http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0304101coat1.html?lame

Good luck with that involuntary bailment claim. I'm not sure which is funnier, the litany of potential defendants responsible for this dumbass leaving his coat unmonitored (he might actually be admitting to a federal misdemeanor) or his claim that a Polo jacket, even a leather one, costs $800.

What a guy. Business must be slow for him, if he's willing to sue over an $800 coat.

He'll probably win.

I've been to the food court at the airport several times.

My guess is the guy is not going to file suit. He is merely hoping to get someone scared enough to drop him a check. Will he file? Who knows. I can give some horror stories of people filing over more friviolous matters (not just pro se litigants either).

Is there such a thing as a good attorney?

From other topics, I understand FFT's point about the problem with a "loser pays" system. That said, in a case like this, should this clown actually sue and (I assume) lose, is there any way he could have to pay for the defense's legal costs?

Have we forgotton the 65 million dollar pants? :rolleyes:

Nice pants!

queencitybuckeye wrote: From other topics, I understand FFT's point about the problem with a "loser pays" system. That said, in a case like this, should this clown actually sue and (I assume) lose, is there any way he could have to pay for the defense's legal costs?

Loser pays would be the most horrible thing I could think of. How could someone sue a large corperation that could put 20 lawers at 450 dollars an hour on the case.

If anything the Bar Associations should dicipline the attorneys that bring the frivolous suits.

queencitybuckeye wrote: From other topics, I understand FFT's point about the problem with a "loser pays" system. That said, in a case like this, should this clown actually sue and (I assume) lose, is there any way he could have to pay for the defense's legal costs?

I believe most states have a "Rule 11" type rule that allows a court, in its discretion, to award costs/fees for frivolous suits. Though I'm not a litigator, my understanding is that judges rarely do this because it can get murky on whether a suit is frivolous or just stupid/waste of time. Still, this case strikes me as definitely moving in the "Rule 11" territory, where such an award is a possibility.

"is there any way he could have to pay for the defense's legal costs? "

Even for a (likely) dismissal, probably not. I'm not familiar with Texas civil procedure but generally the standard for recoupment of fees is fairly high. The "check" is that the complainant has to consider their own costs in the proceeding. In this instance, I'm guessing this moron is just puffing, although he looks silly in the process. There are so many strange things about the complaint (I did notice the Vegas trip for New Year's) it is difficult to even begin dissecting it. Maybe it will help his ambulance chasing practice, his firm's website is a doozy - I particularly like the part about tort reform.

fan_from_texas wrote: my understanding is that judges rarely do this because it can get murky on whether a suit is frivolous or just stupid/waste of time.

I'm not too proud to say I'm not sure I get the distinction.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

fan_from_texas wrote: my understanding is that judges rarely do this because it can get murky on whether a suit is frivolous or just stupid/waste of time.

I'm not too proud to say I'm not sure I get the distinction.

I'm no expert on it, but my general sense is that it involves a ton of discretion on behalf of the courts, and the test is probably a little different in each state. I imagine a court would like at (1) whether an actual cause of action was pled, as opposed to a made-up one (i.e., whether the party theoretically could have won); (2) whether the party was sophisticated or unsophisticated (i.e., Goldman Sachs bringing a suit like this is different than John Q. Public bringing it, as presumably GS knows better); (3) whether there have been past lawsuits between the parties (i.e., is this retaliation? Has the party sued dozens of times in the past? Is it an attempt to harass?); (4) how onerous the discovery requests are (i.e., is it merely an attempt to cost the other party money?); and maybe a handful of other factors. I'm not really sure, and it probably depends a lot on the state-specific rules.

I know that when we sign a pleading, we certify with the court that the facts and law are accurate to what we know or should know, and that filing something that we know or should know is inaccurate is grounds for sanctions. I have no idea what the bailment laws are in Texas, but I'm willing to bet this is getting awfully close to an atty filing something wtih the court that he can't possibly think is legit.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

fan_from_texas wrote: my understanding is that judges rarely do this because it can get murky on whether a suit is frivolous or just stupid/waste of time.

I'm not too proud to say I'm not sure I get the distinction.

QBC, to put it in layman's terms what is one man's garbage is another man's treasure--- particularly in a jury trial. I have seen juries return plaintiff's verdicts on cases that you would think there is no chance in hades that they would win and that sounded ridiculous on face value.

To go into what FFT noted above, a key test in most states would be whether a party had a good faith basis to file suit. As an example, if a person were to sue a doctor for medcial malpractice in Ohio, they are required to attach an affdavit from a qualified medical professional opinining they have reviewed the case and they believe the physician deviated from the standard of care resulting in harm to the patient. If it were discovered that an attorney filed suit against a doctor without requesting the medical records (much less having an expert review them) then it could be a cause for the defending party to file a motion for sanctions. However, as noted above, there is a serious reluctance on the courts to impose such sanctions. Particularly if the plaintiff is not represented by counsel or have any money to collect such sanctions.