Man Blames Planes For Divorce, Seeks $555 Million

K

kkoran

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Sep 23, 2007
Messages
1,580
Location
Renton, WA
Display Name
Display name:
Kent
A guy is suing SFO, the city, county, all of the airlines, etc., for the breakup of his marriage. He has a history of suing for large sums and dubious reasons including a $7 billion class-action lawsuit against President George W. Bush and his cabinet following the 9/11 attacks arguing they let it happen on purpose. No wonder his wife left him.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/1...ia+(Blog+-+Autopia)&utm_content=Google+Reader
 
At the risk of this going SZ, I don't understand why anyone should have to pay the legal fees required to defend themselves from such a lawsuit.
 
Bob Noel said:
At the risk of this going SZ, I don't understand why anyone should have to pay the legal fees required to defend themselves from such a lawsuit.
Click to expand...
While I agree this is a frivolous lawsuit the reason that we don't have loser pays is that it would stop regular people from being able to file a lawsuit against a rich defendant. One might have a real case but would not want to risk their entire livelihood and future if they lost. And one can lose when they are right and the other side has deep pockets, hiring an army of lawyers to win.
 
smigaldi said:
While I agree this is a frivolous lawsuit the reason that we don't have loser pays is that it would stop regular people from being able to file a lawsuit against a rich defendant. One might have a real case but would not want to risk their entire livelihood and future if they lost. And one can lose when they are right and the other side has deep pockets, hiring an army of lawyers to win.
Click to expand...

You're wrong on every point.
 
smigaldi said:
While I agree this is a frivolous lawsuit the reason that we don't have loser pays is that it would stop regular people from being able to file a lawsuit against a rich defendant. One might have a real case but would not want to risk their entire livelihood and future if they lost. And one can lose when they are right and the other side has deep pockets, hiring an army of lawyers to win.
Click to expand...

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
smigaldi said:
While I agree this is a frivolous lawsuit the reason that we don't have loser pays is that it would stop regular people from being able to file a lawsuit against a rich defendant. One might have a real case but would not want to risk their entire livelihood and future if they lost. And one can lose when they are right and the other side has deep pockets, hiring an army of lawyers to win.
Click to expand...

Well, I really wasn't thinking about loser pay. I was thinking that
the suit should be tossed immediately after the judge stops laughing
and just before the lawyers are reprimanded.
 
Bob Noel said:
Well, I really wasn't thinking about loser pay. I was thinking that the suit should be tossed immediately after the judge stops laughing and just before the lawyers are reprimanded.
Click to expand...
One would hope that will happen. But our system is such that everyone gets their day in court, whether they are a nut or not.
 
At some point, the courts need to slap this guy, and slap him hard.
 
Bob Noel said:
Well, I really wasn't thinking about loser pay. I was thinking that
the suit should be tossed immediately after the judge stops laughing
and just before the lawyers are reprimanded.
Click to expand...

Cases like this are often pro se without lawyers. If you look at the suit he filed it himself.
 
Bob Noel said:
At the risk of this going SZ, I don't understand why anyone should have to pay the legal fees required to defend themselves from such a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. But, what do you do when the plaintiff doesn't have money?
 
Vexatious litigant...
The court should dismiss these suits and bar him from filing any suits in the future without court approval..

denny-o
 
smigaldi said:
While I agree this is a frivolous lawsuit the reason that we don't have loser pays is that it would stop regular people from being able to file a lawsuit against a rich defendant. One might have a real case but would not want to risk their entire livelihood and future if they lost. And one can lose when they are right and the other side has deep pockets, hiring an army of lawyers to win.
Click to expand...

Guaranteed to throw this into the Spin Zone. Kinda parallels the Sarah Palin resignation issue. :D Anyone can file a frivolous lawsuit for the money or the aggravation factor of it.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I agree with you. But, what do you do when the plaintiff doesn't have money?
Click to expand...

Ummmm...what happens now? Oh yeah...the attorney looks at the merits of the case and determines if they can win and does it on contingency.

If the lawyer does not feel it is a worthy case they pass.

Of course there would now be REAL risk to the attorney instead of this "lets sue them, they will settle they always do, you take your cut I take mine" crap.
 
tdager said:
Ummmm...what happens now? Oh yeah...the attorney looks at the merits of the case and determines if they can win and does it on contingency.

If the lawyer does not feel it is a worthy case they pass.

Of course there would now be REAL risk to the attorney instead of this "lets sue them, they will settle they always do, you take your cut I take mine" crap.
Click to expand...

