggesting there was enough evidence at this stage of proceedings to suggest King's actions were not protected by judicial immunity. "Not all actions taken by a judge in his courtroom are protected by judicial immunity," Judge Ronald L. Gilman wrote for the panel. "All reasonable jurists would presumably agree, for example, that a judge cannot shield himself from suit if he draws a firearm and shoots an observer who has dozed off in his courtroom. Or if he sexually assaults a litigant. A line must therefore be drawn between the actions that a judge can take in his courtroom under the cloak of judicial immunity and those that he cannot," Gilman added. James Harrington, who is representing the teen, Eva Goodman, and her mother, Latoreya Till, said he was not surprised by the ruling. "This was a judge exercising a function that judges don't do. It was directly meant to embarrass and scare. ... He was rogue. He was acting outside of the bounds," Harrington said. Asked if the ruling could spur settlement talks, Harrington said King's lawyer has his phone number. But he said he is preparing for trial, which he suggested could happen in early 2027. Todd Perkins, a Detroit lawyer representing King, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In August 2024, the teen joined other kids participating in a summer program on a field trip to 36th District Court. After watching a hearing in King's court, the kids remained in the gallery while King spoke to them. At some point, Goodman nodded off. Her mother later told the Free Press that her daughter was tired because, at the time, they were without a permanent place to live and the family did not find a place to sleep until late the night before. Goodman was initially reprimanded, but when it happened again, King had a bailiff remove her from the room. She was handcuffed, forced into jail garb, and required to remain in a room typically reserved for people accused of committing a crime. King eventually brought her back into the court, where he had a criminal defense lawyer represent her in a faux hearing. King admonished her repeatedly before asking the other teens participating in her program to raise their hands if they thought she should go to jail. While some did raise their hands, King let her go. Much of the encounter was captured on the judge's YouTube livestream; King regularly streamed all his proceedings online, where he garnered a relatively robust and fervent audience. That week, King told the Free Press he acted appropriately. "I wasn't trying to punish the young lady. What I was trying to do was, I was trying to serve as a deterrence," King said in a 2024 phone interview. Goodman's lawyers and the 6th Circuit seized on the "scared straight" approach, noting it falls well beyond the official duties of the court. Despite King arguing his actions were official, the 6th Circuit also noted there was no case number, file or other standard documents associated with standard judicial proceedings. "This matters because the existence of a court record or order indicates that a judge’s actions constituted judicial acts," the ruling states. "The absence of such an order or record here therefore suggests the opposite — that Judge King’s actions were nonjudicial." At the time, King was temporarily removed from the bench and required to undergo training. When he returned, he was shifted from hearing the early stages of high-profile felony cases to traffic court. But in November 2025, the state's Judicial Tenure Commission took the rare step of publicly confirming an investigation into King's actions involving Goodman. The commission accused King of violating multiple judicial canons and rules, including failing to treat Goodman with respect. That case is pending, with a public hearing set for September. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: “Detroit judge loses appeal in lawsuit filed by detained sleepy teen” Reporting by Dave Boucher, Detroit Free Press / Detroit Free Press

Summary: Patrick Moeves charged with theft by deception and forged instrument Moeves issued fake settlement checks totaling hundreds of thousands Kentucky Supreme Court disbarred Moeves in 2012 for unethical conduct   A disbarred Northern Kentucky attorney who previously served prison time for stealing from clients is again facing felony charges, this time over allegations that he used a law firm's resources to give clients fraudulent settlement checks and collect money for legal work that was never completed. Patrick Moeves, 57, is charged with theft by deception, criminal possession of a forged instrument, and unauthorized practice of law as part of an indictment filed last month in Kenton County Circuit Court. He’s accused of handing out fraudulent checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars for settlements that did not exist, and stealing from women who sought legal assistance from Drake Law for lawsuits they intended to file against the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services. While a 2012 order by the Kentucky Supreme