This lawsuit is absurd

[michaelchadwickphotography]

<p>John, shouldn't you be in Las Vegas at the Hair Splitters convention?</p>

<p>It doesn't change it, it elaborates on it.</p>

<p>"The defendants should counter-sue. This is frivolous and absurd, it wastes the tax money we pay into the system, and it wastes the time of the courts who have much more important matters to resolve."</p>

<p>My post merely further elaborates on my first sentence. The second sentence is still true. It's absurd, it's a waste of money and time for courts which should be using their resources to deal with REAL matters of justice. And if tax money has to be spent to save tax money in the future, I support that.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I think John H., makes perfect sense. Many of the responses here are emotional reactions, understandable given the reported circumstances and the vulnerability that photographers working on margins feel of not being immune from this kind of suit. One thing that photographers can control is the kind of contracts they present to the clients. Including provisions for arbitration and legal fees. But oops, you's probably have to consult an <gasp> attorney:) Really, the main thing I would think is to use this awful circumstance and apply it to what you need to be aware of as a business person/photographer.</p>

[michaelchadwickphotography]

<p>Seconding, thirding, fourthing, and more @Barry!</p>

[john_h.1]

Michael, you are claiming there is a basis for the photographer to sue but have not identified a single viable cause of

action that can be brought. If you are against frivolous lawsuits, you would be against the one you are actively

promoting, it's not possible to be splitting hairs by pointing this out because it's merely identifying a diect instance of

hypocrisy, even if was made unintentionally.

 

What cause of action does the photographer have to sue?

[michaelchadwickphotography]

<p>A five second Google search brought up instance after instance of advise saying that you can countersue for damages, court costs, even for something as small as "personal distress and anxiety." The point is to call the bluff, make him withdraw his frivolous case, and if he doesn't, to give the judge the opportunity to punish the malicious jerk for wasting the court's time. The end justifies the means here, in my opinion.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/824/the-countersuit-how-to-fire-back-at-frivolous-lawsuits">http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/824/the-countersuit-how-to-fire-back-at-frivolous-lawsuits</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.physiciansnews.com/law/403post.html">http://www.physiciansnews.com/law/403post.html</a></p>

<p><a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100127191048AAIT8sb">http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100127191048AAIT8sb</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.physiciansnews.com/spotlight/305.html">http://www.physiciansnews.com/spotlight/305.html</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.ask.com/questions-about/Frivolous-Lawsuits">http://www.ask.com/questions-about/Frivolous-Lawsuits</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/civil-litigation/10405-can-i-counter-sue-false-allegations-causing-personal-distress-anxiety.html">http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/civil-litigation/10405-can-i-counter-sue-false-allegations-causing-personal-distress-anxiety.html</a></p>

[zack_zoll]

<blockquote>

<p>Zach, How is merely affecting business a independent legal claim? Isn't some other factor required? What specific legitimate independent, thus non frivolous, claim can the photographer bring?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John- to start, I want to say that this is speculation. Since my original response was phrased (vaguely) in the form of a question, I've tried not to imply that I am an expert in any matters. </p>

<p>That said, I would think that a countersuit could be brought if the plaintiff's case were thrown out, and in the process (or even just along the way) the defendant's legal costs forced them out of business, or nearly so. I see this as a variation on libel, which <em>is</em> grounds for a damages suit. In both cases a plaintiff makes an unsubstatiated claim that serves no purpose other than to damage the defendant. The plaintiff's argument and demands, while called 'breech of contract' are obviously intended to punish the defendant by forcing him to provide a service that he cannot be reasonably expected to do. In my eyes, the only difference between this an a libel case is that the plaintiff told a judge, and not a newspaper.</p>

<p>But again ... I'm no expert. As you may recall, <em>I </em>was asking <em>you</em>.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>I spent a few minutes actually reading those links. They support John's position (except for the answers.yahoo, ask.com and wordlawdirect. Those are forum type answers and are not to be taken seriously. If you'll pardon the usage, just a bunch of Yahoos with internet access.)</p>

[john_h.1]

Michael, some of those links are merely free for all forum type postings answered by people who don't know what they

are talking about. Another involves a a statutory scheme that allows a prevuing party attorney fees which is not the

case here. The non forum type links all cited cases where the case could not proceed because there was a summary

judgment ruling that there were material facts that were disputed. The court here already ruled that the case was viable

but you called for a countersuit anyway. One of your own links warns against making a claim of frivolous litigation in

anything but very rock solid scerarios at the risk of exposing oneself to bringing their own frivolous action.

The very problem I raised in the first place. This isn't like the cases in your links where the law at issue never existed

at the time or where everyone knew the service provider had no involvement whatsoever. This case involves an actual dispute over whether there was a breach of contract. None of the links are

applicable.

