Man Sued For $30K Over $40 Printer He Sold On Craigslist (usatoday.com) 571
An anonymous reader cites an article on USA Today: Selling a used, black-and-white printer through Craigslist seemed simple and straightforward to Doug Costello. It wasn't. What the 66-year-old Massachusetts man didn't know then is that he would spend the next 6 and a half years embroiled in a complicated and confusing legal dispute in Indiana over that printer, which, according to its buyer, was broken. He would find himself liable for about $30,000 in damages. He would pay a lawyer at least $12,000 in his battle to escape the legal mess. And it all started with a piece of hardware he sold online for about $40 in 2009. With shipping and other costs, the total was less than $75, according to court records.Gersh Zavodnik, the printer's buyer, has been described as "prolific, abusive litigant" who has brought dozens of lawsuits against individuals and businesses. He often asks for "astronomical" damages.
Reminds me of (Score:3)
Re:Reminds me of (Score:5, Funny)
For some reason, this whole fiasco reminds me of this scene [youtube.com] from Office Space.
With the part of the printer played by Mr. Zavodnik?
Re: (Score:2)
Default (Score:4)
"Because Costello did not respond to all three requests for admissions within 30 days of receiving them, and did not ask for an extension of time, as required by Indiana trial rules, Costello admitted to the liabilities and damages by default. He also did not appear at a July 2013 hearing, according to court records."
Courts don't like to be ignored. It's the worst possible thing you can do.
Respond promptly and equivocate: "I do not concede your claim. I expect to deny your claim." Equivocation lets you back away from a statement later if it turns out you were wrong or if the statement could have had some unintended legal meaning.
Re:Default (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue here is that there is no evidence that he was ever served with the requests for admissions (he says he wasn't):
"Costello said he never received the requests for admissions and was not notified of the hearing."
I don't know how process serving works in that state, but in my state there is a record if someone was served with a summons or legal document. It seems inane that there appears to be no such verification in this case.
Re: (Score:3)
equivocate:
use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself
"I do not concede your claim" neither agrees nor disagrees with the claim. It makes no commitment, no statement of truth. It answers a yes/no question with "maybe."
US Legal system (Score:5, Insightful)
Where it's not about whether you win or lose, it's about bankrupting the opponent
Re:US Legal system (Score:5, Interesting)
Does it work differently in any other country?
Re:US Legal system (Score:5, Informative)
Yes they do. In some countries loser has to pay for all court costs. This prevents people and companies from bring a suit they know they will lose.
and in some case it leads to companies fine print (Score:3, Insightful)
and in some case it leads to companies fine print saying we will use our Million dollar legal team on you.
Re: (Score:3)
Alternatively, that benefits large companies who can when through sheer will and money and add another burden to the loser as well as letting the company recoup its costs
Re:US Legal system (Score:4, Interesting)
Does it work differently in any other country?
In many other countries, individuals and small businesses have little or no access to the legal system. America's legal system can be abused, but it is still superior to most others. It is not difficult to defend yourself without going bankrupt. You need to educate yourself, and do as much of the work yourself. If you trust your lawyer, you will definitely get screwed. In most legal situations, your primary adversary is your own lawyer, not the opposing party. Online resources have made it far easier to go pro per.
The USAToday article is very biased. The defendant mostly screwed himself by losing documents (and then claiming he never received them) and not responding before deadlines. The courts don't put up with that crap. The facts don't matter if you don't deliver them to the court. He was an idiot, and he left the court to decide based on a preponderance of the evidence that all came from the plaintiff.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The appeals court threw out that $30k judgment as having no basis in reality, and 'The appeals court ordered the trial court to hold a hearing to determine whether the case should be dismissed "based on Zavodnik's repeated, flagrant, and continuing failure to comply with Indiana's rules of procedure." '
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't explain why the courts of this particular area kept allowing an obvious legal troll to keep filing follow-ons to a case that he lost at the outset. This Zavodnick character must know dirt about some judge's family to get preferential access to the legal system.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In what kind of screwed up world does not responding to a request for an admission of guilt make you liable for a million dollars in damages?
