• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Mercury poisoning from rectifier tubes lawsuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
JonL said:
If a default judgment is granted but damages are not determined, what is the enforceable result?
Click to expand...

Damages may be awarded at the discretion of the judge or jury in the case of a jury trial, subject to statutory limitations. Basically the judge can grant summary judgment for the plaintiff and then award him $1 or what he asked for, or anything in-between; or even more in some cases if he feels like it.

Our lawyer friend pointed out correctly that winning a judgment doesn't mean you get everything you asked for; but you might. And in any case, if you're not represented, you're not going to have a say in it.

Someone in this thread also pointed out that the defendant might be able to get himself removed from the case as a defendant if he files a response with the court prior to trial. eBay did just that, pointing out in a motion to dismiss that they are not liable for what sellers on their site sell, for a variety of precedental reasons. The judge agreed and the motion was granted. But the defendant seems to think that he can write a letter to the plaintiff's attorneys and explain that he never sold the plaintiff any tubes and expect the plaintiff's attorneys to just say "Oh, OK, our bad" and let him out of the suit? Not happening. The motion to dismiss needs to be brought to the court, and for best effect, it should be prepared and filed by competent legal counsel.
 
JonL said:
It should be noted that anyone can initiate a lawsuit against anyone for any purpose. That does not mean that the plaintiff will prevail. This will very possibly be thrown out before it gets very far.
Click to expand...

Very far? It should go absolutely nowhere. Here's from the op.

Here are the facts:

We have done an extensive search of all sales records, and there is NO RECORD of the plaintiff purchasing ANY vacuum tubes from Cascade Surplus Electronics.

Two purchases were made by the plaintiff and neither include vacuum tubes of any kind.

We have contacted the plaintiff's attorney and asked multiple times that the plaintiff either provide proof that he purchased vacuum tubes from us, or drop us from the lawsuit. The plaintiff has maintained that he purchased vacuum tubes from us, but has not provided any proof. The most recent letter sent to the attorney offering to settle out of court if proof can be provided has not been answered.
Click to expand...

So this clown doesn't have a stitch of evidence that he even purchased any
tubes from these people.
 
Wigwam Jones said:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/pennsylvania/pawdce/2:2011cv00666/197202/
Click to expand...

Thanks. Hmm, it's all Greek to me, but the final entry, on Nov. 11, indicates a Motion to Dismiss was granted.

MEMORANDUM and ORDER granting 153 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, without prejudice; Plaintiff may file an amended complaint to cure the pleading defects identified in the opinion within 30 days of entry of this order on the Court's docket. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 11/17/11.
Click to expand...

Do I understand this correctly, unless the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint by Dec. 18 the case was dismissed? There;s no evidence he did but the records may not have caught up with reality...
 
toxcrusadr said:
Thanks. Hmm, it's all Greek to me, but the final entry, on Nov. 11, indicates a Motion to Dismiss was granted.

Do I understand this correctly, unless the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint by Dec. 18 the case was dismissed? There;s no evidence he did but the records may not have caught up with reality...
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert on reading court cases, but I have some experience. It would appear that this dismissal is for eBay only. The 'Conclusion' states:

"eBay's motion to dismiss...will be granted...and the complaint will be granted with respect to eBay alone..."
Click to expand...

I think the text of the pleading and ruling established that they were primarily considering eBay's argument that they cannot be held liable for the wares their sellers peddle, as they are an auctioneer and thus immune, stating precedent, etc. The judge agreed.

I do not think the entire case was dismissed.
 
its a numbers game, he is suing 20 defendants for $75,000 each. hell if each one settles for $10,000 (probably a third of what it would cost to fight the lawsuit) then he racks up a cool $200,000. Thats the rub, its cheaper to settle then it is to fight, thus the dirtbag wins his B.S. lawsuit and his idiot friends think they should sure someone too, and it goes on and on and on till no one can do anything for anyone.
 
That's why the legal system needs to be reformed so that the person filing a frivolous lawsuit pays ALL of the attorney's fees if he/she looses.
 
jeremyjustic said:
Thats a GREAT idea!
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not. Who decides what's frivolous? Having the loser pay would make it all but impossible for the little guy (you and me) to legitimately sue any bigger guys for fear of losing and being on the hook for possibly many, many thousands of dollars. Let's say we have a legitimate suit against GM. We try to sue, with our limited budget and crappy local lawyer. They sic a team of high-powered corporate attorneys on the case and win. Then they send us a nice bill for a couple of hundred grand, get a judgement and take our house. Not a good idea at all, IMO.

