History Main / FrivolousLawSuit

24th Feb '17 3:41:32 PM Bassman
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* Emerald White, a pitbull owner from Texas, [[http://www.inquisitr.com/1662879/emerald-white-pit-bull-owner-whose-dogs-attacked-and-killed-family-pet-will-not-sue-victims/ sued a family who's pet beagle was killed by her two pitbulls]]. She claimed she suffered “multiple serious bite and scratch-type injuries requiring ongoing medical treatment” while alleging that she felt “conscious pain and suffering and now suffers also from fear anxiety and trepidation” as a result of the “unprovoked attack.” At this point, this troper wants owning a pitbull dog punishable by death.
22nd Feb '17 6:21:50 PM DarkLordJadow
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The lawsuit against games journalist [[WebVideo/{{Jimquisition}} Jim Sterling]] by indie game developer Digital Homicide. A horrible game developer attempted to sue a critic and journalist for ''doing his job.'' Digital Homicide released several games on Steam that were all of particularly poor quality- often containing a litany of fundamental design flaws and massive bugs that almost always went un-patched. They were also highly unethical- they've traded under fake studio names, tried to bypass Steam Greenlight's voting process, released identical games that were obvious palette swaps, re-released games on Greenlight multiple times to reset the game's negative votes, and released so many games that the average development time for each of their games was ''less than a month each''. Sterling reviewed all of their games negatively and reported about their assorted underhanded practices, and DH clashed with him multiple times. They managed to make such public asses of themselves that their games stopped selling. Digital Homicide then filed a lawsuit against Sterling for $10.7 million (later upped to $15 million) arguing that ''he is singularly responsible for the collapse of their entire business because he reviewed their games poorly.'' DH argued that ''everything Sterling ever said or printed about them was lies'' designed specifically by Sterling to demolish their business. [[note]]Most of the things DH is complaining about Sterling having said about them are very easily verifiable and Sterling is far from the only person to criticize them - he's just the most notable.[[/note]] The damages were listed as lost income (for the games they allege don't sell because of Sterling), slander, assault on character, and mental anguish. Sterling has since filed for the lawsuit to be dismissed. Digital Homicide currently has until Feb. 10, 2017 to pick up the lawsuit before it's thrown out.

to:

* The lawsuit against games journalist [[WebVideo/{{Jimquisition}} Jim Sterling]] by indie game developer Digital Homicide. A horrible game developer attempted to sue a critic and journalist for ''doing his job.'' Digital Homicide released several games on Steam that were all of particularly poor quality- often containing a litany of fundamental design flaws and massive bugs that almost always went un-patched. They were also highly unethical- they've traded under fake studio names, tried to bypass Steam Greenlight's voting process, released identical games that were obvious palette swaps, re-released games on Greenlight multiple times to reset the game's negative votes, and released so many games that the average development time for each of their games was ''less than a month each''. Sterling reviewed all of their games negatively and reported about their assorted underhanded practices, and DH clashed with him multiple times. They managed to make times; making such public asses of themselves that their games stopped selling. Digital Homicide then filed a lawsuit against Sterling for $10.7 million (later upped to $15 million) arguing that ''he is singularly responsible for the collapse of their entire business because he reviewed their games poorly.'' DH argued that ''everything Sterling ever said or printed about them was lies'' designed specifically by Sterling to demolish their business. [[note]]Most of the things DH is complaining about Sterling having said about them are very easily verifiable and Sterling is far from the only person to criticize them - he's just the most notable.[[/note]] The damages were listed as lost income (for the games they allege don't sell because of Sterling), slander, assault on character, and mental anguish. Sterling has since filed for the lawsuit to be dismissed. Digital Homicide currently has until Feb. 10, 2017 to pick up the lawsuit before it's thrown out.