In the imaginary made-up world of USAToday journalism. This was a civil lawsuit, which doesn't even have a concept of "guilt" and "innocence". I have don't know what actually happened, but it certainly wasn't what TFA described. My best guess is that he failed to respond to interrogatories.
Re: (Score:3)
In the imaginary made-up world of USAToday journalism. This was a civil lawsuit, which doesn't even have a concept of "guilt" and "innocence".
Uh, Bill, could you please point to the statement in the USA Today article which uses the word "guilt" or "innocence"?? (Hint: those words never appear.)
I have don't know what actually happened, but it certainly wasn't what TFA described. My best guess is that he failed to respond to interrogatories.
Well, uh, that's precisely what TFA says -- the plaintiff supposedly sent the defendant statements asking him to admit liability, and the defendant never responded. Whether there was no response because the defendant never received them (as he claimed) or because he was just tired of this BS after the case had already been dismissed multiple times, the de
Re: (Score:3)
"Do you want the judge to the gatekeeper to who is allowed to file and what they can file?"
When a plaintiff has just lost a small-claims case and then immediately turns around and files vague motions on an out-of-state defendant for huge amounts of damages, I think a judge should have the right to laugh such crap right out of his courtroom. Civil-court judges, after all, have the right o reduce damages they feel are ridiculous.
And when a plaintiff has an established record of filing baseless suits, it shoul
Re: (Score:3)
If you trust your lawyer, you will definitely get screwed. In most legal situations, your primary adversary is your own lawyer, not the opposing party.
This happened to a friend of mine. She lost an arm and part of her vision in an accident, and also got PTSD. The lawyer she contracted to do the work to get her disability benefits showed in court one week after the deadline. Now she's unable to work and unable to receive disability benefits.
She tried then finding a lawyer that would help her get this overturned. No lawyer she contacted wanted to touch the case, because they all said they work for workers' compensation, so they cannot do anything against it
Re:US Legal system (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it work differently in any other country?
Yes. In countries where the loser pays the legal fees automatically by default there's a lot less of this sue over every stupid thing bullshit.
Re:US Legal system (Score:4, Insightful)
In countries where the loser pays the legal fees, the person with more money is never taken to court because suing will bankrupt the little guy if he loses. I'm not going to sue for my $500 loss if I have a 10% chance of losing and he'll spend 30k defending himself. Loser pays means that poor and middle class can't seek justice at all.
Re:US Legal system (Score:4, Informative)
In countries where the loser pays the legal fees, the person with more money is never taken to court because suing will bankrupt the little guy if he loses. I'm not going to sue for my $500 loss if I have a 10% chance of losing and he'll spend 30k defending himself. Loser pays means that poor and middle class can't seek justice at all.
In Germany, for a $500 case the cost will be around $100. The lawyer won't do much work, and the judge will also not do much work, for a $500 case.
Re:US Legal system (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing, but the rich dude will only have the statutory fees reimbursed in the case he wins the lawsuit. The lawyer fees are specified by the law on remuneration of attorneys, so if you want to pay more than that, it will make your lawyer happy, but won't matter in the court.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:US Legal system (Score:5, Interesting)
In Britain, this sort of thing would probably be dealt with in a Small Claims Court, and would cost next to nothing for the defendant to represent himself. The outrageous damages would be viewed by a judge as outright silliness and dismissed; even were the defendant to lose, the most that would happen would be the cost of his printer plus the other part's costs (which he could apply to the court to "tax" if he felt them unreasonable).
This sort of thing would also likely get the serial litigant declared to be a Vexatious Litigant. the Uk Government keeps a public list of these people, who must seek a court's permission before embarking on any litigation whatsoever, because they have shown themselves to be time-wasters in the past.
Re: (Score:3)
In the US legal system (i.e. this case), it was dealt with in small claims court without lawyers and the respondent (Costello) won. As far as he was concerned, it was over.
Then the guy who sued appealed by suing again in a higher court. Depending on which version of events you want to believe, Costello then ignored everything about that new lawsuit (including "settlement" offers) and didn't respond at all, or else the guy suing him never actually sent him the papers.
