In a message dated 10/12/2004 8:37:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
richard@... writes:
Sarosh,
I certainly see the gruesome problems involved with these lawsuits.
Does 64 abridge freedom of speech as expressed by filing a "frivolous"
lawsuit? Who is the trusted person who decides what law suit is frivolous?
IN MY OPINION, ITS FRIVOLOUS IF THE COST OF THE LAWSUIT EXCEEDS 30% OF THE
AMOUNT OF DAMAGES FOUND TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED. BUT THE CURRENT 17200 "CLASS
ACTION" STATUTE REQUIRES NO PLAINTIFF, NO CLASS CERTIFICATION PROCESS, ZERO DAMAGES
SUFFERED OR PROVED, BUT DOES NOT LIMIT THE ATTORNEYS FEES AT ALL. SO SOME
ATTORNEY SUED TOSHIBA FOR A CLAIMED DEFECT IN LAPTOP COMPUTERS, COLLECTED $
148 MILLION IN "FEES", AND ZERO DAMAGES PAID TO THE CONSUMERS THE LAWSUIT WAS
OSTENSIBLY SUPPOSED TO PROTECT. THIS IS ONE OF HUNDREDS OF SUCH EXAMPLES.
OBVIOUSLY, THE CONSUMER EVENTUALLY HAS TO PAY FOR SUCH A "COST OF DOING BUSINESS"
IN CALIFORNIA, WHICH IS THE ONLY STATE WHICH ALLOWS THIS EGREGIOUS ABUSE OF
THE LEGAL PROCESS. What
stops this person from saying, for example, that suing for font size
is not frivolous? Or suing to get a third party on the ballot is
frivolous?
BTW, thank you for your phone call.
Best, Michael
hi michael,
if it costs you upwards of $ 10K or 20K each time a suit is filed (or
threatened to be filed), regardless of whether it is eventually decided in your
favor, you might find it cheaper to pay $ 5K to get rid of the problem by
"settling".
this is the dilemna that each defendant finds himself in.
prop 64 requires that there be an actual plaintiff who has suffered damage,
rather than just an unscrupulous predatory attorney and his laserprinter
sending out hundreds of settlement demand letters to mailing lists of local
businesses.
the current law allows attorneys to collect "private attorney general costs
and fees" for filing the suits, which are quite outrageously out of line with
reality. the charged rates claimed often exceed $ 20,000 per hour, and its
completely legal! (not ethical or moral, but definitely legal. not
surprisingly, the No on 64 campaign is lavishly and almost exclusively funded by
plaintiff attorneys)
for a defendant, the costs of providing the "discovery" demanded in the
lawsuit alone is onerous, for example names of all customers and suppliers,
amounts paid by/to them etc for a period of 4 years etc etc. for a busienss, this
is precious information that could be misused by a competitor. and once the
data is out of your possession, its hard to keep private.
is it permissible free speech for a person holding a gun in his hand to ask
for $ 10 (or $ 5K) from each passerby?
Sarosh Kumana
_www.sfrent.net_ (http://www.sfrent.net/)
Tel: 415-861-4554
Fax: 415-864-0730
Cell: 415-425-5184