A question about lawsuits..

[GWN7]

The NFL thread made me think of this. Several years ago I was flying home from a meeting and on the Phoenix to Minneapolis leg of the trip I was upgraded. The guy sitting in the seat next to me owned a manufacturing plant as I found out while talking to him. He was flying home because he had to be in court the next day.

When someone says they have to be in court the next day it's usually a interesting conversation. He told me this wasn't the first time he had been to court for a similar reason. Turns out his plant has a production line and several years ago a caretaker he had working there wanted to "join the line". People on the line got payed a lot more money. He told the guy he could but line production workers had to have their speed up to X amount of units per hour within 3 months or they were terminated. If they hit the number they get a raise. The guy agrees and signs a employment agreement. Three months go by, the guy didn't hit the X number. So he offers the guy his old job back (at his original wage). Guy says no and off he goes. A couple weeks go by and the owner gets served notice he is being sued for wrongful dismissal based on race.

The suit proceeds. The other party asks for a cash settlement before it goes to trial. The owner gets mad and tells his lawyer to counter sue. To sue the ex employee and his lawyer for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. The owner wins and the judge awards him costs and his fees against the other lawyer (the ex employee has no money). So now anytime anyone sues him he counter sues. He said the word has got out and the number of these types of suits has dropped dramatically.

So why couldn't the NFL sue the ticket guy and his lawyer?

[HardDrive]

There are instances when US companies are starting to react with a bit more 'offense' against frivolous suits. But its happening at the class action level. I do hope it filters down a bit.

[asphaltgambler]

No good deed ever goes unpunished........................

[1990C4S]

If the suit is frivolous you should be awarded costs. I don't see the point of counter-suit.

[nvr2mny]

It's very costly to defend defenseless claims. My company was involved in a class action suit brought about by disgruntled ex-drivers I had employed. We had coverage for a part but decided to "scorch the earth" with these slackers. We prevailed, but at a cost close to me of 200k. I could have "settled" (although it wouldn't have been settling) for 15% of that. So, tell me - what's "smarter"? Unfortunately the scum (employees who do this & the attorneys who represent them) know this and BANK on settling.

[Evans, Marv]

Was the $200K an out of pocket expense, or did you recoup it from them having to pay your costs? Congrats for standing up for yourself.

[biosurfer1]

I would say the smarter course would be the way you went IF it means future lawsuits wont be filed because of it.

Disney used to do the same thing regarding lawsuits at Disneyland. Event the smallest claim would be handled full force simply because they knew settling would cause an flood of claims and in the end, they felt they saved money.

Guess the only way to know for sure is try both ways and see which one actually saves money.

Originally Posted by nvr2mny

It's very costly to defend defenseless claims. My company was involved in a class action suit brought about by disgruntled ex-drivers I had employed. We had coverage for a part but decided to "scorch the earth" with these slackers. We prevailed, but at a cost close to me of 200k. I could have "settled" (although it wouldn't have been settling) for 15% of that. So, tell me - what's "smarter"? Unfortunately the scum (employees who do this & the attorneys who represent them) know this and BANK on settling.

[nvr2mny]

Marv, no unfortunately it cost me (the business really) as the ex-employees had nothing. That's $ that could have been applied to wages, improvements, benefits etc. so in reality it cost EVERYONE in the organization. I do hope it set a precedence, time will tell.

[dondarnell]

That one guy "got the word out" and lawsuits dropped dramatically? No. And one does not counter sue for a frivolous claim. Sounds like you were sitting next to a bull****ter.

[dondarnell]

Originally Posted by nvr2mny

It's very costly to defend defenseless claims. My company was involved in a class action suit brought about by disgruntled ex-drivers I had employed. We had coverage for a part but decided to "scorch the earth" with these slackers. We prevailed, but at a cost close to me of 200k. I could have "settled" (although it wouldn't have been settling) for 15% of that. So, tell me - what's "smarter"? Unfortunately the scum (employees who do this & the attorneys who represent them) know this and BANK on settling.

Business people make business decisions. Sounds like your company made an emotional decision. I respect it in a way. And maybe long term it pays (to discourage other like litigation).

[T77911S]

i am being sued. go to court the 19th. to sumerize a letter from the lawyer of the guy suing me:

i have tried to talk my client out of taking this to court, but he is determined to go to court even though he knows he may not get a settlement

sounds like he is just trying to run up my lawyer fees. he was my wifes landlord for her business.

[Nathans_Dad]

Welcome to Amerika, land of the victim and home of the scumbag lawyer.