In order to speed up civil trials, the co
Re: (Score:3)
the Uk Government keeps a public list of these people
An easily accessible public list [www.gov.uk].
Re: (Score:3)
In countries where the loser pays the legal fees, the person with more money is never taken to court because suing will bankrupt the little guy if he loses. I'm not going to sue for my $500 loss if I have a 10% chance of losing and he'll spend 30k defending himself. Loser pays means that poor and middle class can't seek justice at all.
Of course not. That would be stupid. And we're not stupid. First for a $500 loss (that the courts don't want to deal with, thank you very much, that's what insurance companies are for if it's that type of matter), there is a simplified "small claims" court proceedings, where costs are much less, and you pay your own lawyer if you want/need one.
For larger cases it's indeed loser pays, but there are set fees and a reasonableness standard. So you can't really "outspend" your opponent and hope to claim all that
Re:US Legal system (Score:5, Informative)
Here in west australia you would bring a claim like this to the small claims tribunal, or in other states magistrates course. You generally dont employ lawyers at these things, and its largely a couple of people resolving a dispute in front of the judge whos primarily there to mediate the dispute rather than award outrageous and punitive damages. Its pretty cheap, and appropriate for small claims.
The littigant would have been awarded $75 (the amount he paid) and possibly a refund of his court fees.
Re:US Legal system (Score:5, Interesting)
And that's how these things would normally be handled here as well.
In fact, it is mentioned in the article that it *did* go to small claims first, where the plaintiff asked for a ridiculous court-maximum of $6000 (for a $75 online purchase). That got found in favor of the defendant after the plantiff apparently admitted to destroying/disposing of the printer and had no further evidence of it not being as described in the sale.
Only after he lost in small claims did he somehow then take it to additional courts. I have a few thoughts based on the Indiana Supreme Court actually knowing this guy by name and commenting on his usage of the courts -- but the words "libel suit" are coming to my mind so I'll just keep my impressions to myself.
Re:US Legal system (Score:4, Insightful)
In the US, people sometimes bring a lawyer to TRAFFIC court if they want a good chance of having the ticket dismissed.
Litigation is big, HUGE business. Where else can you be on the hook for more than $10,000 for downloading a single mp3?
Re:US Legal system (Score:4, Informative)
Does it work differently in any other country?
I don't know about other countries but in here in Finland you can only sue for real damages and costs, not astronomic sums like this. So here you could sue for 40 dollars plus legal costs in this case.
Re:US Legal system (Score:5, Interesting)
Does it work differently in any other country?
In Germany, the judge first figures out how much we are arguing about, here: $30,000. Or $29,955 if the guy offered to return the $45. Then the judge looks up what the fees or the court and the lawyers would be for a $30,000 case, maybe $3,000 altogether. That's what court and lawyers get (court is not free).
Should the judge order a payment of $60, that's 0.2% of what they argued about, then the defendent pays $60 plus 0.2% of the cost (court and both lawyers), that's another six dollars, while the plaintiff gets $60 and pays 99.8% of the cost, that is $2,994.,
That's why people in Germany don't go to court and ask for ridiculous amounts of money.
Re:US Legal system (Score:5, Informative)
Shipping? (Score:3, Informative)
So, you left a paper trail... Craigslist sales should always be in person, cash, and otherwise as anonymous as possible. Use a separate gmail account, fake name, protect yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I'd rather get robbed than lose $12k-$30k in court. You don't have to shoot me, I'll give up everything I am carrying with me.
Re:Shipping? (Score:4, Interesting)
actually, I had lots of great experiences with craigslist; we used it almost exclusively for finding roomates. I had a couple of issues with scammers who delayed me by a day or two, and the usual issue of occasional bad roomates, but nothing worst than you find anywhere.
It is hillariously shady sometimes, or at least, people think it is.
I found some random crap in my basement left by a long departed (evicted, deadbeat) roomate and realized I could get $50 for a turntable he left behind. So I look it up to figure a price and put it up on craigslist. I based it on model numbers and ebay postings, and knocked a few bucks off based on other posts due to missing needles (I found those much later). Well maybe the price was low because the guy who called about it was a bit sketchy about it being stolen.
