Coachella Valley 'farm' drops lawsuit against balloon operations

Richard

Richard

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
9,076
Location
West Coast Resistance
Display Name
Display name:
Ack...city life
http://www.mydesert.com/article/201...alloonists?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage

JCM had opposed the inspection, arguing in court three weeks ago that the entire compound is “an original artistic presentation” containing “trade secrets.”
But a judge ordered it after Gilliland argued that he needed to see the area affected by the balloonists' alleged overflights.
Click to expand...

Too bad 3 of the four balloon companies decided to quit before the attorney working pro bono became involved. Maybe they will come back.

Too, an FAA investigation found no wrong doing.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-balloons-20110817,0,1840808,full.story
 
Last edited:
jhausch said:
Hooray!
Click to expand...

That was my first reaction...

Then I got to the part in the article where they talk about how only two balloon operators remain, and a dozen were driven out of business. :mad2:

:incazzato::incazzato::incazzato::incazzato:

Our legal system needs to be fixed.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
That was my first reaction...

Then I got to the part in the article where they talk about how only two balloon operators remain, and a dozen were driven out of business. :mad2:

:incazzato::incazzato::incazzato::incazzato:

Our legal system needs to be fixed.
Click to expand...
Loser pays would have been a good option here.
 
Gary F said:
Loser pays would have been a good option here.
Click to expand...

Thing is, there was no judgement, thus no "loser." Lots and lots of motions, discovery, etc. and then the case got dropped by the plaintiffs after the defendants had spent $177K in legal fees.

Read about the plaintiffs - They absolutely LOVE to abuse our legal system to get their way. :mad:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Thing is, there was no judgement, thus no "loser." Lots and lots of motions, discovery, etc. and then the case got dropped by the plaintiffs after the defendants had spent $177K in legal fees.

Read about the plaintiffs - They absolutely LOVE to abuse our legal system to get their way. :mad:
Click to expand...

And in a loser-pays, the defendant could then file a motion for costs to be paid once the plaintiff filed for dismissal.
 
The only real losers here were the balloon operators. JCM dropped the suit, therefore no judgment.

Maybe the cash-strapped municipalities would care to join a countersuit for loss of economic whatever.

I've seen operators like JCM before...they come riding into town and throw money around trying to buy up the place. They attempt to hide behind a veil of nebulous and vague "proprietory" secrets. They don't last long. But they leave damage strewn in their trail.

The only thing that needs to be fixed is access to the legal system needs to come down in price.

That it took 2 years afore the judge finally told JCM to put up or shut up can be in many ways placed at the feet of the defendants. Again, that it takes big money to mount a defense is the real problem.
 
JeffDG said:
And in a loser-pays, the defendant could then file a motion for costs to be paid once the plaintiff filed for dismissal.
Click to expand...

Haven't read the article and am not familiar with this lawsuit, but in a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff, costs are often allowed.

Not necessarily *required* - but allowed in the discretion of the court.

I can think of instances where costs are appropriate or are not appropriate for a voluntary dismissal.

For instance, frivolous lawsuits - sure, appropriate. But, what about a foreclosure filed because the homeowner isn't paying, but he then catches up after it's filed? Costs probably wouldn't be appropriate then.

Also, when I write "costs," those don't include attorney fees. "Costs" are things like filing fees, witness fees, photocopies, long-distance, etc.
 
Also, when I write "costs," those don't include attorney fees. "Costs" are things like filing fees, witness fees, photocopies, long-distance, etc.
Click to expand...

David, does that mean attorney fees may not ever be recouped?
Thanks
 
When a rich guy beats up on small guys by filing a frivolous lawsuit it would be great if there was a mechanism to compensate the original defendants. I don't care if it is called loser pays or what. The plaintiff was just using the legal system to beat up somebody who could not afford to fight back.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
David, does that mean attorney fees may not ever be recouped?
Thanks
Click to expand...

You're in Texas, right? I can't speak to the specific law there, but as a general matter, attorney fees are always a possibility.

First, a lot of statutes nowadays provide for them. For instance, most states' Consumer Protection Acts say that if you win a claim under them, you recover your reasonable attorney fees. The same for something like 42 USC 1983, which is the statute allowing you to sue a state or local government for a violation of constitutional rights - if you win, you can get your attorney fees.

Second, many if not most contracts provide that the winner gets attorney fees. For instance, say I agree to build a house for you. A pretty standard clause in a lot of contracts now says "the prevailing party, as determined by the court or an arbitrator, shall recover his reasonable attorney fees." So, if you were to sue me, or I were to sue you, whoever wins can recover his fees.

Third, there are fees for frivolous lawsuits. I think pretty much every jurisdiction out there has a provision for these. The problem is that, in my experience, appellate courts are very reluctant to back up trial judges that award fees for a frivolous action. A lot of people look at that as attorneys protecting attorneys - and that's not an unfair criticism at all.

Anyway, recovering attorney fees is always possible. But, it's still the exception rather than the norm.

The practical problem that you run into is actually collecting attorney fees (the same holds true if you win a lawsuit). If the losing party doesn't have a dime to his/her name, what good is it? You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip....

Frankly, there are a whole lot of things that I would change about our legal system. The good news, however, is that they're tweaks rather than sea changes - but tweaks that would have a really big effect, and make the system a lot more balanced.

I'll be glad to elaborate if anyone is interested, but that might have to wait for the weekend. And will be long-winded. :)
 
Gary F said:
When a rich guy beats up on small guys by filing a frivolous lawsuit it would be great if there was a mechanism to compensate the original defendants. I don't care if it is called loser pays or what. The plaintiff was just using the legal system to beat up somebody who could not afford to fight back.
Click to expand...

Well, if the lawsuit is frivolous (or if a meritorious lawsuit is defended in bad faith or frivolity), there is a mechaism to get your fees.

But, unfortunately, as stated above - (1) there is a reluctance to award fees for frivolity because they are frequently reversed on appeal (which ultimately makes the non-frivolous party pay *more* during the appeal) and (2) what do you with someone that is "judgment proof?"
 
Duncan, I've been trying to figure it out... what the heck is in front of your Skylane in your avatar photo? A sign for something?

(Sorry, I know it breaks the thread, but I gotta know.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top