Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
Oh you're in law school?
|
I hope so.. otherwise I'm doing a lot of reading and highlighting for no good reason.
Seriously, about the guy with the pants... There's apparently a D.C. law, applicable only to the D.C. Circuit where a consumer fraud statute carries a penalty of $1,200 per day. The fraud alleged is that the cleaners had a sign saying "same day service" and "satisfaction 100% guaranteed." Neither of these were honored.
The lawsuit is 'creative' to say the least.
Rule 11 comes in where the court needs to make an example out of the party being sanctioned. Here, the Plaintiff has spurned what most would say are several generous settlement offers because I guess he's really convinced he's entitled to that 65 million dollar award.
Our best bet for sanctions, I think is in this guy's apparently overbroad discovery requests and his request for damages for the rental car. The defendant's lawyers are also, I think acting a little bit unethically by contacting the media regarding pending litigation and making prejudicial comments about past settlement offers, the "found" pants, etc. That's a bit shady to me.