They came over, they bought it, they still were all nervous. As we wrap up a buddy of mine calls, we were heading out to lunch, so I walk out with them...and he rolls up.... 50 years old, perfect silver hair, dark sunglasses, and the blackest Ford LTD obvious former police cruiser you ever saw.
They looked at me and their eyes went wide "who is that", I just smiled, said "Just a friend of mine, don't worry about it" and walked over to the car. Lol let them have their fantasy if they want. They don't need to know they just watched two IT nerds who work from home occasionally heading off to get subs and bitch about work.
We need Loser pays (Score:5, Insightful)
Loser pays would tamp down on a lot of people who use the process to punish people.
Re:We need Loser pays (Score:5, Insightful)
Loser pays would also make it basically impossible to sue any entity that has more money than you. The risk would be far too great, even if you had a legitimate dispute.
Let the judge award "loser pays" only after meeting a high threshold. Such as in situations where no rational person would consider it a legitimate dispute.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not about the legitimacy of the case. It's about the realization that a large corporation can overwhelm any legal team a typical individual could hire, and that even in a fair system the corporation is risking far less than the individual. (As in, "a tiny percentage of one quarter's profits" against "entire life savings"). There's a big difference between "I'm confident enough to risk 10% of the quarter's legal budget" and "I'm confident enough to risk everything I own".
My apologies for not posting thi
Re:We need Loser pays (Score:5, Informative)
How is there any risk if you have a legitimate case? The only reason a legitimate case would lose is if they didn't have the resources to adequately present their case, and if the loser pays, then this ceases to be an issue.
I Am Not A Lawyer, but my husband is. He often counsels his clients to go into settlement with decent terms, even if they don't get every last thing they want. But sometimes they are stubborn.. they refuse to give the other side anything at all, because they are so convinced of their righteousness. But the court system is a crapshoot, even if you have a good case. First, it's going to be pricey regardless of the outcome. Second... you don't know what a jury will believe. You don't know when you'll get the judge on a bad day. You don't know if your client will lose his temper and shout the wrong thing. There are a lot of variables that you just CAN'T control.
I fear a loser-pays system because you can be in the right, and you can still lose a case. You can still get burned. It's a risk, and sometimes risks pay off, and sometimes they don't.
Also, under loser-pays, the little guy might be guilty of the offense, but it's a very minor offense -- like, say, sharing a song on a P2P network. That small offense would involve exorbitant fees for the loser.
When people think "loser pays," they're usually thinking "the big bad rich guy pays for the legal costs of the little guy who got wronged." But the flip side of the coin is that justice is not perfect even if everyone is entitled to it.
Re:We need Loser pays (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
You clearly have very little experience dealing with court cases.
The English Law (used in most Western democracies outside the US) system is loser pays, and in the UK it's constantly being called to be put under review due to powerful companies abusing defamation & libel laws to stifle criticism, and put pressure on smaller parties/individuals to fold before anything even gets to the courts.
Court cases can be expensive to defend, especially when the other side has a well financed legal army & the on
Re: (Score:3)
The jury decides whatever it decides. It can be totally in the face of all the evidence presented. You can make the odds in your favor if you have a good presentation, but there on no guarantees. Now, you pay $10,000,000 if you lose. Up for that? 95% chance you'll win your $5000 or whatever in damages, 5% chance you'll lose everything. Not a good system.
There's some advantage to "loser pays the lesser of the two sides legal costs", but that does nothing to curtail serial abusers, as they never hire la
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This works in theory, but it would be terrible in practice. Imagine if you had a good reason to sue Microsoft, for instance. They can spend millions defending themselves, and in our justice system, unfortunately, throwing more money at the problem is correlated with winning more. You could have a legitimate claim, they get out of it on a technicality, and now you're on the hook for millions.
Perhaps we could work something like: loser pays the min of the plaintiff or defendant legal fees to the winner. So in
Re: (Score:2)
Loser pays would tamp down on a lot of people who use the process to punish people.
