Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 16:28:36 GMT -5
Only if the percentage of frivolous/specious/greedy lawsuits is disproportionate to the number of frivolous/specious/greedy lawsuits filed in other contexts. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if small claims court gets as many stupid lawsuits as you see big corporate legal departments handling. I've done a good deal of work for large corporations, both at a law firm and as an in-house attorney. And I'm betting that's true. Actually, though I can't say for sure, I'll bet small claims court gets more stupid lawsuits. Lots of pro se litigants with an ax to grind and no clue what they're doing tend to make for dumb lawsuits. Plus there's little to lose except your time, since it's cheap to go to small claims court.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 16:47:38 GMT -5
Another point, btw. Large corporations with deep pockets have lawyers on staff. When I was in-house at a mega corporation, we hired outside attorneys when we had a yuuge case with lots of discovery involved. But we handled a lot of stuff ourselves, which cut down quite a bit on attorney's fees.
I don't know this for sure, but my hunch is that frivolous lawsuits could be more problematic for a small business that doesn't have in-house attorneys and deep pockets. Thus a small business might be more likely to settle just to make something go away. And thus small businesses might be more likely to be plagued with frivolous lawsuits than a bigly corporation.
When I have time, I'll see if I can figure out if my hunch is correct. I truly have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 16, 2017 16:50:12 GMT -5
The point of the tangent was Vince suggesting that allegations of child sexual abuse by priests should be considered suspect because the Church has a lot of money. Which you and he are both trying to back up with examples of people going after deep pocket corporations. Actually, I'm trying to back up the idea that large corporations with deep pockets attract more lawsuits and--after the tangent--that successful big money lawsuits against the same amplifies this. Disagree. It did not "clearly imply" any such thing. Sure, "infamous" implies controversy, and the lawsuit was controversial, because people argued about it, even if some of that arguing was based on ignorance. I submit that, perhaps, "McDonald's lawsuit" is something that just sets you off (and Cass, as well), insofar as you assume anyone who mentions it is probably confused about the facts, about the results of it, and that grates on you. Hey, I'm the same way when anyone mentions "signing statements"... But the point is, with regard to the McDonald's lawsuit, that's not really advancing any argument you are making, from what I'm seeing. At least not with regard to anything I'm saying. Because you brought it in to the conversation, not me, and not Vince. It was just filler at the end of the article about the Starbucks lawsuit, which again I linked to purposefully as an example of an over-the-top ridiculous lawsuit that I think we can all agree was filled in the hopes of an easy/big payday from a large corporation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 17:02:50 GMT -5
Rob. I'm not "set off", and Amadan doesn't sound angry to me, either. Just saying.
But I do roll my eyes at the Starbucks case. The reason that case made headlines is because it was so extremely dumb and frivolous. That's also why it was kicked out. That doesn't mean that there are zillions of equally frivolous cases.
I realize that my experience as a lawyer for big corporations apparently carries no weight around here, but I didn't simply see my clients being constantly assailed with frivolous lawsuits. That wasn't our big worry -- our worry was cases that actually did have at least some merit.
ETA:
I have settled cases I thought we might possibly have won, if we took it all the way to court. But generally speaking, either I had some doubt about the result, or else the plaintiffs at least had enough to their case that they could drag things out, ask for gobs of discovery, and make it more expensive and time-consuming than it was worth.