Court permanently disbarred Moeves, an investigative report obtained by The Cincinnati Enquirer shows that the law firm hired him for legal research. Court filings and police records detail how Moeves is once again the target of a felony prosecution after being sentenced to eight years in prison for similar crimes. They also show how an ex-attorney with a criminal past and a history of disciplinary complaints gained another law job. Alex Lutgen Lacy, Moeves’ attorney, declined to comment on the new criminal allegations. Police began investigating Moeves in September after receiving a report of a theft occurring at the law firm related to lawsuit settlements, the report shows. Three women told police they met with Moeves at the empty law office on Sept. 3 to sign what they believed were settlement agreements for legal matters against the state agency. They were each given a check during the meeting, with one woman's totaling nearly $1 million. Eric Deters, a suspended attorney whose consulting business shares an office with the law firm, told police that no lawsuits were ever filed on behalf of the women and therefore no settlements existed. Court records also do not list any such suits filed in state or federal court. After handing over the checks, Moeves asked the women to wait 72 hours before depositing them, saying that he would send cashier’s checks instead, the report states. Those checks didn’t arrive. At least two of the women deposited the original checks, only to learn that stop-payment orders had been placed on them, records show. One woman checked her bank account two days after depositing a settlement check to discover a negative balance of more than $282,000, according to the records. It remains unclear why Moeves allegedly issued checks for such large amounts without settlement funds to compensate the women. Deters told police that he hired Moeves as a “favor” to do legal research because Moeves could no longer practice law and needed a job. He said he fired Moeves soon after learning about the checks. Moeves was assisting with the firm’s cases involving child care facilities but was not authorized to write checks and did so on an account containing no money, Deters said. Two of the women wanted to sue the social services agency after child care facilities they ran were forced to close, according to the report. The other woman is a CPR instructor whose credentials the state temporarily suspended. Investigators also learned of another woman who paid Moeves $2,000 for a lawsuit to regain custody of her children after they were removed from her home, the report states. Her mother told police that Moeves did not perform any work after taking the woman’s money. The report states that a total of $26,250 was stolen from the women. One of them told police she spent $19,750 in fees and loans to the ex-attorney, but the work was not completed and she was never repaid. In a statement to The Enquirer, Deters said that Moeves falsely told several of the firm’s clients that he settled their cases for large sums of money. He broke into the law office's safe to write the checks, but the firm halted the payments once the ordeal was discovered, Deters said, adding that Moeves also took fees unbeknownst to the law firm. “The only person who did wrong was Pat Moeves,” Deters said. “No client was harmed at all except the disappointment because they had no money coming.” He added that Moeves didn’t benefit from writing the checks. Despite theft accusations, Deters said Moeves didn’t steal money from the clients. It’s not the first time Moeves has faced charges related to falsely telling a client they had reached a civil settlement that did not exist. A client hired Moeves to represent her in a lawsuit against a surveying company beginning in 2007, court records state. Although she paid Moeves roughly $62,650 over several years, she never received the $1.5 million in settlement money he claimed she was owed. When the client contacted people named in a dismissal order Moeves provided, the records state, she learned those people either didn’t exist or didn’t know anything about the suit. Online court records do not indicate that a lawsuit was ever filed. Moeves was convicted of felony theft in 2011 and ordered to repay the woman the money she spent on his services. He was also convicted the same year in two other criminal cases for misappropriating client funds. Disciplinary records state that Moeves lied to one of those clients about being terminally ill to convince them to loan him $5,000. In the 2012 order banning Moeves from ever practicing law in the state, the Kentucky Supreme Court described Moeves’ unethical dealings with numerous clients as “appalling and reprehensible.” Records show that Moeves posted bond in the most recent criminal case and is expected to appear in court on Sept. 8. This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: “Disbarred lawyer accused of handing out checks for fake settlements, theft” Reporting by Quinlan Bentley, Cincinnati Enquirer / Cincinnati Enquirer