No, it would just ensure that every large corporation would show up with a team of 50 lawyers to every case. Knowing that you could end up paying each one of them $500/ hour if you lose because your lawyer was having a bad day, or the judge made a mistake. Including the amount of time each would be billing for for case prep and such, it would mean financial ruin from most people if they lose.
Essentially it would be the end of any recourse for people when it comes to large corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Has it worked that way in other countries with Loser pays?
Re:We need Loser pays (Score:5, Interesting)
What we need is loser pays the winner the lowest of the 2 sets of legal fees. Let MegaCorp show up with 50 lawyers. If you have 1, that's all they're getting.
Double legal fees will be painful for the small guy, but small enough of a risk to give the right people hope if the case is strong enough.
Likewise, if small guy wins, you collect your legal fees and pay nothing to your lawyer. As it should be. Winning a court case should never be a Pyrrhic victory.
Re: (Score:3)
You have just incentivized the attorneys to drive costs through the roof. After all, somebody else is going to pay them eventually!
Re:We need Loser pays (Score:5, Funny)
No, it would just ensure that every large corporation would show up with a team of 50 lawyers to every case. Knowing that you could end up paying each one of them $500/ hour if you lose because your lawyer was having a bad day, or the judge made a mistake. Including the amount of time each would be billing for for case prep and such, it would mean financial ruin from most people if they lose.
Again, how this would play out in Germany for a â500 case: This team of 50 lawyers turn up in court. Judge looks at his watch. They all tell the judge their names. Judge decides that this is enough time spent on a â500 case and sends them all home, no claims stated, case lost.
Re: (Score:3)
Think about it, if he has a lot of victims then it may be difficult to pin it on any one of 'em if no one talks.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and the enormous sums american corps spend on lawyers is just for fun, not because they think it can affect the outcome.
Have some sanity checks in loser pays... (Score:3)
The simple solution here would be to have some sane limits.
IE if plaintiff #1 spends $5k on the case and loses against a guy who spends $100k, maybe #1's liability should be limited to something around $5k.
Or have the judge make a decision -
without basis: loser pays
has basis: IE the situation was complicated enough that yes, a court was needed. No court costs.
Note: "No basis" would include a company dragged into court for something it should darn well have paid for earlier and without the fuss.
The words "AS IS" are your friends (Score:5, Informative)
Along with
"No warranty from seller"
"Seller assumes no liability"
"All sales final"
"No Refunds"
Re:The words "AS IS" are your friends (Score:5, Insightful)
None of them would have helped here, since the actual facts never went to court. Basically if someone files a crazy lawsuit and motions you must respond or lose by default. The purpose is to avoid stalling and to get as many things as possible settled so the court can only deal with the issues in dispute, but the "fallback strategy" is not good. If the motion is not answered it should go to the court for a court order, if the court order is not answered it should go to contempt. Having a "non-action" count as admission should be a last resort.
It ought to be possible (Score:2)
for district attorneys to file criminal charges against those who are clearly and repeatedly abusing the civil litigation process. Tens of thousands of dollars claimed over a forty dollar printer? It's hard to view this as anything other than theft, and thieves have done hard jail time for far lower dollar values than those sought by the plaintiff in this case. Civil law shouldn't be a lottery, and criminal law should have the power to prevent people from treating it as one.
Re: (Score:2)
Disbar the plaintiff's lawyer.
Re: (Score:3)
Disbar the plaintiff's lawyer.
FTA: [usatoday.com]
The printer's buyer was Gersh Zavodnik, a 54-year-old Indianapolis man known to many in the legal community as a frequent lawsuit filer who also represents himself in court.
Not sure how they disbar the guy if he's not a lawyer...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If he gets ruled as a vexatious litigant, they basically have to get a judge to sign off on every lawsuit they bring before it can go court. Which can end up making more work for whatever judge or judges get saddled with reading through that sort of nonsense....
Loser pays (Score:3)
While I am not an expert in the US legal system it seems like having the loser pay the legal bills might reduce some of this predatory litigation.
The question is, how much influence does the US electorate have over this kind of decision? People who rely on winning through bankruptcy are also the people who have the kind of money to lobby to maintain the current system.