I think what David was getting at is:

Homeless person scrapes together the dollar needed for a McDonald's coffee, and burns himself. Sues and McDs racks up a hundred thousand in legal bills defending...who pays that hundred thousand? (I used the "homeless person" example as someone who is judgment proof)

Personally, let the lawyer who filed come up with the cash.
 
smigaldi said:
FYI he is a lawyer. I don't think as qualified as that other fantastic litigator Orly Taitz, but a lawyer nonetheless..
Click to expand...

Yeah I saw that although the article says the California Bar has barred him from practicing or something to that effect. Also even though he is trained as an attorney he is still pro se since he is not repersented by one other than himself.
My point however was that often times with these more bizarre lawsuits the person does not have an attorney. Not that he was an attorney, Bob had mentioned the lawyers getting fined or slammed and I just wanted to point out that many of these cases are without lawyer representation.
 
tdager said:
Ummmm...what happens now? Oh yeah...the attorney looks at the merits of the case and determines if they can win and does it on contingency.

If the lawyer does not feel it is a worthy case they pass.

Of course there would now be REAL risk to the attorney instead of this "lets sue them, they will settle they always do, you take your cut I take mine" crap.
Click to expand...

Not in a pro se action....

FWIW, I've seen very few cases that I've felt are frivolous. Frankly, it's not anywhere near as big a problem as people think it is. Doesn't mean that it's not something to be "crushed like worrum" when it's seen, but there are far more substantial problems in the justice system to be worried about. :yesnod:
 
JeffDG said:
I think what David was getting at is:

Homeless person scrapes together the dollar needed for a McDonald's coffee, and burns himself. Sues and McDs racks up a hundred thousand in legal bills defending...who pays that hundred thousand? (I used the "homeless person" example as someone who is judgment proof)

Personally, let the lawyer who filed come up with the cash.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was getting at.

At the same time, what if the homeless guy is run over by a driver who's fiddling with the radio? If we require posting a bond to file suit, what if the homeless guy can't find someone to do it for him - and the insurance company, knowing he can't take it to court, refuses to reasonably settle (as required by law in many places)?
 
AdamZ said:
Yeah I saw that although the article says the California Bar has barred him from practicing or something to that effect. Also even though he is trained as an attorney he is still pro se since he is not repersented by one other than himself.
My point however was that often times with these more bizarre lawsuits the person does not have an attorney. Not that he was an attorney, Bob had mentioned the lawyers getting fined or slammed and I just wanted to point out that many of these cases are without lawyer representation.
Click to expand...

There's only so much that can be done - under our system now, anyone can get into civil court. I can make up some crazy stuff and file a complaint against anyone I want.

Here's a particular problem, in my eyes: complaints aren't required to be "verified." What I mean by that is that you, as a plaintiff, aren't required to swear, under penalty of perjury, that what's in your complaint is true to the best of your knowledge.

So, like I said - I can make up some crazy stuff and sue anyone. The court must take what's in my complaint as true, so if I know what I'm doing, I can make it past a motion to dismiss, and force you, a defendant, to spend money defending against my claims.

With predictable results.

Now, I'm not saying this happens often - it doesn't. But, when it does, it's just as unfair and unjust.

Anyway, this is a technical point of law that I don't expect anyone to be familiar with. It's just one of those things that, under the current rules, loads the deck in favor of the plaintiff getting into court. I don't have a problem with that in good faith cases, but in cases like the one we're talking about here, it's just ridiculous.
 
tdager said:
Ummmm...what happens now? Oh yeah...the attorney looks at the merits of the case and determines if they can win and does it on contingency.

If the lawyer does not feel it is a worthy case they pass.

Of course there would now be REAL risk to the attorney instead of this "lets sue them, they will settle they always do, you take your cut I take mine" crap.
Click to expand...

The reality of it is that lawsuits cost money, LOTs of money. So most attorneys are not going to risk their own money to bring a BS suit. The cost to file that guys suit and get service upon the various parties( here in PA anyway) would have easily cost thousands of dollars and thats just to walk up to the start line. Medical Malpractice suits can cost well over $100K to prosecute so don't think that litigation is just a risk free opportunity at grabbing the golden ring.

There are certainly BS lawsuits I have defended a few AND I have gotten sanctions against the opposing attorney but for the most part a BS lawsuit is a factor of the person not the profession.

Here is a great example of the problems with loser pays:

Man in Car "A" drives into an intersection behind a box truck and blocks the box ( intersection) when the truck moves he now is well into the intersection and sees the light is now red. I throws it in reverse to back up and get out of the intersection. admits to not looking sufficiently.

