• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Man sued for $30K over $40 printer he sold on Craigslist

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HeySeuss

Member
msv said:
I don't get the logic here, why is it so important that someone show up in court? Proof is proof. If the case relies on the defendant admitting it, then you don't have a case...
Click to expand...

Because the stuff that happens in the op is the extreme minority. Imagine a rape victim pressing charges and having to relive the trauma every time a hearing is held. Now imagine the accused never showing up to trial because fuck you I don't have to show up if I don't want to. Then the judge says "ok we can't do anything because he didn't show up, come back in 30 days for another trial".

Then repeat that scenario every time over and over with no repercussions for the accused for never showing up to court. The victims then relives their attack every time thinking this time is the time they finally get justice.

That's why.
 
K

K.Jack

Knowledge is power, guard it well
Come back and sue this asshole for 10x the amount, due to harassment and libel, with extra damages for how all of the constant stress has affected your health.

His history of lawsuits pretty much writes the check. Fuck it, let's round up other victims and go medieval Class Action with this shit.
 
M

msv

Member
HeySeuss said:
Because the stuff that happens in the op is the extreme minority. Imagine a rape victim pressing charges and having to relive the trauma every time a hearing is held. Now imagine the accused never showing up to trial because fuck you I don't have to show up if I don't want to. Then the judge says "ok we can't do anything because he didn't show up, come back in 30 days for another trial".

Then repeat that scenario every time over and over with no repercussions for the accused for never showing up to court. The victims then relives their attack every time thinking this time is the time they finally get justice.

That's why.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with defaulting to an admission though? I don't see how that's a tenable default stance. If the accused in a rape victim case wouldn't show up, what would make the difference? The accused can deny and plead the 5th right. Unless they are needed for blood tests and such, why is their physical presence needed? How is the default to an admission nothing more than a punishment for the accused? Again, if the case fails without the defendant admitting it, then there is no case.
 
B

bodyboarder

Member
K.Jack said:
Come back and sue this asshole for 10x the amount, due to harassment and libel, with extra damages for how all of the constant stress has affected your health.

His history of lawsuits pretty much writes the check. Fuck it, let's round up other victims and go medieval Class Action with this shit.
Click to expand...

Sweet karma.
 
Z

ZackieChan

Member
Angry Grimace said:
Having experience in these matters, most of the time you just have to file a request for relief from an order like that. I'm guessing the guy who got sued just ignored everything to an extreme degree.
Click to expand...

Yep. These threads usually descend into "America is fucked" posts, when the reality is that the defendant usually just ignores everything. Same with cases where someone doesn't deal with modifying child support orders after losing a job, and ends up owing a ton or going to jail. The system exists, you need to work within it. Yes, there are some assholes that try to take advantage of things, but it isn't nearly the disaster these outlier cases make it seem.
 
Braag

Braag

Member
Do you have to just blindly follow the law in court or is common sense allowed to be used? Like does anyone stand back for a moment and think "this guy is clearly trying to fuck this other guy over and wants 30k for a 40$ printer".
 
O

OrlanisWorks

Banned
That Zavodnik guy should step away from his lawsuit machine and step into some humanity because he sounds like a real fucking asshole who doesn't deserve much of anything in life.
 
B

Branduil

Member
ZackieChan said:
Yep. These threads usually descend into "America is fucked" posts, when the reality is that the defendant usually just ignores everything. Same with cases where someone doesn't deal with modifying child support orders after losing a job, and ends up owing a ton or going to jail. The system exists, you need to work within it. Yes, there are some assholes that try to take advantage of things, but it isn't nearly the disaster these outlier cases make it seem.
Click to expand...

If the system worked the lawsuit troll would be hit with the entirety of the court fees he's created in his lifetime and be so broke and poor he could never dream of filing a lawsuit again.
 
K

Keri

Member
Braag said:
Do you have to just blindly follow the law in court or is common sense allowed to be used? Like does anyone stand back for a moment and think "this guy is clearly trying to fuck this other guy over and wants 30k for a 40$ printer".
Click to expand...

In the state I live in, if you don't respond to Requests for Admissions (as this Defendant didn't), the Judge has no choice but to deem the requests admitted, upon the filing of a Motion, requesting the same. The law gives the Defendant up until the hearing date on the Motion to comply, but if they don't, the Requests must be deemed admitted, per statute.

Also, the Court simply doesn't have the resources to defend every Defendant, on it's own accord, even assuming there was discretion. If you are sued, you really have to be pro-active in protecting yourself. Although, if this Defendant really wasn't served the Requests, he should be able to challenge the default against him.
 
H

hoola

Neo Member
Costello claims he never even received the admissions. I read it in the yahoo article. Wouldn't surprise me if true.
 