Frivolous lawsuits are a problem, but fortunately not really all that common.
 
This was just on the news here tonight. Seems a guy brought his car to a repair place to have it fixed. He picked it up and it caught fire and burned up. He sued the service station for damages - $3,000 - in small claims court. The owner didn't show up, so he got a default judgment in the full amount.

However, he could not collect. The gas station just refused to pay. So he went back to court and got a second judgment. The owner still refused to pay.

Then he went to the local news station, who ran a story on it. They tried to interview the owner, he still would not pay, claiming he didn't owe the man anything and claiming no knowledge of the lawsuit.

That's probably where it would have ended, but a 37th District Court Officer saw the news program and got involved on his own.

He basically ordered a gas truck to show up and pump $3,000 worth of gasoline out of the gas station's underground tanks, or pay the man his $3,000 on the spot. The gas station owner got very upset and tried to interfere with the gas truck drivers, but still refused to pay. All this on camera of course. Finally, he came to his senses and coughed up the money and the gas tanker truck went away.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/new...center-line-repair-shop-to-pay-up-20120112-ms

I was not aware that Detroit had court enforcement officers who would do that, but that's essentially what happens, which I tried to explain earlier. Maybe the guy with the burned up car wasn't even in the right. Maybe his car burning up had nothing to do with the work he had done. But it doesn't matter; the gas station owner did not show up, so he lost a default judgment.

It also shows that just getting a judgment doesn't mean you'll get paid. You can do a variety of things with a judgment, such as selling the paper to collection agency, but you'll only get pennies on the dollar. You can go to court yourself and privately get an order to do what the court enforcement officer did for him; seize his property to the amount owed.

So my point remains; if you get sued and you don't have representation in court, you lose. And if the guy knows how to do it, he'll get the money from you even if he comes to your house and tows away your car. No fooling.
 
Once a judgement is granted either you appeal or surrender your defenses. Collection of a gas station owner would have been easy. Anything on the property would have been subject to seizure so wait until some guys new SLK sitting for some work and tow it. The gas station owner then has a bigger problem. Also, the cash in the register, the bank account, tools, just about anything. If the gas station is in the name of the defendant, the sheriff could have seized the station itself and sold it.

Many stations are franchises with a security deposit paid to the gas company. The sheriff could have seized the franchise agreement and had the gas company terminate it for cause and then garnish the judgement from the secutity deposit refund.

It all depends just how much a wise butt the defendant wants to be and vindictive the plaintiff gets. When I represented the winnning party, my first words to the loser were: "We can do it the easy way or the hard way." I then would explain the horror stories that could happen that would make the 10 plaques seem like nothing. More oft than naught, the loser would pony up the cash, or declare bankruptcy within 24 hours. Many times when he declared bankruptcy we were able to get the court to deny discharge based on fraud on the bankruptcy court as the alledged debtor did not come within the definition of a debtor or, the court would dismiss with leave to file a chapter 13.

The collection side of a suit can be a challenge but, when the payer is unreasonable can be the most satisfying part of the practice.
 
Wigwam Jones said:
That's probably where it would have ended, but a 37th District Court Officer saw the news program and got involved on his own.

He basically ordered a gas truck to show up and pump $3,000 worth of gasoline out of the gas station's underground tanks, or pay the man his $3,000 on the spot. The gas station owner got very upset and tried to interfere with the gas truck drivers, but still refused to pay. All this on camera of course. Finally, he came to his senses and coughed up the money and the gas tanker truck went away.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I thought that may be above the Officer's jurisdiction, but apparently there's something called a "Warrant to Seize Property" which allows the situation described above.
 
Back to the case against Cascade...if I read correctly, they did make a settlement offer which the plaintiff rejected. I could be wrong. If they loose this or don't show up, a judgement for $75,000 will be executed. Right so far?

Then, if nothing else. the plaintiff gets the judgement recorded. It appears on the defendants credit records and the whole financial world, for Cascade, stops, leaving them the option of ... bankruptcy.

It would seem that since they never sold the plaintiff a tube that they'd be off the hook. But there is no rhyme or reason is there? The judge could ignore that and find for the plaintiff anyway. Of course the defendant could appeal that. Now the price of defense goes up beyond reason, leaving them the option of - bankruptcy.

Rinse, Repeat

Looser pays - or some form thereof - is the only path to sanity.

JMO
 
Khodabear said:
Back to the case against Cascade...if I read correctly, they did make a settlement offer which the plaintiff rejected. I could be wrong. If they loose this or don't show up, a judgement for $75,000 will be executed. Right so far?
Click to expand...