My client is a woman Pax in the front seat of a car driven by a co worker. her car proceeds through the intersection on a green. The guy back up and slams into the drivers side of the car my client occupies. My client is belted and slams her shoulder into the door or door post to her right tearing her rotator cuff and other shoulder injuries( no prior problems) We try the case. Jury finds that the drivers of both cars were negligent and liable for the accident but also find that their negligence was not a proximal cause of the injury. An absolutly absurd and outrageous finding. Why did they find that way? My client was a black woman with an accent who emmigrated from Africa I agree with this and BOTH defense cousnel agree with this and thought it was a BS verdict. My client didn't have the money to bring the case let alone file an appeal. So now what do I have to pay the insurance carriers legal fees?

I find it interesting that often those that call for a loser pays system are the same that think its unfair that in the criminal system folks with LOT of money can hire big guns and often get aquitted ( Think O.J) Those with the money will always be able to crush those without in a loser pays civil system.

Also many not in the legal profession are unaware that in the Federal System and in many state systems there is a method of recovering for frivolous actions but it is not automatic.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Here's a particular problem, in my eyes: complaints aren't required to be "verified." What I mean by that is that you, as a plaintiff, aren't required to swear, under penalty of perjury, that what's in your complaint is true to the best of your knowledge.
Click to expand...

Ah but in Pennsylvania they are. Every civil compalint must have the following verification:

VERIFICATION​

I, _________, verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This verification is being made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

Plus in PA if you want to bring a professional malpractice action such as a med mal case you have to have what is called a Letter of Merit. That means befor proceeding you have to obtain a letter from a person in the profession that the claim has merit.
 
AdamZ said:
Ah but in Pennsylvania they are. Every civil compalint must have the following verification:


VERIFICATION​


I, _________, verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This verification is being made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Click to expand...


Good for Pennsylvania! I think that's a great thing.

In reality, it probably doesn't have a huge effect (because the problem isn't a huge one to begin with), but the threat of a prosecution for perjury is always there. And, sooner or later, it will be exercised.

Plus in PA if you want to bring a professional malpractice action such as a med mal case you have to have what is called a Letter of Merit. That means befor proceeding you have to obtain a letter from a person in the profession that the claim has merit.
Click to expand...

Colorado has the same basic idea - you have to get a "Certificate of Review," or something like that, from a professional in the field. While there will always be hired guns, it at least prevents the obviously frivolous cases from being filed.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Not in a pro se action....

FWIW, I've seen very few cases that I've felt are frivolous. Frankly, it's not anywhere near as big a problem as people think it is. Doesn't mean that it's not something to be "crushed like worrum" when it's seen, but there are far more substantial problems in the justice system to be worried about. :yesnod:
Click to expand...
You know how I know it is not as big a problem as people make it out to be?

Because when one of these cases gets filed it makes the news all over the country. Just like an airplane accident, it is rare enough to make news when it happens.
 
Last edited:
JeffDG said:
Personally, let the lawyer who filed come up with the cash.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Also with tort reform comes LOSER pays. So again....the attorney weighs the merits of the case, takes it on contingency, and if he wins he gets ALL his money back plus. If he loses he should have been more selective in his lawsuit.
 
AdamZ said:
The reality of it is that lawsuits cost money, LOTs of money. So most attorneys are not going to risk their own money to bring a BS suit. The cost to file that guys suit and get service upon the various parties( here in PA anyway) would have easily cost thousands of dollars and thats just to walk up to the start line. Medical Malpractice suits can cost well over $100K to prosecute so don't think that litigation is just a risk free opportunity at grabbing the golden ring.

There are certainly BS lawsuits I have defended a few AND I have gotten sanctions against the opposing attorney but for the most part a BS lawsuit is a factor of the person not the profession.

Here is a great example of the problems with loser pays:

Man in Car "A" drives into an intersection behind a box truck and blocks the box ( intersection) when the truck moves he now is well into the intersection and sees the light is now red. I throws it in reverse to back up and get out of the intersection. admits to not looking sufficiently.

My client is a woman Pax in the front seat of a car driven by a co worker. her car proceeds through the intersection on a green. The guy back up and slams into the drivers side of the car my client occupies. My client is belted and slams her shoulder into the door or door post to her right tearing her rotator cuff and other shoulder injuries( no prior problems) We try the case. Jury finds that the drivers of both cars were negligent and liable for the accident but also find that their negligence was not a proximal cause of the injury. An absolutly absurd and outrageous finding. Why did they find that way? My client was a black woman with an accent who emmigrated from Africa I agree with this and BOTH defense cousnel agree with this and thought it was a BS verdict. My client didn't have the money to bring the case let alone file an appeal. So now what do I have to pay the insurance carriers legal fees?

I find it interesting that often those that call for a loser pays system are the same that think its unfair that in the criminal system folks with LOT of money can hire big guns and often get aquitted ( Think O.J) Those with the money will always be able to crush those without in a loser pays civil system.