But an utterly frivolous case isn't likely to get that far.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 16, 2017 17:16:50 GMT -5
Actually, I'm trying to back up the idea that large corporations with deep pockets attract more lawsuits and--after the tangent--that successful big money lawsuits against the same amplifies this. Well, you've offered that as a theory. You have not backed it up with evidence. Oh come on. Yes, you're right that the McDonald's thing was a tangent, and yes, it does annoy me every time I see it used as a boilerplate example of a frivolous lawsuit. Which it was clearly being used as in that article. The point I'm making is that Starbucks might attract frivolous multimillion dollar lawsuits, but I do not agree with you that the fact that McDonald's was successfully sued (for a non-frivolous lawsuit) encourages frivolous ones, or that such multi-million dollar settlements are doing net harm to society (by making us more litigious or whatever).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 17:37:09 GMT -5
For what it's worth, a bit of legal scholarship. scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=dljThere's a nice discussion of the McDonald's lawsuit in here, used to illustrate the point that "[m]any illustrations of trivial claims and outrageous verdicts also rely on misleading factual accounts." Also worth quoting: Much, much more at the link. There are gobs of supporting footnotes in the article, it being a piece of legal scholarship. Anyway. Suffice to say the author concludes we need some reforms to our justice system -- but not because of a locust plague of frivolous litigation against deep pockets.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 16, 2017 20:33:16 GMT -5
The point of the tangent was Vince suggesting that allegations of child sexual abuse by priests should be considered suspect because the Church has a lot of money. Which you and he are both trying to back up with examples of people going after deep pocket corporations. Actually, I'm trying to back up the idea that large corporations with deep pockets attract more lawsuits and--after the tangent--that successful big money lawsuits against the same amplifies this. I think this is what I'm trying to say. I don't think that at first there was any reason to think the deep pockets of the church created the people coming forward. You would look at the church and think, who the hell would believe me. But, once the flood started, and the church was in damage control? I think then the deep pocket theory has more merit. It still wouldn't be my go to place, but once you have that bandwagon effect, it's easier to to jump on board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 20:44:04 GMT -5
So, basically, I conclude there's pretty much nothing I could possibly post that could convince you guys that there isn't this outsized rash of litigants rushing to file frivolous lawsuits against corporations because deep pockets.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 16, 2017 20:52:59 GMT -5
So, basically, I conclude there's pretty much nothing I could possibly post that could convince you guys that there isn't this outsized rash of litigants rushing to file frivolous lawsuits against corporations because deep pockets. I don't think we're talking about a rash. I think we're talking about existence. They exist. It may be a small %, but it's there.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 16, 2017 20:57:53 GMT -5
Considering that I never said that, I don't know why I would need convincing.
AGAIN, my point is simple: entities with large resources are a target because they have those resources. And there are people willing to lie and/or play the victim to for a potential payday. Again, as I said, there always have been.
Are you disagreeing with this?
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 16, 2017 21:01:08 GMT -5
I'm not in this, but how I read Cass' posts is that: it exists, but it's not nearly as big a deal as it's made out to be, and it's not growing; if anything, it's somewhat less than it used to be.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 16, 2017 21:03:00 GMT -5
Of course there's the other aspect of this. The old saying you can't get blood from a stone.
I might be quicker to sue a large corp for something because I can sue them for more and expect to get paid for it, whereas the same lawsuit against a small shop would not yield the same results. That doesn't speak to validity of the claim.
If I'm at a local mom and pop store and I slip and fall because of a wet floor, I can sue for negligence. I can do the same thing if it happens the building that's owned by a large corp. But the fact is, I might get more out of the large corp. There's a lot of time and $ involved in a suit, so if the payday isn't worth it, I might not bother.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 16, 2017 21:10:54 GMT -5
I'm not in this, but how I read Cass' posts is that: it exists, but it's not nearly as big a deal as it's made out to be, and it's not growing; if anything, it's somewhat less than it used to be. I read them the same way, but I'm not arguing that the phenomenon is growing, nor am I arguing that it represents a Big Deal. All I was doing was replying to your question to Vince with the relatively simple idea that the resources of entities like the Catholic Church can make them a target for lawsuits. As near as I can tell, Amadan agrees with this, via "water is wet," and since Cass is agreeing with Amadan, I would think she does, too. So I'm not clear on what, exactly, the argument is anymore.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 16, 2017 21:14:37 GMT -5
(replying to Vince)
Okay, Vince is talking commonsense what-if scenarios, and Cass is citing direct personal experience, and links to reputable sources, showing relevant data. *Those* are the things I would call facts. A hypothetical about how much money you might get is not a fact.
I guess if you only want to discuss theory, then the data doesn't matter. But man, if I wanted to know what really happens, I'd ask someone who's been there - and is still there.
(replying to Rob)
I think we're in the same boat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 21:19:43 GMT -5
I'm not in this, but how I read Cass' posts is that: it exists, but it's not nearly as big a deal as it's made out to be, and it's not growing; if anything, it's somewhat less than it used to be. Oh, poetinacarterpage. You just... get me. <3
|
|