** Digital Homicide decided to amend their lawsuit against Jim Sterling with James Romine trying to prove that Digital Homicide is an alias he uses since companies can't make personal lawsuits against individuals. To make things more interesting, Jim Sterling noted that, supposedly, James Romine made several $1 donations to Jim's Pateron in the hopes that doing so will prove Jim had done business in Arizona thus it would be enough evidence to get him tried in an Arizona court. It's theorized that James is trying this stunt since Arizona laws would supposedly be in favor of James and he could still sue Jim for slander, regardless of whether or not Jim retracted his statements.

to:

** Digital Homicide's initial lawsuit was thrown out because James Romine filed as an individual but listed damages against a company. Romine amended the lawsuit with a few new charges: that Sterling was a competitor with motive to drive Digital Homicide decided to amend their lawsuit against out of business[[note]] Jim provides voicework for games on occasion[[/note]], that Sterling with prevented them from changing accounts and somehow cost them 2 million dollars in destroyed product, and that Romine has been donating a dollar to Sterling's Patreon each month to prove Sterling does business in Arizona.[[note]]Romine was desperate to get the case tried in Arizona, where he'd still be able to sue Sterling for defaming statements that had been corrected.[[/note]]
** On February 21, 2017- almost a year after the lawsuit began-
James Romine trying filed to prove that have the lawsuit dismissed with prejudice- meaning Digital Homicide is an alias he uses since companies can't make personal lawsuits against individuals. To make things more interesting, Jim cannot file the lawsuit again. According to Sterling noted that, supposedly, James his lawyer met with Romine, laid out their strategy for the case, and convinced Romine that ''he'd be hopelessly screwed if the case actually made several $1 donations it to Jim's Pateron in the hopes that doing so will prove Jim had done business in Arizona thus it would be enough evidence to get him tried in an Arizona court. It's theorized that James is trying this stunt since Arizona laws would supposedly be in favor of James and he could still sue Jim for slander, regardless of whether or not Jim retracted his statements.court.''
6th Feb '17 3:50:09 PM Steven
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Digital Homicide decided to amend their lawsuit against Jim Sterling with James Romine trying to prove that Digital Homicide is an alias he uses since companies can't make personal lawsuits against individuals. To make things more interesting, Jim Sterling noted that, supposedly, James Romine made several $1 donations to Jim's Pateron in the hopes that doing so will prove Jim had done business in Arizona thus it would be enough evidence to get him tried in an Arizona court. It's theorized that James is trying this stunt since Arizona laws would supposedly be in favor of James and he could still sue Jim for slander, regardless of whether or not Jim retracted his statements.
5th Feb '17 4:21:16 PM eroock
Is there an issue? Send a Message


->''I sued Verizon, 'cause I get all depressed any time my cell phone is roaming.\\

to:

->''I ->''"I sued Verizon, 'cause I get all depressed any time my cell phone is roaming.\\



I sued Creator/BenAffleck ... aww, do I even need a '''reason'''?!''

to:

I sued Creator/BenAffleck ... aww, do I even need a '''reason'''?!'''''reason'''?!"''
27th Jan '17 10:12:43 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Other people filed a lawsuit against [=McDonald's=] in 2016 over their mozzarella sticks not containing any cheese. It turns out overcooking the mozzarella sticks would cause the cheese to ooze out leaving only the outside breading.

to:

