Thread of legal hubbub

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

do they not give you any credit or anything? not that that would make it ok but that sounds incredibly shitty

[mikey]

They offered a sister property. But it's not on the nature reserve we want (they're the only resort on that reserve, so no matter what, it won't be the same or similar), additionally, it's not on the water (it's somewhat further inland...it's also an additional two hours south of where we'll be earlier in the trip - which is already a hike and a half)...

Basically, the sister property is an easy reject. Soon-to-be Mrs. Mikey said, "no. but we'll give you the rest of our balance due for you to just **** off and give us our ****..."

Not sure if that's gonna break our way.

My thought is: We'll go quietly, but you'll have to buyout our reservation. And I want to pump up that number...because we need to get a new resy at a different resort with about no notice (we booked this a year in advance, for the record). So, that's gonna cost. We probably have to re-arrange significant travel, again, much later in the game (we booked our travel in October). Pain/suffering, etc. We'll settle and not make fuss, but it ain't free. It far exceeds 100% of the cost of our original reservation cost, of course...

[Shyster]

I'd first check the reservation you had to see if there is any sort of dispute-resoluion clause. If there's something in there that, for examples, requires arbitration in Costa Rica, then you'd be pretty much stuck.

[mikey]

Will do shyguy... @dodint get me Steve Lehto...

[faftorial]

I'd first check the reservation you had to see if there is any sort of dispute-resoluion clause. If there's something in there that, for examples, requires arbitration in Costa Rica, then you'd be pretty much stuck.

Good to see that you made it back home from the drunk tank.

[mikey]

Situation averted. After we said that this is causing a lot of undue stress and would result in an extreme cost to re-work all of our plans this late in the game...they relented, and will honor our reservation...how......nice (?) of them...?

[dodint]

[tifosi77]

Had to report to jury duty today, civil case for pain and suffering after a rear end accident (for which defendant was already found at-fault). I got dismissed during preemptory challenges about 90s after rotating into the jury box as Alt 1, so that was neat.

There was one guy - Juror #9 - who was hellbent on getting out of service. So committed to the Cpl Klinger bit that he was basically saying the whole concept of suing people is flawed. "Look at me..." - cast on arm, brace on knee - "...I fall off client roof last week. Break arm and others." (Did I mention he sounded like Balki?) "Client move ladder. Do I sue? No. I fall, he don't push me." Plaintiff's counsel said, "So the fall was your fault?" "Well, I didn't say that..... I pay much insurance, too much. California sue too many." The other 35 of us were about to jointly commit violence on the guy, cos he would. Not. Shut. Up. about suing people. Not just during his initial questioning, but he interjected half a dozen times during questioning of other jurors to really drive his point home.

So after we returned from lunch the judge (who normally presides over criminal matters) said, "Juror #9, I am going to release you from this pool. However, I want you to go downstairs to the 8th floor to [courtroom/division #] where they are selecting jurors for a murder trial that is about to commence. Your service is more suited there [in proceedings that will likely take 15x longer than this case]." And everyone low-key cheered under their breath.

[Shyster]

A recent event that has gotten much discussion on legal Twitter:



Levidow, Levidow & Oberman is representing Roberto Mata in suing the airline Avianca. Avianca filed a motion to dismiss. In response, LL&O filed a brief in opposition citing eight different cases that make some strong arguments on behalf of Mata being able to continue his case. For example, the brief says:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit specifically addresses the effect of a bankruptcy stay under the Montreal Convention in the case of Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019), stating “Appellants argue that the district court erred in dismissing their claims as untimely. They assert that the limitations period under the Montreal Convention was tolled during the pendency of the Bankruptcy Court proceedings. We agree.”

Man, that Varghese case sure looks good, because Avianca had declared bankruptcy. But when Avianca's lawyers punch the citation into Westlaw, nothing comes up. None of the cases come up. So they file a motion asking the judge to order LL&O to file copies of the cited cases. LL&O does so, but the cases look funny, and they have internal citations to other cases that don't exist. The judge files another order for LL&O to explain, and LL&O finally fesses up that they had used ChatGPT to write the original brief and then asked ChatGPT to produce copies of the cases. ChatGPT, however, made all of the cases up. None of them were real. But ChatGPT even said that the cases “are real and can be found in reputable legal databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw” when asked.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

the lawyers who represented Mata have to be disbarred, right? I don’t know the legal world that well but I can’t imagine they’ll be allowed to continue to practice law

[Shyster]

Not sure about disbarment, but I think they are looking at least a suspension. Plus I'm sure they are paying all of the fees that Avianca's lawyers incurred in responding to their fake filings, plus maybe fines on top of that.

