A California psychologist has filed a class-action lawsuit against the California Angels (I refuse to call them "The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim") because of a Mothers' Day giveaway. Last year on Mothers' Day, the Angeles sponsered a family day event at which every woman over 18 was given a pink totebag. The psychologist in question claims this was discriminatory against men and people under 18. The Angels are again offering a Mothers' Day giveaway this year: a free tote to "the first 25000 people" over the age of 18. So, yes, men--though not boys or girls--will be offered a Mothers' Day tote.

One game last season, the Dodgers gave all in attendance a coupon for a free Dodger Dog. Since I keep kosher and wouldn't be able to use the coupon, I merely gave mine to a person sitting near me. Maybe I should have filed a lawsuit claiming discrimination. wink wink I could have been rich!

~Adam

I hate Lawyers.

R

not that I'm a big fan of lawyers either but they don't take cases unless they have a client

it's this psychologist that is suing

Not necessarily, theodad; too many of my colleagues still get away with barratry, the practice of drumming up clients to fit the suit. In fact, federal funds support the practice; it's called the Legal Services Corporation - and ought to be abolished. :mad:

Rob, I can well understand why you, and many businessmen, hate lawyers ... until you need us to protect yourselves fom OTHER lawyers! :cool:

That said, I'm very comfortable representing consumers in the Cal. AG's office, especially when we go up against racketteers who routinely fleece the public. If they sometimes turn out to be "respectable businessmen," well, maybe they weren't so respectable after all! frown

I detest the fact that I need a small legal department to keep me from the depredations of hundreds of other scum sucking leeches.

At any given time during the past six years I have averaged about a dozen lawsuits per month.

I have three guys suing me because we violated their personal privacy by taking their computers - which belonged to the company they worked for BTW - and digitally reconstructing the data they thought they had erased off their HD's - evidence that they were embezzling from the company's shareholders to the tune of millions. The logic here is that we reconstructed ALL the data on the HD - not just the work related product, thereby violating their personal privacy - therefore all the evidence should be thrown out and we should be financially responsible for exposing them to ...

I have a guy suing me because he was trespassing on my companies property late at night and fell into some spiked hawthorn bushes.

I have people suing me who I let go after they failed the 'trial period'. They lied on the job application.

I have a guy suing me because I discriminated against him on the basis of his sexual orientation - he was actually fired for his violation of internet computing policy after three warnings based on 6 month audits - (He is apparently gay, and I never even met him).

I have people suing me because they slipped on our sidewalk during a blizzard two years ago.

I have people suing me because they think I have stolen their business process - even though I have been in business and providing services for six years longer than they have.

I have an ex employee suing me for the rights to work product that he worked on for a year while I paid him. He never made the product work, it was done by another employee working separately on the same problem.

I am being sued because when my new sign came in the factory had made a mistake and it was 4" higher than code; even though I am trying to rectify the mistake myself.

I am being sued by the receptionist who smokes 3 packs a day and is suing based on the unhealthy environment in my building that has caused her respiratory problems.

I am being sued by the ex wife of one of the maintenance people who hurt his back while cleaning. Why? Because he received less money while out on workers comp and fell behind 3 mos in child support.

I have people suing me over the use of my name.

I am half owner of a chain of pizzaria/italian deli's - I have a woman suing me because she broke a tooth while trying to remove a bottle top with her teeth.

Or how about the guy who ate too much, got into an accident on the way home, and is suing because his upset stomach substantially lessened his ability to concentrate and drive effectively?

I am being sued by the woman who got whiplash when she rear ended one of the company cars stopped at a red light.

I have a neighbor suing me because in the landscaping for my new house the landscaper pulled down three old trees that were leaning over and were dangerous. My neighbor thinks I substantially devalued his property by removing the shade from his lawn, and also because some of the debris fell on his lawn. even though when the landscapers went to clean up he refused to let them. He hired his own lawn care company and wants me to pay their bill for clean up.

I have a businessman suing me because I outbid him on a piece of Real Estate adjacent to the GM dealership and converted it to lot space - thereby eliminating his customers free use of the space for the last decade while it was practically abandoned.

I hate the system that allows Lawyers to promote these wasteful, money gobbling, useless, needless, time consuming....

Most of the above suits are obviously baseless, but that doesn't stop people from looking for the deep pockets.

Yes - the only Lawyers I like are my own sharks, and a few that work for my favorite pet charities (ACLU, Lambda Legal, SLDN, NRA, The Natue Conservancy, etc).

Still you seem plesant enough, and I always allow my friends one single 'oh my god what were you thinking of' major character flaw

Don't get me wrong, I am not prejudiced: I just wouldn't want my sister to marry one eek!



R

[ May 11, 2006, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

My client who I met this morning who is an immigrant from Equador who cleans office buildings for a living (at almost minimum wage)likes her lawyer.

She and her husband obtained a home equity loan from a major bank and because they didn't speak English the sleazy, dishonest, greedy bank snuck in disability and life insurance products into the loan (after they "signed" the applications in English). When my client's husband died, the insurer refused to pay the death claim and kept the premium.

She didn't hate her lawyer today when she came into my office to sign the settlement papers and release so that her loan is paid in full. Without her lawyer, she would have been victimized by this giant bank and multi-national insurance company and their dishonest, predatory business practices.

Hate is a pretty strong word but I hate people who say they hate lawyers. I find these are usually the same people (like Rush Lindbaugh) who run to them when their asses are on fire.

IT, all those suits you cited look pretty threadbare to me. What the attorneys are doing, of course, is sueing in hope of getting settlements, fully realizing they probably won't win. I'm sure you're represented by able counsel, so they should be able to wrap them up fairly painlessly. If the jurisdiction(s) allow it, make them small statutory nuisance offers to get the interest and costs clocks tickiing against them. (See e.g., FRCvP 68, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 998.) That's my favorite way of making opponents think real hard, real quick about where they want to go and for how long. But, and I'm sure you've heard this before, "it's the cost of doing business."

mdphl, that's a good ending to a bad story. I've handled several such bank/real estate fraud cases involving elderly victims in my time and I take satisfaction in having reached similar results. The down side was the DAs' refusal to prosecute the actual perps of the frauds, despite my "handing them the case on a silver platter." But that was in SF, where DAs tread lightly because of the notorious vagaries of its juries. SD is a different story, which is exactly why I'm here.

A friend of mine told me Walmart never settles -- even when they know they are wrong -- for this very reason. Kind of shitty, but understandable knowing how much they probably get sued.

An update, of sorts. In response to the silliness of the lawsuit against the Angels, the AA Altona Curve announced a promotion of its own: Salute to Frivolous Lawsuits Night, scheduled for July 2. All men in attendance will receive a pink tote bag, all women will get tepid coffee "so they don't burn themselves" and children will receive inflatable beach balls with a warning label reading "Do not ingest." Joked Curve GM Todd Parnell: "We realize these giveaways are fairly stupid and serve no real purpose. But if our fans don't like them, they can always sue us."

Were I anywhere near Altoona, I'd be at that game!

~Adam