* Other people filed a lawsuit against [=McDonald's=] in 2016 over their mozzarella sticks not containing any cheese. It turns out overcooking the mozzarella sticks would cause the cheese to ooze out leaving only the outside breading. (This is therefore essentially an aversion, as the buyers would therefore most likely be reasonably entitled to sue for damages on theories of breach of contract or consumer fraud. However, given that the items are so cheap, they would at best be entitled to collect about $10-$20 depending on how generous the punitive-damages provisions of their local consumer protection laws are--not enough to justify the filing fees, let alone anything else.)
17th Jan '17 4:49:13 PM DarkLordJadow
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The lawsuit against games journalist [[WebVideo/{{Jimquisition}} Jim Sterling]] by indie game developer Digital Homicide. A horrible game developer is attempting to sue a critic and journalist for ''doing his job.'' Digital Homicide released several games on Steam that were all of particularly poor quality- often containing a litany of fundamental design flaws and massive bugs that almost always went un-patched. They're also highly unethical- they've traded under fake studio names, tried to bypass Steam Greenlight's voting process, released identical games that were obvious palette swaps, re-released games on Greenlight multiple times to reset the game's negative votes, and released so many games that the average development time for each of their games is ''less than a month each''. Sterling reviewed all of their games negatively and reported about their assorted underhanded practices, and DH clashed with him multiple times. They managed to make such public asses of themselves that their games stopped selling. Digital Homicide then filed a lawsuit against Sterling for $10.7 million (later upped to $15 million) arguing that ''he is singularly responsible for the collapse of their entire business because he reviewed their games poorly.'' DH argues that ''every single thing Sterling has EVER said or printed about them has been lies'' designed specifically by Sterling to demolish their business. [[note]]Most of the things DH is complaining about Sterling having said about them are very easily verifiable and Sterling is far from the only person to criticize them - he's just the most notable.[[/note]] The damages are listed as lost income (for the games they allege don't sell because of Sterling), slander, assault on character, and mental anguish. Sterling has since filed for the lawsuit to be dismissed.
** That "mental anguish" part is because Jim Sterling's fans have vigorously harassed them on Steam and even sent feces to their house. They seek to hold Jim personally responsible for his fans' harassment (in other words: for angry people on the internet doing what angry people on the internet do to everybody) despite the fact that ''Jim has repeatedly and publicly pleaded with his viewers not to harass anybody on his behalf.''
** In September 2016, Digital Homicide [[http://www.polygon.com/2016/9/17/12951756/digital-homicide-lawsuit-jim-sterling-steam-users-valve went further off the deep end]], filing a personal injury lawsuit against ''100 Steam users to the tune of nearly $18 million'' (all against accounts that have criticized them, reviewed their games poorly, and/or posted mean comments about them) - with the Prayer of Relief stating that should the case default or the judge find in favor of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff requests a court order stating that defendants that either reside outside of the United States or can't pay the fees ''have their Steam accounts permanently closed as recompense''. ''The day after'' the announcement for a subpoena ordering Valve to release the personal information of said 100 Steam users, Valve had enough of their bullshit and '''completely purged Digital Homicide and all of their games from Steam'''. And they had good reason, as the proposed subpoena asks for enough information that the Romine brothers could potentially harass the defendants, ranging from trying to ruin their lives to ''outright hunting them down and killing them''. ''[[UpToEleven As if that wasn't enough]]'', they're [[TooStupidToLive planning on suing Valve]] in response to being blacklisted. On September 27 Digital Homicide themselves filed to have the lawsuit dismissed, [[UnreliableNarrator claiming the damages inflicted have left them too broke to afford subpoenas to the defendents.]] [[note]]The Romine Brothers do not have a lawyer and are representing themselves in all of these lawsuits. It is possible the judge didn't want the personal details from Valve's subpoena ending up directly in the Romines' hands; a conflict that would not be in place if a lawyer could handle the information for them.[[/note]]
*** It gets better/worse. [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKIAPR6D5FQ A YouTube discussion about the lawsuit reveals]] that most of the legalese within the 58-page lawsuit document is ''[[https://youtu.be/UKIAPR6D5FQ?t=1h23m17s so damn thoroughly vague and broad]]'' that the range of defendants could encompass anywhere from the entirety of the Steam userbase to ''[[https://youtu.be/UKIAPR6D5FQ?t=1h25m everyone that is currently working in, has worked in, and will possibly work in the video game industry]], up to and including everyone who works with video games such as reviewers and YouTube content creators''.

to:

* The lawsuit against games journalist [[WebVideo/{{Jimquisition}} Jim Sterling]] by indie game developer Digital Homicide. A horrible game developer is attempting attempted to sue a critic and journalist for ''doing his job.'' Digital Homicide released several games on Steam that were all of particularly poor quality- often containing a litany of fundamental design flaws and massive bugs that almost always went un-patched. They're They were also highly unethical- they've traded under fake studio names, tried to bypass Steam Greenlight's voting process, released identical games that were obvious palette swaps, re-released games on Greenlight multiple times to reset the game's negative votes, and released so many games that the average development time for each of their games is was ''less than a month each''. Sterling reviewed all of their games negatively and reported about their assorted underhanded practices, and DH clashed with him multiple times. They managed to make such public asses of themselves that their games stopped selling. Digital Homicide then filed a lawsuit against Sterling for $10.7 million (later upped to $15 million) arguing that ''he is singularly responsible for the collapse of their entire business because he reviewed their games poorly.'' DH argues argued that ''every single thing ''everything Sterling has EVER ever said or printed about them has been was lies'' designed specifically by Sterling to demolish their business. [[note]]Most of the things DH is complaining about Sterling having said about them are very easily verifiable and Sterling is far from the only person to criticize them - he's just the most notable.[[/note]] The damages are were listed as lost income (for the games they allege don't sell because of Sterling), slander, assault on character, and mental anguish. Sterling has since filed for the lawsuit to be dismissed.
dismissed. Digital Homicide currently has until Feb. 10, 2017 to pick up the lawsuit before it's thrown out.
** That "mental anguish" part is because Jim Sterling's fans have vigorously harassed them on Steam and even sent feces to their house. They seek sought to hold Jim personally responsible for his fans' harassment (in other words: for angry people on the internet doing what angry people on the internet do to everybody) despite the fact that ''Jim Jim has repeatedly and publicly pleaded with his viewers not to harass anybody on his behalf.''
behalf.
** In September 2016, Digital Homicide [[http://www.polygon.com/2016/9/17/12951756/digital-homicide-lawsuit-jim-sterling-steam-users-valve went further off the deep end]], filing a personal injury lawsuit against ''100 Steam users to the tune of nearly $18 million'' (all against accounts that have criticized them, reviewed their games poorly, and/or posted mean comments about them) - with the Prayer of Relief stating that should the case default or the judge find in favor of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff requests a court order stating that defendants that either reside outside of the United States or can't pay the fees ''have their Steam accounts permanently closed as recompense''. ''The day after'' the announcement for a subpoena ordering Valve to release the personal information of said 100 Steam users, Valve had enough of their bullshit took an unprecedented step and '''completely purged Digital Homicide and all of their games from Steam'''. And they had good reason, as the proposed subpoena asks asked for enough information that the Romine brothers could potentially harass the defendants, ranging from trying to ruin their lives to ''outright hunting them down and killing them''. ''[[UpToEleven As if that wasn't enough]]'', they're they [[TooStupidToLive planning on suing tried to sue Valve]] in response to being blacklisted. On September 27 Digital Homicide themselves filed to have the lawsuit dismissed, [[UnreliableNarrator claiming the damages inflicted have left them too broke to afford subpoenas to the defendents.]] [[note]]The Romine Brothers do not have a lawyer and are representing themselves in all They've since gone out of these lawsuits. It is possible the judge didn't want the personal details from Valve's subpoena ending up directly in the Romines' hands; a conflict that would not be in place if a lawyer could handle the information for them.[[/note]]
business.
*** It gets better/worse. [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKIAPR6D5FQ A YouTube discussion about the lawsuit reveals]] that most of the legalese within the 58-page lawsuit document is ''[[https://youtu.be/UKIAPR6D5FQ?t=1h23m17s so damn thoroughly vague and broad]]'' that the range of defendants could encompass anywhere from the entirety of the Steam userbase to ''[[https://youtu.be/UKIAPR6D5FQ?t=1h25m everyone that is currently working in, has worked in, and will possibly work in the video game industry]], up to and including everyone who works with video games such as reviewers and YouTube content creators''. [[note]]They stated in assorted interviews that they were convinced that an unknown third party and competitor was behind all of their negative reviews and bad press; standing to profit from their downfall and loss of business. They may have purposefully left the lawsuit open in the hope they'd discover this conspirator's identity.[[/note]]
6th Jan '17 3:26:26 AM Kadorhal
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* A famous Pepsi ad showed a series of goodies a kid could get for turning in Pepsi points, culminating in a Harrier jet with the caption "7,000,000 POINTS." Some kid actually tried to purchase one with a $700,000 check at ten cents a point (actual unit price of an AV-8B Harrier II is $30 million), and sued Pepsi when they declined.[[note]]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.[[/note]] Among other things, he demanded a jury composed of "The Pepsi Generation" to hear his claim. The judge threw the case out, noting that any reasonable person would get the joke. Although, just to be safe, this made any company who uses a similar gag in their ads start including some "prize not actually available" legalese.

to:

* A famous Pepsi ad showed a series of goodies a kid could get for turning in Pepsi points, culminating in a Harrier jet with the caption "7,000,000 POINTS." Some kid actually tried to purchase one with a $700,000 check at ten cents a point (actual unit price of an AV-8B Harrier II is $30 at the time was about $34 million), and sued Pepsi when they declined.[[note]]http://en.[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.[[/note]] _Pepsico,_Inc sued Pepsi when they declined]]. Among other things, he demanded a jury composed of "The Pepsi Generation" to hear his claim. The judge threw the case out, noting that any reasonable person would get the joke. Although, just to be safe, this made any company who uses a similar gag in their ads start including some "prize not actually available" legalese.



* In December 2012, Creator/{{Sega}} filed a lawsuit against {{Level 5}} for 900 million yen (US $11 million) alleging that ''VideoGame/InazumaEleven'' infringes on 2 of Sega's patents by using drag-and-drop and tap commands on a touchscreen to control multiple characters at once, i.e. using the Nintendo DS touchscreen ''as a freaking touchscreen''. In quite possibly the most epic pwning ever to happen via corporate public statement, Level-5 [[http://www.level5.co.jp/news/20121212/popup.html responded]] by calmly pointing out that Sega's 2 patents in question are dated 2009 and 2011, whereas ''Inazuma Eleven'' was released in 2008, then proceeding to basically call out Sega for patent trolling.

to:

* In December 2012, Creator/{{Sega}} filed a lawsuit against {{Level Creator/{{Level 5}} for 900 million yen (US $11 million) alleging that ''VideoGame/InazumaEleven'' infringes on 2 of Sega's patents by using drag-and-drop and tap commands on a touchscreen to control multiple characters at once, i.e. using the Nintendo DS touchscreen ''as a freaking touchscreen''. In quite possibly the most epic pwning ever to happen via corporate public statement, Level-5 [[http://www.level5.co.jp/news/20121212/popup.html responded]] by calmly pointing out that Sega's 2 patents in question are dated 2009 and 2011, whereas ''Inazuma Eleven'' was released in 2008, then proceeding to basically call out Sega for patent trolling.



* [[http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/fan-who-fell-asleep-during-yankees-red-sox-game-suing-for--10-million-203033996.html A man fell asleep in the midst of a Yankees-Red Sox baseball game]], during which the announcers noticed and commented on. A video of this was then published on the MLB's website, and the Internet, being the Internet, began making fun of him for it. The man decided to sue the MLB and ESPN over this, apparently believing they are the ones throwing the insults around. The lawsuit even calls out [[http://notsportscenter.com/pic-sleeping-yankees-fan-cares-not-for-your-rivalry-talk/ an apparent attempt to imply he's gay]], completely oblivious to the fact that this is from a ''parody website'' and not the MLB's site.

to:

* [[http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/fan-who-fell-asleep-during-yankees-red-sox-game-suing-for--10-million-203033996.html A man fell asleep in the midst of a Yankees-Red Sox baseball game]], during which the announcers noticed and commented on. A video of this was then published on the MLB's website, and the Internet, being the Internet, began making fun of him for it. The man decided to sue the MLB and ESPN over this, apparently believing they are the ones throwing the insults around. The lawsuit even calls out [[http://notsportscenter.com/pic-sleeping-yankees-fan-cares-not-for-your-rivalry-talk/ an apparent attempt to imply he's gay]], completely oblivious to the fact that this is from a ''parody website'' and not the MLB's site.



* The lawsuit against games journalist [[WebVideo/{{Jimquisition}} Jim Sterling]] by indie game developer Digital Homicide. A horrible game developer is attempting to sue a critic and journalist for ''doing his job.'' Digital Homicide released several games on Steam that were all of particularly poor quality- often containing a litany of fundamental design flaws and massive bugs that almost always went un-patched. They're also highly unethical- they've traded under fake studio names, tried to bypass Steam Greenlight's voting process, released identical games that were obvious palette swaps, re-released games on Greenlight multiple times to reset the game's negative votes, and released so many games that the average development time for each of their games is ''less than a month each''. Sterling reviewed all of their games negatively and reported about their assorted underhanded practices, and DH clashed with him multiple times. They managed to make such public asses of themselves that their games stopped selling. Digital Homicide then filed a lawsuit against Sterling for $10.7 million (later upped to $15 million) arguing that ''he is singularly responsible for the collapse of their entire business because he reviewed their games poorly.'' DH argues that ''every single thing Sterling has EVER said or printed about them has been lies'' designed specifically by Sterling to demolish their business. [[note]]Most of the things DH is complaining about Sterling having said about them are very easily verifiable and Sterling is far from the only person to criticize them - he's just the most notable.[[/note]] The damages are listed as lost income (for the games they allege don't sell because of Sterling), slander, assault on character, and mental anguish. Sterling has since filed for the lawsuit to be dismissed, which as of November 22nd is still awaiting a court decision.

to:

* The lawsuit against games journalist [[WebVideo/{{Jimquisition}} Jim Sterling]] by indie game developer Digital Homicide. A horrible game developer is attempting to sue a critic and journalist for ''doing his job.'' Digital Homicide released several games on Steam that were all of particularly poor quality- often containing a litany of fundamental design flaws and massive bugs that almost always went un-patched. They're also highly unethical- they've traded under fake studio names, tried to bypass Steam Greenlight's voting process, released identical games that were obvious palette swaps, re-released games on Greenlight multiple times to reset the game's negative votes, and released so many games that the average development time for each of their games is ''less than a month each''. Sterling reviewed all of their games negatively and reported about their assorted underhanded practices, and DH clashed with him multiple times. They managed to make such public asses of themselves that their games stopped selling. Digital Homicide then filed a lawsuit against Sterling for $10.7 million (later upped to $15 million) arguing that ''he is singularly responsible for the collapse of their entire business because he reviewed their games poorly.'' DH argues that ''every single thing Sterling has EVER said or printed about them has been lies'' designed specifically by Sterling to demolish their business. [[note]]Most of the things DH is complaining about Sterling having said about them are very easily verifiable and Sterling is far from the only person to criticize them - he's just the most notable.[[/note]] The damages are listed as lost income (for the games they allege don't sell because of Sterling), slander, assault on character, and mental anguish. Sterling has since filed for the lawsuit to be dismissed, which as of November 22nd is still awaiting a court decision.dismissed.
30th Dec '16 3:21:07 AM Ramidel
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The use of frivolous lawsuits (and countersuits) has become the ''raison d'être'' of innumerable litigants, as seen above - but the 'sovereign citizen' movements[[labelnote:Explanation]]people who basically believe that the codified laws of today are illegitimate and only common law prevails[[/labelnote]], such as Posse Comitatus, Freeman-On-The-Land, and Moorish Law, take it to new heights, as described by an Alberta judge in the judgement for the 2012 suit [[http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html Moore v. Moore]]. The judicial officer in question gleefully enters SarcasmMode at the start of the almost [[DoorStopper 200-page long document]], and the feeling that they're fed up with the whole situation doesn't let up at any point.

to:

* The use of frivolous lawsuits (and countersuits) has become the ''raison d'être'' of innumerable litigants, as seen above - but the 'sovereign citizen' movements[[labelnote:Explanation]]people who basically believe that the codified laws of today are illegitimate and only common law prevails[[/labelnote]], such as Posse Comitatus, Freeman-On-The-Land, and Moorish Law, take it to new heights, as described by an Alberta judge in the judgement for the 2012 suit [[http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html Moore Meads v. Moore]].Meads]]. The judicial officer in question gleefully enters SarcasmMode at the start of the almost [[DoorStopper 200-page long document]], and the feeling that they're fed up with the whole situation doesn't let up at any point.
16th Dec '16 9:37:27 AM HasturHasturHastur
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Technically, a frivolous lawsuit is one brought in bad faith — i.e., brought with no intention, expectation, or ''chance'' of success. Within the legal system, calling an action frivolous is like calling the lawyer who brought it a certified loon, the legal equivalent of "not even wrong". Much more common are frivolous claims in otherwise reasonable lawsuits and frivolous courtroom motions that only serve to prolong the legal process and harass participants. Another common instance is the lawsuit that, while it is ''technically'' not frivolous because it is based on actionable legal fact, said actionable legal fact ''is'' hair-splitting, petty, and a ViolationOfCommonSense (e.g. a ten million dollar suit filed against a restaurant for not putting ketchup on a burger advertised as having ketchup on it -- it ''is'' technically false advertising[[note]]In which the product you describe must accurately fit the product you sell, unless adequately disclaimed or clearly exaggerated[[/note]] and therefore legally factual and actionable,[[note]]It is also theoretically actionable under sales law, which is somewhat different from the false advertising laws; note that because the sale of a hamburger is a sale of goods and the purchaser of the hamburger is the end user (rather than a commercial reseller), the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_tender_rule perfect tender rule]] applies: if the seller's product diverges one iota from what the buyer can reasonably expect based on the seller's representations, the buyer is entitled to damages and to return the product. That said, you ''do'' have to return it in salable condition, i.e. intact, not with bites taken out, so this is purely theoretical unless you open your burger before eating it and also are enough of a dick to sue when you find no ketchup instead of going up to the counter and just asking for it. Even then, the seller will be able to argue -- possibly successfully -- that because you ''touched'' the burger you got whatever bugs or dirt you may have had on your hands on the burger, therefore making the sandwich no longer fit for resale and thus denying you that remedy. Additionally, although (again) you are technically entitled to damages, you are limited to the value of the burger as if it had been as warranted (which would be the amount you paid for it, at most) minus the value as delivered (without ketchup, so at much a few cents lower -- ketchup is cheap), making it impossible to recover very much -- less than the cost of filing a lawsuit in the first place.[[/note]] but is the lack of a free packet of ketchup you could apply yourself worth ten million dollars?). The majority of the truly outrageous examples you might have heard of are filed ''pro se'', without an attorney. That's because none want to touch the craziness with a ten-foot pole. If there's an actual attorney involved who isn't also their own client[[note]]"A man who is his own attorney has a fool for a client."[[/note]] the case might not be so frivolous as it first appears.