[Shyster]

The PA Supreme Court just granted an appeal to answer the question of whether nudity requires visible nipple :

Whether, in addressing an issue of first impression, the Superior Court panel erred as a matter of law in affirming Petitioner’s adjudication of delinquency for transmission of sexually explicit images by construing the statute’s definition of “nudity” under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6321(g), which includes “[t]he showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple[,]” as not requiring a showing of the nipple.

The facts are that a teenage boy convinced a mentally-challenged 12-year-old girl to pull up her shirt on Instagram. Her bra rode up so that you could see a little bit of the bottom of her breasts, but not her nipples. PA has a statute that makes it illegal for one minor to transmit or disseminate "a visual depiction of any minor in a state of nudity without the knowledge and consent of the depicted minor."
The boy was adjudicated delinquent because the court said that the "anything below the top of the nipple" definition in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6321(g) does not say that the nipple itself must be visible. So the Court will decide whether nudity requires nipples.

As an aside, I would find it extremely difficult to write any brief on this case without using the word "underboob."

[faftorial]

Had to report to jury duty today, civil case for pain and suffering after a rear end accident (for which defendant was already found at-fault). I got dismissed during preemptory challenges about 90s after rotating into the jury box as Alt 1, so that was neat.

There was one guy - Juror #9 - who was hellbent on getting out of service. So committed to the Cpl Klinger bit that he was basically saying the whole concept of suing people is flawed. "Look at me..." - cast on arm, brace on knee - "...I fall off client roof last week. Break arm and others." (Did I mention he sounded like Balki?) "Client move ladder. Do I sue? No. I fall, he don't push me." Plaintiff's counsel said, "So the fall was your fault?" "Well, I didn't say that..... I pay much insurance, too much. California sue too many." The other 35 of us were about to jointly commit violence on the guy, cos he would. Not. Shut. Up. about suing people. Not just during his initial questioning, but he interjected half a dozen times during questioning of other jurors to really drive his point home.

So after we returned from lunch the judge (who normally presides over criminal matters) said, "Juror #9, I am going to release you from this pool. However, I want you to go downstairs to the 8th floor to [courtroom/division #] where they are selecting jurors for a murder trial that is about to commence. Your service is more suited there [in proceedings that will likely take 15x longer than this case]." And everyone low-key cheered under their breath.

lol

[Shyster]

I can see this getting cited a lot.

[dodint]

Again, by and large dissents are sour grapes.

[Shyster]

[Shyster]

I was not aware of this signal. I doubt I'll ever use it, but it's interesting to know.

[Shyster]

[faftorial]

This shape of container for cleaning agents is old:



but not in a beer/soda can with a pull tab.

[tifosi77]

This is kind of the consumer products version of "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." I point to these sorts of things when Mrs Tif complains about her legal and regulatory team.

[Shyster]

A lawyer dad joke.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

huh that’s some good vocab trivia

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

when I purchased my house in January I still had an apartment lease that I originally was planning on breaking but the complex has been very sketchy about the terms of the lease break and it’s honestly been a nightmare over the last few months


anyway, I went to get my bike from their little bike room thing and I can’t find it. I’m thinking it may have been stolen, until I find a “spring cleaning” email from the complex in May that says they’re gonna “tag” each bike with caution tape and if you didn’t remove the tape before a certain date, they would remove the bike from the room and dispose of it



uhh…what the ****? is that legal? do I have any recourse here?

[tifosi77]

When did/does the apartment lease end? Did you move out of the apartment in January (regardless of lease status) and retain the apartment and related spaces as, effectively, a storage facility? What were the dates of the notice and of the actual cleaning?

[Shyster]

Today the PA Supreme Court denied my petition for allowance of appeal, which leaves in place a very bad and legally problematic decision of the PA Superior Court that ruled against my client. Also today, in a case where I was the primary brief-writer, the Third Circuit affirmed a decision of the Western District of Pennsylvania that had granted summary judgment for my client.

Meh. Win some, lose some.