U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Cingular's Attempt to Force Class ActionLawsuits into Arbitration

Good news for Cingular customers, see
"http://www.cellular-news.com/story/17675.php".

---

› See More: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Cingular's Attempt to Force Class ActionLawsuits into Arbitration

I don't know about good news for anybody; but it would appear to support
that the carriers do not want you to consider anything but arbitration. On
the other hand, while you get much more leverage with a class action suit:
you will get a $1.00; while the attorneys will get the other $99. dr
--
dr.news //stores.ebay.com/better-price-wireless (not better than you
deserve, just more than you're used to) //free.better-price.biz (for new
lines of wireless service; all carriers; the phones are almost always a
better-price)

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Good news for Cingular customers, see
> "http://www.cellular-news.com/story/17675.php".

dr.news wrote:
> I don't know about good news for anybody; but it would appear to support
> that the carriers do not want you to consider anything but arbitration. On
> the other hand, while you get much more leverage with a class action suit:
> you will get a $1.00; while the attorneys will get the other $99.

Actually it's usually more like 65%/35% with the 35% going to the
attorneys. Of course without a class action lawsuit you will generally
get nothing.

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> dr.news wrote:
>> I don't know about good news for anybody; but it would appear to support that the carriers do not want you to consider anything
>> but arbitration. On the other hand, while you get much more leverage with a class action suit: you will get a $1.00; while the
>> attorneys will get the other $99.
>
> Actually it's usually more like 65%/35% with the 35% going to the attorneys. Of course without a class action lawsuit you will
> generally get nothing.

that may very well be, but once you divide up the 65% among the people
involved in the suit, each person usually gets a coupon or a couple dollars
while the law firms 35% is hundreds of thousands if not millions.

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:39:01 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Good news for Cingular customers, see
>"http://www.cellular-news.com/story/17675.php".

It didn't "reject" it (your usual negative spin) -- it simply didn't
hear it, like the vast majority of other cases it gets. That lets a
lower court ruling stand, but is a different thing entirely from an
actual ruling, since it doesn't establish any precedent.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

SMS, wrote the following at or about 6/6/2006 6:18 PM:
> dr.news wrote:
>> I don't know about good news for anybody; but it would appear to
>> support that the carriers do not want you to consider anything but
>> arbitration. On the other hand, while you get much more leverage with
>> a class action suit: you will get a $1.00; while the attorneys will
>> get the other $99.
>
> Actually it's usually more like 65%/35% with the 35% going to the
> attorneys. Of course without a class action lawsuit you will generally
> get nothing.


In a typical lawsuit where there's a contingency agreement, 30%-40% to
the attorney is correct. It changes dramatically when you deal with a
class-action suit.

Just take look around at some of the judgments granted in class-action
suits and see what the class gets and what goes to the attorneys
representing the class.

There's a reason the attorneys who practice in that arena advertise,
send out runners, etc. and it ain't due to altruism. Not a bit.

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 02:48:33 +0000, RobR wrote:

>
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> dr.news wrote:
>>> I don't know about good news for anybody; but it would appear to
>>> support that the carriers do not want you to consider anything but
>>> arbitration. On the other hand, while you get much more leverage with
>>> a class action suit: you will get a $1.00; while the attorneys will get
>>> the other $99.
>>
>> Actually it's usually more like 65%/35% with the 35% going to the
>> attorneys. Of course without a class action lawsuit you will generally
>> get nothing.
>
> that may very well be, but once you divide up the 65% among the people
> involved in the suit, each person usually gets a coupon or a couple
> dollars while the law firms 35% is hundreds of thousands if not millions.

That's not true. The real value derived by the consumer from class
actions is cessation of being screwed. At least, until somebody else in
the company gets another bright idea.

Without class actions many of these scams and borderline fraud will simply
go without retribution. The DoJ and SEC don't have the resources, and
while a class action might cost a company millions, an individual suit
might hardly net enough compensation for someone's court costs.

And while each person might only lose a few bucks when these companies
play tricks, broadly speaking these practices suck millions
and billions of dollars out of the economy, hindering its efficiency and
the well being of the nation. Free markets rely on transparency and the
ability of consumers to make as informed economic decisions as possible.