S

Shotgun Kiss

Member
Judges that make rulings like that should be fired. They're obviously shit at their job, so why should they be allowed to continue doing it?
 
J

jay

Member
So with these winning by default technicalities, does that mean if the lawsuit had been for 17 trillion dollars the seller would have been on the hook for that? Or does the judge actually have some power to say "fuck this, it's bullshit"?
 
S

Stormwatch

Member
jay said:
So with these winning by default technicalities, does that mean if the lawsuit had been for 17 trillion dollars the seller would have been on the hook for that? Or does the judge actually have some power to say "fuck this, it's bullshit"?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you would think a judge would say something like "Ok, you win, but I'm reducing the judgement to $40 which is the price you paid for the printer".
 
A

ahoyhoy

Unconfirmed Member
HeySeuss said:
Because the stuff that happens in the op is the extreme minority. Imagine a rape victim pressing charges and having to relive the trauma every time a hearing is held. Now imagine the accused never showing up to trial because fuck you I don't have to show up if I don't want to. Then the judge says "ok we can't do anything because he didn't show up, come back in 30 days for another trial".

Then repeat that scenario every time over and over with no repercussions for the accused for never showing up to court. The victims then relives their attack every time thinking this time is the time they finally get justice.

That's why.
Click to expand...

Or they could just hold the trial with only one side providing the evidence.

Just pretend like the accused entered a plea of not guilty and abstained from presenting any evidence during the trial phase and rule based on that. Chances are they will be found guilty or at fault, but I have a feeling in cases like this the judge might find the evidence of the plaintiff generally lacking enough to even warrant a non-contested victory.
 
K

KingHenrik30

Member
K.Jack said:
Come back and sue this asshole for 10x the amount, due to harassment and libel, with extra damages for how all of the constant stress has affected your health.

His history of lawsuits pretty much writes the check. Fuck it, let's round up other victims and go medieval Class Action with this shit.
Click to expand...

That's not gonna work
 
T

TS-08

Member
ahoyhoy said:
Or they could just hold the trial with only one side providing the evidence.

Just pretend like the accused entered a plea of not guilty and abstained from presenting any evidence during the trial phase and rule based on that. Chances are they will be found guilty or at fault, but I have a feeling in cases like this the judge might find the evidence of the plaintiff generally lacking enough to even warrant a non-contested victory.
Click to expand...

1. I don't know about every state, but at least some jurisdictions require testimony from the plaintiff (or at least an affidavit of the plaintiff attached to the complaint) before a default can be awarded. It may even be required to submit the document you're suing on (lease, loan agreement, etc.).

2. Requiring a full trial and allowing the judge much discretion in disbelieving the plaintiff's evidence without the participation of a defendant works a substantial injustice against the plaintiff, as they would not have the benefit of conducting discovery against the defendant, which can be vital.
 
Y

yanipheonu

Member
Noisepurge said:
eh, guy is just playing the system and living the american lawsuit dream :p
Click to expand...

large.gif
 
R

RionaaM

Unconfirmed Member
This is beyond fucked up. It's funny to think the court system in Ace Attorney seems to make more sense than this. This guy is worse than Von Karma.
 
Ploid 3.0

Ploid 3.0

Member
Wow this guy moved here and he sounds more American than I can ever hope to be, or want to be. He should start buying peoples debt and hope they don't show up in court.
 
B

bigmit3737

Member
It's these banks or hospitals that are selling the debt for cheap (after tax write offs) that are the main culprits of this problem.
 
Z

ZackieChan

Member
hydrophilic attack said:
Welp, at least some lawyers and judges got paid.

And gaf tells me that the law field is not full of parasites
Click to expand...

He represented himself, I believe. Both of them did, until the defendant's final dealings with the appeals court. The court struck down the decision, which was based on the law, saying that the defendant had to respond to these legal documents within a certain amount of time.

Sorry you hate lawyers, but this hardly has anything to do with actual lawyers. Maybe you should have read the article?
 
T

Tigress

Member
Why is he allowed to keep suing over the same thing? I know in criminal court you have the thing where you can't be tried again for the same crime. Why don't they have at for seeing? If you sued over the printer or issues with the printer and lost, no more lawsuits relating to it! As is the way it is it looks like he loses nothing by just trying over and over again.
 
Z

ZackieChan

Member
Tigress said:
Why is he allowed to keep suing over the same thing? I know in criminal court you have the thing where you can't be tried again for the same crime. Why don't they have at for seeing? If you sued over the printer or issues with the printer and lost, no more lawsuits relating to it! As is the way it is it looks like he loses nothing by just trying over and over again.
Click to expand...

Not sure why he was allowed to sue in both small claims court and in regular court - in California I don't believe a plaintiff can do that. A defendant can, however (iirc from my days mediating there).