Also many not in the legal profession are unaware that in the Federal System and in many state systems there is a method of recovering for frivolous actions but it is not automatic.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the system and life...where sometimes crappy things happen to good people and there is no "compensation" for it. *shrug*
 
tdager said:
Exactly. Also with tort reform comes LOSER pays. So again....the attorney weighs the merits of the case, takes it on contingency, and if he wins he gets ALL his money back plus. If he loses he should have been more selective in his lawsuit.
Click to expand...
But not all lawsuits are clear cut. A poor person would have very little chance of finding representation in a borderline or unpopular case.
 
Everskyward said:
But not all lawsuits are clear cut. A poor person would have very little chance of finding representation in a borderline or unpopular case.
Click to expand...

Exactly. How would an individual take on a big company like DuPont or the like if it were loser pays? What attorney would take that on?


Trapper John
 
tdager said:
Welcome to the system and life...where sometimes crappy things happen to good people and there is no "compensation" for it. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Square that and "personal responsibility."
 
tdager said:
Welcome to the system and life...where sometimes crappy things happen to good people and there is no "compensation" for it. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Exactly thats the point why not each side bear his own burden. And if there is something frivilous the system has a method of determing that. There are many cases bought AND defended that are lost but are not frivilous.The flip side of this is what happens when the plaintiff wins? Does the defendant have to pay the plaintiff's attorney? Does the defense attorney have to cough up the cost of defending the person or the plaintiffs attorney's fees because he or she took on a tough defense?
 
...b-b-but Adam- Aren't all lawyers rich, bloodsucking tools? :D

I am no Plaintiffs' lawyer, but I firmly believe an absolute "loser pays" system would ensure that genuine wrongdoers would rarely have a consequence for their actions.
 
SCCutler said:
...b-b-but Adam- Aren't all lawyers rich, bloodsucking tools? :D

I am no Plaintiffs' lawyer, but I firmly believe an absolute "loser pays" system would ensure that genuine wrongdoers would rarely have a consequence for their actions.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd like to see an all or nothing system.

Bozo sues airport for $555,000,000.
Bozo wins case for liability
BUT.....

Judge decides damages are not $555,000,000, so awards nominal ($1) damages.

Next time Bozo will sue for a more reasonable amount.
 
Steve Foley said:
Personally, I'd like to see an all or nothing system.

Bozo sues airport for $555,000,000.
Bozo wins case for liability
BUT.....

Judge decides damages are not $555,000,000, so awards nominal ($1) damages.

Next time Bozo will sue for a more reasonable amount.
Click to expand...
Maybe I am missing something but are you suggesting that the merits of the case matter not and it is whether the plaintiff is 'worthy' or 'less Bozo-ey'?

The plaintiff in this case should not win based on what we know so far. He has not proven anything.
 
Steve Foley said:
Personally, I'd like to see an all or nothing system.

Bozo sues airport for $555,000,000.
Bozo wins case for liability
BUT.....

Judge decides damages are not $555,000,000, so awards nominal ($1) damages.

Next time Bozo will sue for a more reasonable amount.
Click to expand...

This actually already can happen. Its called Remitture and Additure, where the judge can up an insufficient award or reduce and overly high award.
 
Trapper John said:
Exactly. How would an individual take on a big company like DuPont or the like if it were loser pays? What attorney would take that on?


Trapper John
Click to expand...

The ability to sue anyone for anything is part of what makes this country great. But frivolous lawsuits cost us billions every year in terms of increased insurance premiums, higher prices for consumer commodities, and so forth. Somewhere along the line some plaintiffs weren't taught that personal freedom requires the acceptance of personal responsibility. I think society would benefit from teaching that lesson in a tangible way.

"Loser pays" might be going too far, for the reasons mentioned, if the plaintiff loses a case that had some merit prima facie. Hey, you can have a good case, but your opponent may have a better lawyer. There's no need to punish someone for losing a case that could have gone either way.

But in cases that are obviously frivolous and/or without merit, and are ruled as such by the court and summarily dismissed, I think the plaintiff and/or their attorney should be liable. If a pro se plaintiff files a frivolous suit and claims indigence, then file a judgment against him. Maybe it can be deducted from the proceeds of his next lawsuit.

As for the lawyers, it's true that most of these cases are filed pro se. Few attorneys will take on obviously frivolous, meritless cases. But some will.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
But frivolous lawsuits cost us billions every year in terms of increased insurance premiums, higher prices for consumer commodities, and so forth.
Click to expand...

xkcd_citation_needed_edit.jpg


If you are going to make that type of allegation you need to back it up with some facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top