to:

Technically, a frivolous lawsuit is one brought in bad faith — i.e., brought with no intention, expectation, or ''chance'' of success. Within the legal system, calling an action frivolous is like calling the lawyer who brought it a certified loon, the legal equivalent of "not even wrong". Much more common are frivolous claims in otherwise reasonable lawsuits and frivolous courtroom motions that only serve to prolong the legal process and harass participants. Another common instance is the lawsuit that, while it is ''technically'' not frivolous because it is based on actionable legal fact, said actionable legal fact ''is'' hair-splitting, petty, and a ViolationOfCommonSense (e.g. a ten million dollar suit filed against a restaurant for not putting ketchup on a burger advertised as having ketchup on it -- it ''is'' technically false advertising[[note]]In which the product you describe must accurately fit the product you sell, unless adequately disclaimed or clearly exaggerated[[/note]] and therefore legally factual and actionable,[[note]]It is also theoretically actionable under sales law, which is somewhat different from the false advertising laws; note that because the sale of a hamburger is a sale of goods and the purchaser of the hamburger is the end user (rather than a commercial reseller), the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_tender_rule perfect tender rule]] applies: if the seller's product diverges one iota from what the buyer can reasonably expect based on the seller's representations, the buyer is entitled to damages and to return the product. That said, you ''do'' have to return it in salable condition, i.e. intact, not with bites taken out, so this is purely theoretical unless you open your burger before eating it and also are enough of a dick to sue when you find no ketchup instead of going up to the counter and just asking for it. Even then, the seller will be able to argue -- possibly successfully -- that because you ''touched'' the burger you got whatever bugs or dirt you may have had on your hands on the burger, therefore making the sandwich no longer fit for resale and thus denying you that remedy. Additionally, although (again) you are technically entitled to damages, you are limited to the value of the burger as if it had been as warranted (which would be the amount you paid for it, at most) minus the value as delivered (without ketchup, so at much a few cents lower -- ketchup is cheap), making it impossible to recover very much -- less than the cost of filing a lawsuit in the first place.[[/note]] but is the lack of a free packet of ketchup you could apply yourself worth ten million dollars?). The majority of the truly outrageous examples you might have heard of are filed ''pro se'', without an attorney. That's because none want to touch the craziness with a ten-foot pole. If there's an actual attorney involved who isn't also their own client[[note]]"A man who is his own attorney has a fool for a client."[[/note]] the case might not be so frivolous as it first appears.
appears. This is particularly common in personal injury, where "only paid if you win" is the standard; the prospect of eating the cost of an unsuccessful case forces attorneys to be very selective about the cases they take, ergo they're not going to take something unless they have very good reason to believe that it will be determined in their favor.
3rd Dec '16 11:37:20 AM Nazetrime
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In the ''WebComic/StandStillStaySilent'' prologue, a man finding out that the ferry he's riding will not be making the return trip to mainland Denmark because of a governmental decision to halt boat traffic treatens to sue all the boat's waiters if they don't make the captain turn it back while it's still on the way to Bornholm island.

to:

* In the ''WebComic/StandStillStaySilent'' prologue, a man finding out that the ferry he's riding will not be making the return trip to mainland Denmark because of a governmental decision to halt boat traffic treatens threatens to sue all the boat's waiters if they don't make the captain turn it back while it's still on the way to Bornholm island.
This list shows the last 10 events of 336. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.FrivolousLawSuit