[craig_gillette]

<p>I think the most interesting part - and one of which we will likely never see any resolution - is the connection of the groom who is supposedly paying for his own legal expenses, his father, and his father's law firm. Is son paying Dad? Is Dad doing this on his own or is the firm representing the son? Is the firm happy that they have been publicly connected to this fiasco, whether actually involved or only by the reporting of the Dad's position?</p>

[john_h.1]

Zach, there are some wrinkles to your response such as there being no defamation in court testimony in the U.S. (to

foster willingness to testify) and a couple other things but, fwiw, your analysis is very thoughtful epecially as to a matter being

tossed for having utterly no foundation in the first place vs. a dispute.

 

As to photographers this is somewhat esoteric. Good contract drafting can help limit exposure to zealous complaints

and other more common or lens. That us what we can most learn from this episode.

[dhbebb]

<p><em>If so, how does having a mental health condition excuse a breach of contract by someone not having such a condition?</em><br>

John, I don't know if you're a lawyer or in the business of selling any product or service to the general public. Anyone with experience of the latter will certainly have encountered a customer suffering from hysteria or obsessive compulsive disorder and who is impossible to deal with. In this case, as you remark, the two most important points from a legal point of view are:<br>

1) Was there a contractual obligation for the photographers to stay right to the end and cover the last dance and throwing of the bouquet, and also to deliver a real-time video, i.e. one of the same duration as the event?<br>

2) If such an obligation existed, did the photographers meet this, and if not, did they make a reasonable offer of restitution?<br>

The press report does not unfortunately give enough information for me to answer question 2), most businesspeople would automatically offer restitution in some small form to a complaining customer, merely to prevent the matter from escalating and taking up any more of their valuable time than necessary. The photographers in this case may not have done so, but as I indicated in an earlier post, it would have been cheap and easy to fake the missing footage, and I feel a court of law would regard this as a reasonable offer of restitution, possibly coupled with a return of part of the fee paid. Any further claims for damages must surely be regarded by any rational person as excessive (without any need, I agree, to legally establish the plaintiff’s state of mental health) and irrational.</p>

[michaelchadwickphotography]

<p>I didn't realize I was on a forum for attorneys. I have real work to do. Bye.</p>

[john_h.1]

David, I agree completely.

Michael, the forum, I gather, is for anybody and hopefully educational. Here, that a potentially weak case is not

inherently fitting for the buzz word "frivolous" and that there are some preventative measures that are available to

reduce exposure to losses in both strong and weaker claims by clients.

[ricardovaste]

<p>Pretty horrific! So, what do we take from this guys? Rather than scrutinizing contracts, perhaps better to have insurance for the "full whack"? I know I have 100K (GBP), which will hopefully be more than I'll ever need :$</p>

[jeremy jackson]

<p>Better to loose ourselves in the technical details than recognize the sad fact that judges are now incapable of swiftly and quickly doing the sensible thing. Of course, it's not just judges that suffer this affliction. I've seen my fair share of it in science as well. Best, JJ</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Rather than scrutinizing contracts, perhaps better to have insurance... </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suggested both. Skipping the first part, as raised above, would be foolish.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Better to loose ourselves in the technical details than recognize the sad fact that judges are now incapable of swiftly and quickly doing the sensible thing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now? Most of the claims were dismissed. The claim involving an actual dispute over an actual issue wasn't. As it should be. As it always has been since the nation began. Cases aren't decided on whimsical notions. They are decided based actual presentation of evidence. Unless you live in a dictatorship or something. A technical detail one needn't be 'loost' in.</p>

[thomas_abbott1]

<p>I would think the statute of limitations would bar some, if not all, of plaintiffs' claims. A defense on that basis should not cost $50K. </p>

[jeremy jackson]

<p>John, I don't expect you to agree. But I would say that the ability to use basic common sense in a social system is in no way whimsical and is not characteristic of dictatorships. </p>

<p>We are simply arguing about whether a system should see a case like this as an actual dispute. The system does. And once we make this move it is just a matter of pursuing the dispute within whatever system we have - the details. The interesting question is how we can develop a system that sees such cases for what they really are. </p>

<p>I think an appropriate description of my position might be that it is idealistic. Perhaps. But I am just trying to point out that spending our efforts on the details does allow us in some sense to avoid the bigger, more difficult questions. Best, JJ</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>A technical detail one needn't be 'loost' in.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where's the 'like' button?</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>I understand where you are coming from Jeremy. In criminal cases we sometimes have preliminary hearings for probable cause deciding whether a case can go forward or grand juries. In civil cases where property may be attached to secure payment, if it will be due, there is a hearing looking at the likelihood of the plaintiff prevailing. Similar things could be done but the expense can be really high to go that route and there are other issues to contend with. Maybe other ideas can be considered for tort reform. Often, in medical malpractice cases, there is talk of caps on the compensation. But that hurts actual victims. Instead, the standard of proof could be made higher from a preponderance of evidence to clear and convincing which is harder to prove. that can help weed out questionable cases. There are many ideas that can be explored to achieve your goals while allowing the system to run its course and without resort to jumping to conclusions.</p>