The rest of it was all one lawsuit, he just kept appealing the decisions. I'm sure there's some facts missing from the article that would be very interesting from a legal standpoint, but not so much from an article reader's point of view.
 
A

ahoyhoy

Unconfirmed Member
TS-08 said:
1. I don't know about every state, but at least some jurisdictions require testimony from the plaintiff (or at least an affidavit of the plaintiff attached to the complaint) before a default can be awarded. It may even be required to submit the document you're suing on (lease, loan agreement, etc.).

2. Requiring a full trial and allowing the judge much discretion in disbelieving the plaintiff's evidence without the participation of a defendant works a substantial injustice against the plaintiff, as they would not have the benefit of conducting discovery against the defendant, which can be vital.
Click to expand...

How would it hurt the plaintiff? If I'm sued, show up to court and refuse to say anything, isn't that the same as not showing up to court at all?
 
M

MogCakes

Member
ZackieChan said:
The rest of it was all one lawsuit, he just kept appealing the decisions. I'm sure there's some facts missing from the article that would be very interesting from a legal standpoint, but not so much from an article reader's point of view.
Click to expand...

Doesn't it cost money to appeal? It's like this guy lives for the thrill of litigation.
 
K

Keri

Member
ZackieChan said:
Not sure why he was allowed to sue in both small claims court and in regular court - in California I don't believe a plaintiff can do that. A defendant can, however (iirc from my days mediating there).
Click to expand...

The Defendant can argue the case is barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel, but the burden is on them to present the argument to the Court and establish the elements of these defenses (i.e. same issue, same parties, final decision, etc.). Otherwise, the Court probably isn't going to know about the prior litigation (they aren't routinely searching their case databases, to see if a particular Plaintiff has sued a particular Defendant before). And, even if they did know about the prior litigation, it would take independent legal research to review the prior case and determine whether these principles apply. The Court just doesn't have the resources to act as Counsel like that, for each individual case.
 
Z

ZackieChan

Member
MogCakes said:
Doesn't it cost money to appeal? It's like this guy lives for the thrill of litigation.
Click to expand...

Sure, but since he's doing the lawyering himself I guess he's saving money.

Keri said:
The Defendant can argue the case is barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel, but the burden is on them to present the argument to the Court and establish the elements of these defenses (i.e. same issue, same parties, final decision, etc.). Otherwise, the Court probably isn't going to know about the prior litigation (they aren't routinely searching their case databases, to see if a particular Plaintiff has sued a particular Defendant before). And, even if they did know about the prior litigation, it would take independent legal research to review the prior case and determine whether these principles apply. The Court just doesn't have the resources to act as Counsel like that, for each individual case.
Click to expand...

Ahh, good point. Thanks! Though wouldn't that be the first thing the real attorney would argue? Or is it long past time to argue res judicata at that point?
 
T

TS-08

Member
The case in which the plaintiff was granted the money (initially) was the same case in the small claims court. He appealed it to the superior court and it was tried de novo.
 
C

crazygambit

Member
HeySeuss said:
Because the stuff that happens in the op is the extreme minority. Imagine a rape victim pressing charges and having to relive the trauma every time a hearing is held. Now imagine the accused never showing up to trial because fuck you I don't have to show up if I don't want to. Then the judge says "ok we can't do anything because he didn't show up, come back in 30 days for another trial".

Then repeat that scenario every time over and over with no repercussions for the accused for never showing up to court. The victims then relives their attack every time thinking this time is the time they finally get justice.

That's why.
Click to expand...

But then the opposite would also be true. Someone can repeatedly sue you for petty stuff and make you show up every time. How long do you think you're gonna last at your job if you have to go to court every other day?

Seems pretty insane to me.
 
Z

ZackieChan

Member
TS-08 said:
The case in which the plaintiff was granted the money (initially) was the same case in the small claims court. He appealed it to the superior court and it was tried de novo.
Click to expand...

I really should have paid more attention in Civil Procedure. #transactional4lyfe
 
F

FoxSpirit

Junior Member
See, here in EU it's very simple: all private items are sold as is, with no liability nor warranty.

So far, no problems in all my proceedings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Crush 40 singer (Johnny Gioeli) is suing Sega over ownership for "Live & Learn".
News
37
2K
kevboard replied
Japanese Police Arrests Alleged Modder of Nintendo Switch Consoles
3
492
DeepEnigma replied
Vince McMahon / Brock Lesner Accused of Sex Trafficking and other weird shit
2 3
149
19K
Grildon Tundy replied
It's Stellarblade Versus Stellar Blade as Louisiana Company Sues PlayStation and Shift Up Over Name
46
3K
Kamina replied
Microsoft and Epic Games Sued Over Video Game Addiction
News 2 3
104
8K
SmokedMeat replied
Top Bottom