My problem is with any person who has not suffered an actual loss, nor a loss which can be rationally remedied with $$, bringing a lawsuit. Mr. Auerbacher knows the students can't pay. So he'll just ruin their lives while he hopes to impute their liability to the deeper pocket.

so you have a problem with the entire us civil court system.
well, your posting here is just not going to change anything at all. and will not do anything for your friends, their actions and deeds, their case and their total lack of judgment and respect. and as much as i hate to repeat myself, make the effort to read the other threads in rm section. this case and those already brought up are only a very small part of the overall activities in state civil courts. however, they are a major part of what affects and effects us.

You keep leaving juries out of the equation.

I never said that the case wasn't just about money. It might be, it might be about revenge, it might be about all kinds of things. I merely questioned your suggestion that it is a gross abuse of the civil justice system for the victim to sue because she thought a criminal verdict was too lenient. I've been practicing law long enough to tell that you talking out of personal interest and bias, not any actual sense of or understanding of jurisprudence.

Oooooo. Caught me in my own trap. Drat the anonymous nature of teh interwebs. :rolleyes:

No I didn't think about that because I couldn't care less about that. Like I said, I was just noticing that your posts suggest a strong personal, rather than academic or theoretical, interest. You write, and argue, like someone who has a dog in the fight. That is all.

I never said nor implied that. Did I not make myself clear about my feelings on this particular case? My strong opinion about this case is not an indictment of the entire system.

No, but your comments about this case show a lack of understanding of the entire system.

Um, it's a joke. My cogent thought was a joke. I even put a smilie on it so someone of the limited "intellectual capacity" you have demonstrated could understand that. Sorry I overestimated you. So I stand corrected - shouldn't you be crawling back under your rock?

And I must now go sob into my pillow because my intellectual capacity has been insulted by someone on the internet. Boo hoo.

Now, now, MC, it's not like this gentleman has signed on to GC ONLY to post in this thread . . .oh, wait . . .

I obviously have no dog in this fight:o But, I'll put my two cents in.

I have no issue with her suing the two boys, and by extension, their parents' insurance companies. After all, it is the two boys who invaded her privacy and embarrassed her; they are the ones who did the damage, and if she feels that the sentence levied upon them by the justice system was not enough, then SUE AWAY! But, I do have a problem with her suing the fraternity. Obviously, the entire active chapter was not a party to the harm, neither was the alumni base or the advisory members. So, why should they be a party to the suit other than in an attempt for the plaintiff to try to extract the greatest monetary judgement, and the fraternity has deeper pockets than the parents.

Having been a party to various suits, I know what a huge pain in the ass it is to be involved - depositions, astronomical lawyer fees, etc., not to mention the worry and stress that accompanies being named (unfairly!!!) in a suit. Background - we own a company that has been named in suits, even though we had nothing to do with the problems, we have always eventually been dropped from the suit, but in the meantime, we have spent money that should have gone to the company to hire lawyers to defend our GUILTLESS position, and spent sleepless nights worrying about the costs and end results.

So, while the case against the fraternity might not legally be frivolous, it is going to cost them alot of money and energy to fight it.

Just based on what I have seen here (which granted may not be the whole story, or even close to the whole story), I'd say that the case against the fraternity may indeed be legally frivolous. Why not sue UF while they're at it?

i was just reviewing some of the cases i or family members have been involved with and thought of just the same thing. perhaps could be added on later. and if this happened within a dorm room, i would have been surprised if the school had not been served. in this case, from what little we have seen of it, the chapter and fraternity could be looked at as a entity separate from the school.
added edit: found this news link http://www.gainesville.com/article/2...14581/0/news03
which includes this: "The 20-year-old woman filed a civil lawsuit Tuesday in Palm Beach County. She seeks more than $15,000 in damages from Ben Farias, 21; Kyle Kraft, 20; and the UF chapter of the Delta Tau Delta fraternity for invasion of privacy and other offenses."
"The suit claims the fraternity failed to adequately supervise its members, based on previous incidents there.
The same year as the taping, UF’s chapter of Delta Tau Delta had incidents in which two underage students drinking at the house were sent to the emergency room, according to UF records.
The fraternity received a social suspension through fall 2007 and was not allowed to recruit new members in spring 2006 and fall 2007, those records show. Orlando said the fraternity is currently in good standing."

is the proper term prior bad acts? and if so, or something similar, seems as if they are coming back to haunt them.

I don't really see the connection to the organization either, but then again, I know only what has been printed in the papers.

$15,000 in damages doesn't seem very high at all - anyone with more experience in these matters care to comment?

And if Delta Tau Delta had previous problems at the house, what would/should they have done in terms of closer supervision? I realize you can't prevent all idiotic behavior - but if there is a history of problems with behavior that could open the chapter up to liability issues I'd think SOMETHING - education, supervision, SOMETHING -could be done. I hate to see any GLO in a position of having to deal with this kind of problem.

Oh stop it. You're obviously a friend, or a friend of a friend, or maybe you're one of the jerks. I don't know who you are, but the only posts you've made on Greekchat are in THIS thread. Why would you be Googling the case, or the victim/perps, if you didn't know any of the parties involved? And then come on here, register, and defend the guys you don't know?

In a Florida tort action, the plaintiff does not pray for a sum certain. The plaintiff only pleads that she seeks more than $15,000, the jurisdicitional threshhold for the circuit courts.

Just for the sake of clarity, it appears to me that the suit is against the two members and the chapter, not the fraternity.

Let's remember that there's a difference that we, as members of Greek Letter Organizations, all should understand.

Right?

That's why I said Who will be called in to give depositions? The president of the chapter? Other officers? The voluntary chapter alumni advisors? Who will pay for the legal fees for all those people? If it is them, individually, then that is patently unfair, and just plain sux.

And, ultimately, if the chapter's "powers that be" decide to settle because it is just too damned expensive to fight a lawsuit, who will pay the judgement? Since this chapter is part of a national fraternity, I'm assuming that the liability insurance or umbrella policy is bought through their national headquarters, so regardless of whether the "national fraternity" is named, the payout will come from monies paid by the chapter to nationals for whatever insurance fund they have. This will cause the insurance rates for every chapter of this organization to be raised (possibly, depending on their carrier), thus, all are affected.

I may be totally wrong, and each individual chapter buys their own policies, but somehow I doubt that. Let me know if I'm wrong.

the answer that i can give you involves a criminal, rather than civil, case.
and i could be wrong but i think in general the system works somewhat the same.
yes, everyone was called in to have a conversation with at least one branch, if not more, of law enforcement. members of the house including officers of course, administrators from the school, chapter advisers, alumni, and national.
yes, it did suck. but it is part of our legal system.
violations of rm does not have to be part of our system. however judging from comments made elsewhere in rm, seems as if some just to not wish to understand and get that point. and thus we all will pay in one form or another at some time or another.