That said, I heard recently that some Nevada surgeons pay upwards of
$500,000/year in insurance!

"William Ahern" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 02:48:33 +0000, RobR wrote:
>
>>
>> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> dr.news wrote:
>>>> I don't know about good news for anybody; but it would appear to
>>>> support that the carriers do not want you to consider anything but
>>>> arbitration. On the other hand, while you get much more leverage with
>>>> a class action suit: you will get a $1.00; while the attorneys will get
>>>> the other $99.
>>>
>>> Actually it's usually more like 65%/35% with the 35% going to the
>>> attorneys. Of course without a class action lawsuit you will generally
>>> get nothing.
>>
>> that may very well be, but once you divide up the 65% among the people
>> involved in the suit, each person usually gets a coupon or a couple
>> dollars while the law firms 35% is hundreds of thousands if not millions.
>
> That's not true. The real value derived by the consumer from class
> actions is cessation of being screwed. At least, until somebody else in
> the company gets another bright idea.
>
> Without class actions many of these scams and borderline fraud will simply
> go without retribution. The DoJ and SEC don't have the resources, and
> while a class action might cost a company millions, an individual suit
> might hardly net enough compensation for someone's court costs.
>
> And while each person might only lose a few bucks when these companies
> play tricks, broadly speaking these practices suck millions
> and billions of dollars out of the economy, hindering its efficiency and
> the well being of the nation. Free markets rely on transparency and the
> ability of consumers to make as informed economic decisions as possible.
>
> That said, I heard recently that some Nevada surgeons pay upwards of
> $500,000/year in insurance!
>
>

The day after I posted this, I received in the mail the resolution of the
Time Warner/AOL class action suit. I get to know that there will be better
management oversight and the attornies that filed suit get almost $10million.

William Ahern wrote:

> That's not true. The real value derived by the consumer from class
> actions is cessation of being screwed. At least, until somebody else in
> the company gets another bright idea.

In the case of Verizon, and the Bluetooth on the V710 class action, the
result is that now Verizon explicitly states on their website that
Bluetooth functionality is limited to less that what the handset is
actually capable of. While most people would have preferred that they
stop decontenting the handsets, I guess that was too much to hope for.

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> William Ahern wrote:
>
>> That's not true. The real value derived by the consumer from class
>> actions is cessation of being screwed. At least, until somebody else in
>> the company gets another bright idea.
>
> In the case of Verizon, and the Bluetooth on the V710 class action, the result is that now Verizon explicitly states on their
> website that Bluetooth functionality is limited to less that what the handset is actually capable of. While most people would have
> preferred that they stop decontenting the handsets, I guess that was too much to hope for.

So basically the people that bought the crippled phones are SOL, their
attorneys made millions and now Verizon has to post a disclaimer. Nice
solution.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: SinghaLvr <[email protected]>
> Sent: 06/09/2006 12:37 AM -0400
> Subject: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Cingular's Attempt to Force Class Action Lawsuits into Arbitration
>

> On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 13:52:12 -0400, John Navas wrote
> (in article <[email protected]>):
>
>> It didn't "reject" it (your usual negative spin) -- it simply didn't
>> hear it, like the vast majority of other cases it gets.
>
> Can you tell us what the difference between rejection of hearing a case is
> and simply not hearing a case?


PMJI. There is a subtle shift in language between that of
the subject and the question posed above. The subject's
"rejects Cingular's attempt to force class action lawsuits
into arbitration" implies that the Supreme Court has taken
an action. The language of the question posed above,
"rejection of hearing a case," is very different. Someone's
trying to move the cheese.

The high court's refusal to hear a case is a legal NO
COMMENT on the case. It does not reverse anything, it does
not make new rulings, it takes no action, and it does not
comment on the validity or invalidity of either plaintiff's
or defendant's positions. It's simply a NO COMMENT. The
effect, since the high court is taking no action, is that
any lower-court rulings will stand, whatever they may or may
not be.


--
RJW

RobR wrote:

> So basically the people that bought the crippled phones are SOL, their
> attorneys made millions and now Verizon has to post a disclaimer.