From what I read, the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff's lawyer, explaining that he never sold the plaintiff any tubes, and offering to settle, which the attorney ignored.

And assuming the case is not dismissed or the plaintiff loses for other reasons, then the plaintiff will be awarded a default judgment. That does not mean it will be for $75,000, but it might, depends on the judge.

Then, if nothing else. the plaintiff gets the judgement recorded. It appears on the defendants credit records and the whole financial world, for Cascade, stops, leaving them the option of ... bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

Unless they have business liability insurance or the ability to pay the judgment, yes.

It would seem that since they never sold the plaintiff a tube that they'd be off the hook. But there is no rhyme or reason is there? The judge could ignore that and find for the plaintiff anyway. Of course the defendant could appeal that. Now the price of defense goes up beyond reason, leaving them the option of - bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

That's the part I think people have trouble with. The defendant says he never sold the plaintiff a tube. The plaintiff says he did.

People SEEM to think that facts are facts, and they apply outside the courtroom as well as inside. They don't. The 'facts' are in dispute. That is the purpose of the trial.

He could hire representation and ask for dismissal based on the fact that he never sold the plaintiff a tube, and the defendant would either have to put up or shut up; the judge could remove the defendant from the lawsuit, just like eBay had done.

Or he could hire representation and prove in court that he never sold the defendant a tube, and be found innocent.

But if he does not show up, he loses his right to dispute the issue. The 'facts' don't matter OUTSIDE OF COURT.

Rinse, Repeat

Looser pays - or some form thereof - is the only path to sanity.

JMO
Click to expand...

I agree with the other person who posted that this has a chilling effect on 'David v Goliath' cases where the big buys crush the little guys with money and THEN take everything they own on top of it. I like our system the way it is. But it is a painful fact of life; if you get sued, you get representation or you lose, and when you lose, the winner comes and takes your stuff away. That's life.
 
So can the defendant voluntarily pay in-kind? Say, one of these salvage sellers goes out of business, can they send give them the remaining stock, instead of having to liquidate the assets and pay in cash?
 
SA-708 said:
So can the defendant voluntarily pay in-kind? Say, one of these salvage sellers goes out of business, can they send give them the remaining stock, instead of having to liquidate the assets and pay in cash?
Click to expand...

They can offer to, but generally the plaintiff wants cash. In some cases when businesses fold, the bankruptcy court steps in, takes the assets, and appoints a receiver to sell them off and pay the creditors; or the creditor can agree to do it themselves, saving themselves the time and money of going through the courts and a receiver. However, it's up to the creditors, not up to the defendant.

Understand that the plaintiff doesn't care if the defendant goes out of business or not. They want the money they've been awarded by the court. If you haven't got the money in your business, they go after your personal possessions, such as your house, car, or whatever else you own that is of value, unless you have a corporation or LLC to shield yourself from personal liability; and even those can be challenged.

If you are a personal proprietor and you get a judgment against you, everything you own is liable to be used as an asset to offset your debt. That is one of the many reasons people form corporations or LLC's to go into business. The corporation is a 'person' for legal purposes, and the plaintiff can only go after the assets of that 'person', not the officers of the corporation, unless they broke the law or did something else egregious.
 
Question regarding the claim that the defendant sold the plaintiff tubes: is there some kind of discovery phase that occurs prior to court hearings, where the plaintiff has to cough up receipts or other documentation? From what people are saying here there is no way out of this without showing up to court, I'm just wondering why the court doesn't require that documentation BEFORE everyone has to spend time in court.
 
toxcrusadr said:
Question regarding the claim that the defendant sold the plaintiff tubes: is there some kind of discovery phase that occurs prior to court hearings, where the plaintiff has to cough up receipts or other documentation? From what people are saying here there is no way out of this without showing up to court, I'm just wondering why the court doesn't require that documentation BEFORE everyone has to spend time in court.
Click to expand...

That is the job of the defense attorney, to request documentation from the plaintiff. If there is no defense, then it doesn't happen. It's not the judge's job to argue the case on behalf of defendants who do not show up.

It is a bit frightening to think that anyone could sue you for anything, and if you don't show up to court, they could win. But it is what it is.

I know there are people who do not believe this; like the gas station owner didn't believe it until the court enforcement officer showed up to take his gasoline away in lieu of payment. Even then, he thought his rights were being violated, he wanted to 'discuss' the situation. After you lose in court by default judgment because you didn't show up, discussion time is over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom