class action law suit

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> PC Medic wrote:
>
>> Well maybe some of the people that can afford good lawyers should get off
>> their a$$ and hire them before things reach the 'class-action buzzards
>> then.
>
> It just isn't practical to do this when there's several million people
> that have each experienced a loss of only a few hundred dollars.
>

It is if you have principals, but then there are few people around with
money AND principals :0)

> The "greedy lawyer" mantra is trotted out on a regular basis, but in fact
> a class-action is the only solution when the per person loss is too small
> to make it worthwhile to sue on an individual basis. The fact that say 10
> million people each get $25, while three law firms split $10 million in
> fees, is really moot, yet there are fools that try to spin it like "you
> get $25 while the lawyers each get $3 million dollars." If there were no
> payback for the lawyers, the people that experienced the loss would have
> no way to made whole again.

As you stated above most have only lost a few hundred dollars and based on
that, should not receive much more than their actual losses. The lawyers of
course are entitled to more as they did the leg work, though I agree that
some reasonable limits to their fees do need to be set.

---

› See More: class action law suit

PC Medic wrote:
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> PC Medic wrote:
>>
>>> Well maybe some of the people that can afford good lawyers should get off
>>> their a$$ and hire them before things reach the 'class-action buzzards
>>> then.
>> It just isn't practical to do this when there's several million people
>> that have each experienced a loss of only a few hundred dollars.
>>
>
> It is if you have principals, but then there are few people around with
> money AND principals :0)

I should hope so. It would be impractical to have your own principals.

However many people do have principles, but that doesn't mean that
they're stupid enough to sue a company over $300, when their legal
costs, and the time and trouble would far exceed their recovery.

Actually it might be amusing to see a carrier hit with twenty million
lawsuits in small claims court!

> As you stated above most have only lost a few hundred dollars and based on
> that, should not receive much more than their actual losses. The lawyers of
> course are entitled to more as they did the leg work, though I agree that
> some reasonable limits to their fees do need to be set.

The judge decides how much the lawyers get for their legal costs, and
can limit the percentage of the recovery, even if the members of the
class agreed to an unreasonable percentage.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:16:41 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>PC Medic wrote:

>> As you stated above most have only lost a few hundred dollars and based on
>> that, should not receive much more than their actual losses. The lawyers of
>> course are entitled to more as they did the leg work, though I agree that
>> some reasonable limits to their fees do need to be set.
>
>The judge decides how much the lawyers get for their legal costs, and
>can limit the percentage of the recovery, even if the members of the
>class agreed to an unreasonable percentage.

The members of the class aren't consulted. The attorneys make a fee app
(application, backed up by documentation). The judge, who is almost
always a lawyer, almost always approves the fee app.

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

PC Medic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Well considering some of the 'fees' these class action lawyers end up with,
> makes you wonder about the integrity of a lot of judges as well.
>

Don't forget that we live in a new fangled democracy that our fore fathers
would abhor. That is where a person or entity gets to vote with dollars
rather than rights. Dollars are the almighty political voting tool. We are
the most corrupt nation on Earth (well, with any real GDP that is) short of
the historical Roman Empire. Don't forget that Israel is really the 51st
state ... and they get to vote with their dollars too.

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> PC Medic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Well considering some of the 'fees' these class action lawyers end up
>> with,
>> makes you wonder about the integrity of a lot of judges as well.
>>
>
> Don't forget that we live in a new fangled democracy that our fore fathers
> would abhor. That is where a person or entity gets to vote with dollars
> rather than rights. Dollars are the almighty political voting tool. We
> are
> the most corrupt nation on Earth (well, with any real GDP that is) short
> of
> the historical Roman Empire. Don't forget that Israel is really the 51st
> state ... and they get to vote with their dollars too.

While doing some research about 14 years ago, I discovered Japan has one
lawyer per 10,000 people. Curious, I looked for the U.S. ratio. It's one
lawyer per 300 people.

Divide what you would call an average income for an attorney, by 300 to
determine your 'monthly burden'. Like taxes, it's a hidden fee in everything
you buy.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:59:27 -0500, "Thurman" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>While doing some research about 14 years ago, I discovered Japan has one
>lawyer per 10,000 people. Curious, I looked for the U.S. ratio. It's one
>lawyer per 300 people.
>
>Divide what you would call an average income for an attorney, by 300 to
>determine your 'monthly burden'. Like taxes, it's a hidden fee in everything
>you buy.

It's not that simple -- you have to balance the cost of attorneys by
their benefit, which is often (usually?) positive. Only a minority of
lawyers are litigators -- most deal with mundane things like contracts,
taxes, estates, etc. Our economy is much stronger than Japan so we
might be doing something right.

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

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:38:07 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>PC Medic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Well considering some of the 'fees' these class action lawyers end up with,
>> makes you wonder about the integrity of a lot of judges as well.
>
>Don't forget that we live in a new fangled democracy that our fore fathers
>would abhor. That is where a person or entity gets to vote with dollars
>rather than rights. Dollars are the almighty political voting tool.

What makes you think our forefathers would have abhorred it? They were
wealthy elite that were quite mercantile.

>We are
>the most corrupt nation on Earth (well, with any real GDP that is) short of
>the historical Roman Empire.

Get serious.

>Don't forget that Israel is really the 51st
>state ... and they get to vote with their dollars too.

Our dollars.

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

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:45:08 -0400, "PC Medic" <[email protected]>
wrote in <W8ezg.1592$W93.1119@dukeread05>:

>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> Actually it might be amusing to see a carrier hit with twenty million
>> lawsuits in small claims court!
>
>It would certainly be costly for them to defend against all of them. And, in
>most states you can add your legal fees (if any) to the award you are
>seeking in small claims court.

Courts aren't sympathetic to that kind of thing (abuse of Small Claims),
and can act to block them.

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

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Don't forget that Israel is really the 51st
>>state ... and they get to vote with their dollars too.
>
> Our dollars.
>

Yes ... billions of them. They come back to this country in the form of
special interest lobbies [of the highest order] and weapons purchases. We
give the wealthy controllers there enough power to lead this country like a
puppet. I am not anti-sematic, but I am against the whole premise behind the
construction of Israel and I certainly do not support it. They have become a
really expensive thorn in our side. What exactly does Israel do for us again?
Protect our Middle Eastern political and security interests? I don't think
so.

Well ... I have wandered way off topic.

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

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>It would certainly be costly for them to defend against all of them. And, in
>>most states you can add your legal fees (if any) to the award you are
>>seeking in small claims court.
>
> Courts aren't sympathetic to that kind of thing (abuse of Small Claims),
> and can act to block them.
>

Why would they do that unless the suit is frivilous to begin with?

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

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:31:13 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>It would certainly be costly for them to defend against all of them. And, in
>>>most states you can add your legal fees (if any) to the award you are
>>>seeking in small claims court.
>>
>> Courts aren't sympathetic to that kind of thing (abuse of Small Claims),
>> and can act to block them.
>
>Why would they do that unless the suit is frivilous to begin with?

An organized activity like that can be considered abuse of process.
Caveat: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:45:08 -0400, "PC Medic" <[email protected]>
> wrote in <W8ezg.1592$W93.1119@dukeread05>:
>
>>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Actually it might be amusing to see a carrier hit with twenty million
>>> lawsuits in small claims court!
>>
>>It would certainly be costly for them to defend against all of them. And,
>>in
>>most states you can add your legal fees (if any) to the award you are
>>seeking in small claims court.
>
> Courts aren't sympathetic to that kind of thing (abuse of Small Claims),
> and can act to block them.
>

And where pray-tell does the all knowing JN see signs of "abuse of small
claims".
If a company (or individual) screws you over for xxx amount, it is well
within your right to seek restitution through small claims. Just because
they may have also screwed others, there is nothing stating you must be part
of a class action to do so.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:31:13 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>It would certainly be costly for them to defend against all of them.
>>>>And, in
>>>>most states you can add your legal fees (if any) to the award you are
>>>>seeking in small claims court.
>>>
>>> Courts aren't sympathetic to that kind of thing (abuse of Small Claims),
>>> and can act to block them.
>>
>>Why would they do that unless the suit is frivilous to begin with?
>
> An organized activity like that can be considered abuse of process.

So you are saying the court would consider individual plaintiffs not
organizing into a class action as being organized? Even when a class action
status exists, you are not required to become a part of that class action
and may seek restitution individually.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Caveat: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
>

Your caveat needs to expand to cover yourother topics of expertise as well.
It would actually end up being longer than most of your posts.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:16:43 -0400, "PC Medic" <[email protected]>
wrote in <L3xzg.2564$W93.2188@dukeread05>:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:31:13 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
>> <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>It would certainly be costly for them to defend against all of them.
>>>>>And, in
>>>>>most states you can add your legal fees (if any) to the award you are
>>>>>seeking in small claims court.
>>>>
>>>> Courts aren't sympathetic to that kind of thing (abuse of Small Claims),
>>>> and can act to block them.
>>>
>>>Why would they do that unless the suit is frivilous to begin with?
>>
>> An organized activity like that can be considered abuse of process.
>
>So you are saying the court would consider individual plaintiffs not
>organizing into a class action as being organized? Even when a class action
>status exists, you are not required to become a part of that class action
>and may seek restitution individually.

I'm not saying anything of the kind. Read more carefully.

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