No, the settlement was that the people that bought the crippled phones
could return the phones and all accessories for a full refund, and
terminate their contract without a cancellation penalty. Or they could
take a $25 payment. Or they could exchange the V710 for a different phone.

Without the class action lawsuit, the V710 owners would have got
nothing. I don't know what you expect that the owners should have
gotten. Of course the relatively few lawyers are going to make a lot
more money, per person, than the tens of thousands of members of the
class. Without that incentive, they would not take class action cases,
and companies such as Verizon would be able to get away with this sort
of deception in the future.

Verizon is still crippling BlueTooth on their handsets, but now they
explicitly state this in their marketing materials.

SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> RobR wrote:
>
>> So basically the people that bought the crippled phones are SOL, their
>> attorneys made millions and now Verizon has to post a disclaimer.
>
> No, the settlement was that the people that bought the crippled phones
> could return the phones and all accessories for a full refund, and
> terminate their contract without a cancellation penalty. Or they could
> take a $25 payment. Or they could exchange the V710 for a different phone.
>
> Without the class action lawsuit, the V710 owners would have got
> nothing. I don't know what you expect that the owners should have
> gotten. Of course the relatively few lawyers are going to make a lot
> more money, per person, than the tens of thousands of members of the
> class. Without that incentive, they would not take class action cases,
> and companies such as Verizon would be able to get away with this sort
> of deception in the future.
>

Class action lawsuite often amount to tens of millions for a legal team and
$10 for individuals. I would prefer to give up $10 then I would to enrich
these snakes (they aren't all snakes, but most are ambulence chasing .... and
the cost of defending against that crap goes into the price of our service).

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> RobR wrote:
>>
>>> So basically the people that bought the crippled phones are SOL, their
>>> attorneys made millions and now Verizon has to post a disclaimer.
>> No, the settlement was that the people that bought the crippled phones
>> could return the phones and all accessories for a full refund, and
>> terminate their contract without a cancellation penalty. Or they could
>> take a $25 payment. Or they could exchange the V710 for a different phone.
>>
>> Without the class action lawsuit, the V710 owners would have got
>> nothing. I don't know what you expect that the owners should have
>> gotten. Of course the relatively few lawyers are going to make a lot
>> more money, per person, than the tens of thousands of members of the
>> class. Without that incentive, they would not take class action cases,
>> and companies such as Verizon would be able to get away with this sort
>> of deception in the future.
>>
>
> Class action lawsuite often amount to tens of millions for a legal team and
> $10 for individuals. I would prefer to give up $10 then I would to enrich
> these snakes (they aren't all snakes, but most are ambulence chasing .... and
> the cost of defending against that crap goes into the price of our service).

The price for service is set by what the market will bear, it has very
little to do with the price of providing the actual service. But yes,
the whole impetus for a lawyer to take a chance on filing a class action
lawsuit is to make big money from their cut of the take, since they
don't charge the plaintiffs to file the suit

If the V710 lawsuit hadn't been filed, Verizon would still be out there
selling Bluetooth capable handsets, without disclosing that they had
taken out some of Bluetooth capability that the manufacturer of the
handsets had designed in. In that sense, the benefits to the consumer
goes well beyond the settlement to the original purchasers (and getting
out of a contract without a termination fee, plus a refund for the
handset and accessories, is worth a lot more than $10).

It's very popular to bash these class-action lawyers, and lawyers in
general, but it's usually done out of ignorance, or because the
individual has succumbed to the corporate attempts to paint these
lawyers all as snakes. Look at how many people still don't understand
the facts behind the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. Read the September 1,
1994 Wall Street Journal article about this lawsuit (and the WSJ is no
friend of anyone other than large corporations). Even some of the jurors
admitted that they were incredulous that the woman was suing over
this--until they heard the actual evidence.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:39:01 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Good news for Cingular customers, see
>>"http://www.cellular-news.com/story/17675.php".
>
> It didn't "reject" it (your usual negative spin) -- it simply didn't
> hear it, like the vast majority of other cases it gets. That lets a
> lower court ruling stand, but is a different thing entirely from an
> actual ruling, since it doesn't establish any precedent.
>

Wearing your Perry Mason hat again, Navas?

Your legal views and opinions are sophmoric at best. Give it up.