Re: (Score:2)
Loser pays would also make it basically impossible to sue any entity that has more money than you. The risk would be far too great, even if you had a legitimate dispute.
Let the judge award "loser pays" only after meeting a high threshold. Such as in situations where no rational person would consider it a legitimate dispute.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For example, "gay marriage" and wedding cakes. Plaintiff believes that any public business has to serve them. Which is true. Defendant believes that the First Amendment gives them the right to refuse service to people. Which is also true.
Both believe they have a legitimate case. The intersection of those edge cases will result in a loser, despite both having a legitimate case
Re: (Score:2)
This is why a cap can be placed on recoverable fees and has in many parts of the world.
http://www.policyarchive.org/h... [policyarchive.org]
In short, a rich company hoping to scare off litigation by advertising a team of expensive lawyers or an extended litigation period would not be able to as those lawyers would recognise that they would only be able to share in a limited, small pot of cash.
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone, rich or poor, has equal protection under the law.
Re: (Score:2)
"While I am not an expert in the US legal system it seems like having the loser pay the legal bills might reduce some of this predatory litigation."
The problem is that it would also prevent a lot of justifiable litigation.
Would you risk taking a big company to court if you lost you had to pay their costs?
Re: (Score:2)
Vexatious Litigant (Score:2, Interesting)
Typically this is solved by labeling the plaintiff as a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation Vexatious Litigant. Then it becomes harder for the plaintiff to file lawsuits.
Abusive, stupid laws, WILL get abused. (Score:2)
The problem comes from the assumption by the lawmakers that businesses were always honest. They basically said anyone that doesn't answer a legal demand must be guilty, but they made no attempt to ensure that the legal demands were a) actually sent and b) believed to be real, rather than a typical scare tactic used by con men.
The lawmakers in question should be flooded with legal demands from non-existent cases to assist them in learning the era of their ways.
Awesome legal hacking by plaintif (Score:5, Insightful)
The winning technique used by the plaintiff was thus:
The judge, who awarded him $30K (plus interest), acknowledged the amount is "seemingly high" and the judgment "may seem extreme for the breach of contract for the purchase of a printer." But he wrote that he's constrained by how the Supreme Court had previously interpreted a state trial rule, called Rule 36 [in.gov], which sets the 30-day deadline for responding to requests for admissions.
The appeal court noted:
Yes, he did, you dimwits. You sat on that rule for years and saw nothing wrong with it. You saw nothing wrong with it applied by your fellow pedigreed lawyers acting just as predatory — if only a little less obviously — against others. Suddenly, a man comes around filing his own lawsuits, representing himself in court — and you find yourself bound by your own arcane rules.
"Oh, but we did not mean for it be used that way." Well, you should not have written it that way then...
Whether the sold printer was broken, whether the seller really did try to sell a lemon — that's small potatoes. What pan Zavodnik exposed was the incompetence of Indiana's judges. Hurrah for the hacker!
Re: (Score:2)
The way to prove laws are unjust is not to make it a terrible hardship for an innocent bystander. That makes you far worse than a badly written law.
Don't try to defend a lawsuit yourself. (Score:5, Insightful)
Justice must be blind, but not stupid. (Score:3)
Edens acknowledged the amount is "seemingly high" and the judgment "may seem extreme for the breach of contract for the purchase of a printer." But he wrote that he's constrained by how the Supreme Court had previously interpreted a state trial rule
He certainly didn't find himself constrained by common sense.
countersue (Score:2)
He should counter-sue for barratry, libel, slander, arson, extortion, jaywalking and anything else he can think of.
About a million - nah, make it two - should be about right.
Barratry (Score:2)
How is this not Barratry or Vexatious Litigation?
The RIAA... (Score:4, Insightful)
INS (Score:3, Interesting)
Did anyone else notice this?
"Zavodnik, a native of Ukraine who moved to the United States in 1987 under a grant of political asylum"
I'm assuming that he went to the U.S. to escape the U.S.S.R., but that fell to pieces a few years after arriving. I don't know what his current immigration status is, but wouldn't asylum eventually be revoked? Seems like you wouldn't get granted asylum from a government that no longer exist (barring the current political crisis with Crimea, which occurred over 20 years after he left).
Re: (Score:3)
You don't sell stuff to people on a service that does not review buyers.
Re:How do you protect yourself from this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also donations are tax deductible (Score:2, Informative)
If you are at the threshold of itemized deductions donating an item can make almost as much money as selling it used, since you can write off donated items.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're just going to makeup values, why not just makeup the donations in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's not protection in the sense of "make such abusive litigation tactics fail so sleazeballs don't try it." It's just protection in the sense of "I wo
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet this guy goes around looking for people with assets. He won't bother suing a poor person. How does one protect oneself from this kind of predatory legal action?
Not necessarily. You want someone with enough money to pay a few thousand bucks but not enough to immediately hire lawyers to deal with your BS. Predatory legal action like this works best against the average middle class guy who won't hire a lawyer until he's already been screwed. Selling a used printer is the perfect mark because it means that you're rich enough to own a few pieces of electronics but still poor enough not to throw a $40 printer in the trash.
A similar situation happened with my brother.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Do action figures count as assets? Asking for a friend.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
But it wasn't just one person. It was an entire court system that wasn't able to say enough is enough before the sale of a $40 printer cost $12,000 dollars. That even though the plaintiff had already thrown away the only evidence that the printer didn't work AND was well known by the court for filing frivolous lawsuits..
As for medicine, in the U.S. you'll pay a lot of specialist fees but not get anything that couldn't have been done just as well by a nurse with a flip book.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:America is broken (Score:5, Interesting)
Off-topic, but since you brought it up ...
I was four years old. My parents had an overly exuberant keeshond that delighted in nipping at me. It is possible the malevolent hound was only being playful and socializing, but to me it was behaving more like a competitive, overbearing sibling. For example, it never nipped at me when an adult was around. One winter day, after we were all outside in the snow, my mom went upstairs and this treacherous canine knocked me down from behind and nipped at my ears "playfully". Still in my one-piece snowsuit and wearing mittens, I'd had enough of this cantankerous pupstart's behavior, and I demonstrated the evolutionary advantages of an opposable thumb by grabbing his snout with both mittened hands, and finishing with a powerful argument delivered by human incisors directly upon his loathsome, black, wet nose!
Naturally, the little bitch shrieked and whined theatrically over the comeuppance, but I stood over him triumphant. "How do you like it?!"
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Small Claims Court? (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't. His cased was dismissed from small claims, because he threw out the evidence (printer). He refiled in Superior Court with a bunch of new complaints. He didn't sue for $30,000, what he did was send a Request for Admission to the opponent requesting he admit to owing the 30,000 or the 300,000 or the 600,000. Marion County has a rule that if you don't respond to a Request for Admission in 30 days then you are presumed to have admitted the fact at issue. That was the plaintiff's game here. Send a bunch of requests and hope they don't respond.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the defendant screwed up a little bit, but any court that allows a plaintiff to play this kind of game is still broken. What you have here is an apparently well known vexatious litigant, and the solution is to remove his ability to file suits or use the court system at all without prior approval.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
He's supported and part of a whole crowd of citizens that like fleecing people by abusing the law. Why don't you advocate changing the horrible system that allows this shit in the first place? Sending one of them away isn't going to change a thing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Sadly, in the US, this is only illegal under California law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Not being able to sue over someone outside of small claims court for a $40 printer is not a Utopian society it is plain common sense.
Deporting what I assume are citizens, over a what is essentially a minor dispute, no one was killed, or hurt in the matter. Is essentially the same type insane overreaction that causes a $40 dispute to escalate to a $30K court case. If someone just keeps suing give them a warning or two that if they continue to do so they will be band from filing any further legal action.
This is not the fault of Zavodnik, it is the fault of the legal system that allowed it in the first place. Any sane judge should have just awarded one of them $40, any sane court of appeal should just have told the person who filed the appeal, stop wasting our time, and charged them a couple of hundred dollars in admin fees.
There no need for utopia here.
Re: (Score:2)
But on the gripping hand [...]
When did the three-armed Moties escape from the blockade?