-- Modified on 12/4/2005 6:37:44 PM
I can understand where the wife is coming from, but her husband. Come on already. 
(yeah, okay, so call me boring): "Do NOT get me started on what the legal industry is doing to our society and economy."
Rule 11 is the most woefully underutilized rule in the FRCP. A commitment to apply that Rule - to the letter anbd spirit - should be a prerequisite to the confirmation of any federal district judge. [Rant off now.]
-- Modified on 12/3/2005 4:10:06 PM
Don't blame the lawyers, blame the idiots that want to press these frivilous suits. The lawyers are simply doing what they are being asked to do.
it is the lawsuit culture of our society, spawned suits such as this are the result of the litigation culture which is created and sustained by the lawyers.
Do the words champerty and barratry mean anything to you? Look them up. (Nothing personal!)
-- Modified on 12/3/2005 5:10:42 PM
else and get "theirs" lawyers wouldn't have the plethora of suits to choose from. Lawyers are simply "zealous advocates" for their client's interests, not their own.
Champerty - a proceeding by which a person not a party in a suit bargains to aid in or carry on its prosecution or defense in consideration of a share of the matter in suit
Barratry - the persistent incitement of litigation
Champerty is not necessarily a bad thing as it gives those without resources access to the legal system. Barratry is not necessarily limited to lawyers.
What's your point?
(Sorry, I just love to argue. Hyabby, I'm sure you know why 
)
Basically, it says . . .
a) Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party.
b)By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances
c)If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.
-- Modified on 12/3/2005 7:17:55 PM
The edited version posted gives no clue as to what type of conduct would lead to the imposition of sanctions under subdivision(c).
The full version of subdivision (b) reads as follows:
(b) Representations to Court
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
-----------------
As I said initially - woefully underutilized!
It seems unlikely that the husband will prevail on a loss of companionship complaint when he hasn't lost her companionship. But then again, I don't know all the details. If he is sueing, there has to be some legitimacy to his complaint, right?
The suit is for a mere $25K each. I am surprised they are not seeking at least $25 mllion. That would make it interesting!!
an attorney (nor have I played one on TV), but I feel a need to speak out here. This case sounds rather close to a celebrated (or denigrated) case invoving a woman who was scalded by hot coffee that they obtained at a McDonald's drive through some years ago. The plaintif won a multi-million dollar suit and great public derision ensued. (It was even the basis of a subplot on Seinfeld) I was one of those deriders until I read a very detailed article about the case in the papers, and I changed my opinion. Long story made short: The woman was severely disfigured by coffee that was estimated to be about 190 degrees. (The woman needed several skin graft surgeries.) (Water that is above 170 degrees can cause third degree burns.) The lid on the cup was not approved to retain its integrity with liquids of that temperature, and finally the real kicker: There had already been several successful lawsuits against McDonalds over this exact same issue in the past few years, and the company steadfastly refused to do anything about it. After lossing the large judgement (which was not overturned, last I looked.) McDonalds had a new cap designed for the coffee and reduced the coffee temperature to below 170 degrees. As far as I know, no new incidents have taken place since then.
Whether it be defective tires that blow out prematurely causing SUV rollovers, cars that blow up if hit lightly from behind, or food that scalds you (Remember the exploding scalding Magic-pan crepe episode on Seinfeld - that show was prescient, wasn't it?), people need legal protection against products that cause injury, if for no other reason, that the rest of the public can be spared the injury in the future.
Are these many frivolous and unneccessary lawsuits? Yes. Can we reform some aspects of the court system to cut down on the worse offenders? Probably.
The moral to this rant (for which I appologize profusely) is: Don't prejudge. Take each case on its merits.