Miami Attorney Reps Florida Prisoners in Class Action Over Impounded Music
Florida Justice Institute Executive Director Dante Trevisani is one of the attorneys leading litigation against the Florida Department of Corrections over the state prison system's seizure of digital songs and book purchased by inmates. He is joined by lawyers from the Tampa Bay and Kansas City-based Social Justice Law Collective firm.
February 20, 2019 at 03:31 PM
4 minute read
A federal lawsuit is accusing the Florida Department of Corrections of unlawfully separating Florida inmates from their rightful property, namely, digital media they'd purchased in prison.
The class action filed in the Northern District of Florida on Tuesday charges the FDOC and its newly appointed secretary, Mark Inch, with violating Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment assurances of compensation and due process by confiscating music and books that Florida prisoners had bought.
FDOC Press Secretary Patrick Manderfield said “the department has not been served this lawsuit,” but would “thoroughly review it upon receipt.”
Dante Trevisani, the executive director of Miami public interest law firm the Florida Justice Institute, said the new policy is a result of the FDOC's partnership with a new vendor, Miramar-based JPay, for the state prison system's digital music player program.
“If the music could transfer, it would negate the new vendor's ability to make money. This was the explicit reason it was done,” Trevisani said.
The complaint claims advertisements touting the digital media players promised inmates: “Once music is purchased, you'll always own it!” Now, prisoners are being compelled to hand in their old devices in exchange for new Jpay-branded ones without any of the media they'd purchased. What's more, the suit claims the FDOC has declined to offer compensation for the seizure of materials prisoners had thought they owned outright. Now, if they want access to the music or books they'd previously enjoyed, they'll have to buy them a second time.
Joshua Glickman, a former attorney with the Florida Justice Institute and founding member of the Social Justice Law Collective, is one of the lawyers representing the class outlined in the suit. He referred to the FDOC's actions as “completely unacceptable.”
“For a lot of these prisoners this music program was a huge thing for them,” Glickman said. “These were not just songs, this was a way for these prisoners who had life sentences or 25 years or more … to have a little slice of normalcy. And to just have it ripped away from them is completely unacceptable.”
Read the lawsuit:
Glickman said both he and Trevisani's firms “started receiving a deluge of letters from inmates and their family members complaining about the loss of their property.”
“Once we started looking into it … we were somewhat surprised at not only that they were confiscating these inmate's lawfully purchased properties, but the reasoning that they were giving these inmates,” Glickman said, calling the FDOC's justification for the policy “callous” and “indifferent.”
Trevisani said the FDOC ignored prisoner's grievances before developing a standard response which said the ability for inmates to keep their media would “negate the vendor's ability to make money.” He summarized the prison system's sentiment as “We're sorry you feel this way, but we hope you'll come to acknowledge the value of this program.”
The named plaintiff in the case, William Demler, is an inmate at the South Florida Reception Center in Doral. He had purchased more than 300 songs on his old media player and expressed his concerns about the new policy with both the prison as well as the attorneys. Trevisani said the legal team hopes “to get a class certified of everyone who lost out on” media they'd owned prior to the new policy's implementation.
“The class as we defined it is all FDOC prisoners whose music was taken pursuant to this transition from the old media players to the new tablets,” he said. Through litigation, Trevisani and his co-counsel are hoping to get Demler and class members “access to the old music by transferring it to the new player or some other means.”
“For some people, this is all they have,” Trevisani added. “There was advertising to induce them to buy the music. It said you'd own it forever, and people believed that.”
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThis Could Have Been a Year of a Federal Court Reckoning for Trump. Judges had Other Ideas
8 minute readFlorida Law Firms Brace for Category 5 Hurricane Milton
These Florida Courts Are Closing Amid Category 4 Hurricane Milton
$25M Award: Jury Finds Hospital Negligent After Patient Raped
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Fox Rothschild partner Glenn S. Grindlinger has entered an appearance for Garage Management Company in a pending lawsuit over alleged wage-and-hour violations. The case was filed Aug. 31 in New York Southern District Court by the Abdul Hassan Law Group on behalf of a manual worker who contends that he was not properly compensated for overtime hours worked. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, is 1:24-cv-06610, Bailey v. Garage Management Company LLC.
Who Got The Work
Veronica M. Keithley of Stoel Rives has entered an appearance for Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC in a pending environmental lawsuit. The suit, filed Aug. 12 in Washington Western District Court by Kampmeier & Knutsen on behalf of Communities for a Healthy Bay, seeks to declare that the defendant has violated the Clean Water Act by releasing stormwater discharges on Puget Sound and Commencement Bay. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle, is 3:24-cv-05662, Communities for a Healthy Bay v. Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC.
Who Got The Work
Caroline Pignatelli of Cooley has entered an appearance for law firm Cooley, partner Matt Hallinan, retired partner Michael Tu and a pair of Cooley associates in a pending fraud lawsuit related to the firm's representation of startup company Carbon IQ and founder Benjamin Cantey. The case, filed Sept. 26 in New Jersey District Court by the DalCortivo Law Offices on behalf of Gould Ventures and member Jason Gould, contends that the defendants deliberately or recklessly concealed critical information from the plaintiffs regarding fraud allegations against Cantey. Gould claims that he would not have accepted a position on Carbon IQ's board of directors or made a 2022 investment in the company if the fraud allegations had been disclosed. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Kirsch, is 3:24-cv-09485, Gould Ventures, LLC et al v. Cooley, LLP et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom have stepped in to represent PDD Holdings, the operator of online marketplaces Pinduoduo and Temu, in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Sept. 30 in New York Eastern District Court by Labaton Keller Sucharow and VanOverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, contends that the defendants concealed information that rendered the growth of PDD unsustainable and posed substantial risks to PDD’s business, including merchant policies that made it unprofitable for vendors to do business on PDD platforms; malware issues on PDD applications; and PDD’s failure to implement effective compliance systems. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-06881, Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund v. Pdd Holdings Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250