After sifting through a plaintiff’s “hydra-like” complaint, a New York federal judge has dismissed a putative class action alleging that American Express and two executives made false and misleading statements to investors about the types of credit risk the company faced as it tried to expand its share of the credit card market beyond its traditional high-end clientele.

A liability carrier that lost its bid to refuse to defend claims over a mercury-contaminated day care center must pay its insureds $208,000 in legal fees, a federal judge ruled. The award reflects a 35 percent enhancement on a $153,750 lodestar, based largely on the risk that the insureds’ lawyer, who took the coverage case on a contingency basis, would not get paid. The case was risky because the carrier had a reasonable basis to refuse coverage in light of the novel legal issues raised, the judge said.

Bicyclists who pressed a challenge to required permits for large groups of riders “even though they had no real hope of success” must pay $16,000 in litigation costs, a federal judge has ruled. The judge noted the case raised constitutional issues but faulted the plaintiffs, who were represented pro bono by Debevoise & Plimpton, for pursuing the case.

Its dramatic merits notwithstanding, “The People’s Court” is not in fact a court of law and statements a woman made while appearing as a “plaintiff” on the show may not be later used against her in an actual legal proceeding, a New York judge has ruled.

A California federal judge handled a case well in which defendants enamored of conspiracy theories insisted on representing themselves, the 9th Circuit ruled. The duo were accused of a $3 million scam convincing people they could eliminate their mortgage debt, based on notions of the inherent unconstitutionality of capitalism