charliedelta Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I don't blame the idiot pimp for trying. Idiots try stupid crap all the time. I blame the idiot attorney who took the case and the idiot judge that did not dismiss the case. What is our Country turning into?! http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/12/convicted-oregon-pimp-sues-nike-over-lack-shoe-warning-label/?intcmp=latestnews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swatcop Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I say the easiest fix to ridiculous lawsuits is a loser pays clause. You can bring any suit you want, but if you lose, you pay the bill on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charliedelta Posted January 12, 2014 Author Share Posted January 12, 2014 Absolutely. I'm right there with you. But if that were the case, ACLU would argue that this poor pump in jail would have no way to afford to sue Nike when he has been victimized by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdzman Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 All those stupid lawsuits do is jam up the courts and prolong the valid cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Miles Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I say the easiest fix to ridiculous lawsuits is a loser pays clause. You can bring any suit you want, but if you lose, you pay the bill on both sides. +1 Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youngeyes Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Here's part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiG Lady Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 3.1 "A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that its not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. . . ." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youngeyes Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 3.1 "A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that its not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. . . ." As there are a great deal of frivolous lawsuits, it would seem that some of the lawyers were sleeping during that class in law school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniemann Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 The story reads that the lawsuit petition was written by the plaintiff and has not been served. No judges or lawyers involved at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiddler Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Better call Saul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiG Lady Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Pro se clients shouldn't create frivolous lawsuits either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youngeyes Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Pro se clients shouldn't create frivolous lawsuits either. Talking lawyerish is so hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Pro se clients shouldn't create frivolous lawsuits either.Talking lawyerish is so hot. She used to be a brass escort.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve RA Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 As mentioned above, the British system of the loser paying both sets of expenses would really make people think seriously about filing a suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 As mentioned above, the British system of the loser paying both sets of expenses would really make people think seriously about filing a suit. Or, we could take the losers out behind the shed and execute them...along with their lawyers...that would be a deterrent. .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neomet Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Most states actually have a method to accomplish this. It is usually referred to as an Offer of Judgment. Either plaintiff or defendant records their offer with the court. If the offer is not ultimately surpassed by a judgment the opposing party is responsible for costs. This normally does not include attorney fees but costs can get pretty dang high so there is some risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiG Lady Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 She used to be a brass escort . . . And as a result I have more brass in boxes around the apartment than I need. I'm thinking of salvaging some of it out. People need to be counseled on how expensive court trials can really be. They would be less likely to think in those terms if they knew more about the costs (and the possibility of adverse media publicity, in some instances). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmbaccolyte Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) She used to be a brass escort . . . And as a result I have more brass in boxes around the apartment than I need. I'm thinking of salvaging some of it out. People need to be counseled on how expensive court trials can really be. They would be less likely to think in those terms if they knew more about the costs (and the possibility of adverse media publicity, in some instances). Sig Lady,- Thanks for your wisdom, most people don't know that and never stop to think. My little sister has a case coming up where gang members were cruising and looking for trouble and saw a guy working late in his garage. They approached him to steal his tools and one of them shot him. He returned fire and shot the bad guy. The good guy crawled into the house and died in the arms of his wife and young child. The bad guys were caught only because the good guy shot one of them and then the bad guy sought medical treatment. I plan to travel a thousand miles and make my sister breakfast, attend the trial and make her dinner, every day. She's been working very hard to make society work for many years. Edited January 13, 2014 by jmbaccolyte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiG Lady Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 That's incredibly charitable of you. Trials can be hard on EVERYONE involved. EVERYONE. But it IS one way we get things sorted out in our society when the occasion calls for it. So it can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending. Many cases are settled before a trial occurs. Settlement can occur even DURING a trial or even during the time the jury is out. To be practical, it's easier to settle BEFORE even getting to the trial stage. But, again, it depends on the case and who's on trial . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyZip Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 The story reads that the lawsuit petition was written by the plaintiff and has not been served. No judges or lawyers involved at this point. True. This will go nowhere. Better call Saul Loving this!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFlowers Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Sounds about like the FAN who is suing the NFL because his team lost due to a bad call by the ref and therefore did not make the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Ho Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 As mentioned above, the British system of the loser paying both sets of expenses would really make people think seriously about filing a suit. Or, we could take the losers out behind the shed and execute them...along with their lawyers...that would be a deterrent. .. That would be a horrible idea. Executing lawyers, if you think there is an ammo shortage now........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitedog Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 And closed in...10,9,8,7.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outerlimits Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Silver lining is it's Nike-the scumiest company in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bountyhunter Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 That's incredibly charitable of you. Trials can be hard on EVERYONE involved. EVERYONE. But it IS one way we get things sorted out in our society when the occasion calls for it. So it can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending. Many cases are settled before a trial occurs.That is the problem. Plaintiffs know the cost and time is so high they also know how much they can get on a "nuisance" payout to go away. No doubt the system is flagrantly abused, but forcing losers to pay would lock the door to the courthouse for anybody who is not a millionaire. Lawyers would no longer accept contingency cases and only people with big bucks could ever affgord a trial, regardless of the merits of the case. That's a lot worse IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts