Author Archive

Whoa! This Could be a New Record for Most Lawsuits Filed!

April 21st, 2015. By LucyC

We all know the squeaky wheel gets the most attention, and that filing lawsuits can be a bit of a pastime for some people but Dale Maisano has taken the exercise to new heights. This guy—who is currently serving a 15-year sentence for aggravated assault, in Florence, AZ has, since 1991, filed over 6,000 federal lawsuits, mostly about prison food and lack of what he considers to be proper health care. You can sue for that?

Sixty-two-year old Maisano has filed more than 1,800 lawsuits in Nashville alone and most of the lawsuits have been filed in the past two years.

Note—maybe it’s time the baton was passed to Maisano for the record for most lawsuits filed. Currently, according Google search results, that crown belongs to Jonathan Lee Riches. BUT…a quick PACER search shows that Maisano’s 6,150 lawsuits filed (as of 4/21/15) completely blow away the 3,683 ponied up by Riches. Heck, that’s almost 2,500 more lawsuits!

So, not wishing to reinvent the wheel—most of Maisano’s lawsuits are identical. For example: “Stop the torture and give me food that will not make me ill.” And: “Daily I’m given a diet that causes the Plaintiff to be severely ill.” And what’s his anticipated pay out? Ten trillion dollars (either in U.S. dollars or gold). Good luck on that one—I’d try lottery tickets—the odds have to be better.

But he does have a broad range of target—the lawsuits take aim at governors, wardens, attorneys general and Nashville-based Corizon Health, which provides medical care for inmates.

Despite all his hard work, he’s not optimistic about his chances. “I don’t have any delusions I’m going to get that kind of money. I don’t have any delusions I’m going to get any money,” Maisano told USA Today, in a recent interview. “A lot of them are just nuisance suits. We’re trying to get our point across.”

And what point would that be, precisely? He claims the inmates aren’t being given proper food and health care. Not surprisingly, the Arizona Department of Corrections says that just ain’t true. FYI—according to a piece in the Washington Post in March of this year Arizona prisons are not known for luxurious accommodation. Last October, the American Civil Liberties Association settled a case representing some 33,000 Arizona inmates. The ACLU had “discovered abuses like excessive use of solitary confinement for mentally ill prisoners and an “extraction only” dental care policy.” Hmm.

And the feds take on all this? “Inmate Maisano has access to appropriate health care and his diet needs are met,” said Doug Nick, the spokesman for the Arizona Department of Corrections. “The sheer volume of the lawsuits he has filed and the financial demands he makes speak for themselves.”

Ok—wait—about the food thing—meeting dietary needs and having good food are, arguably two different things. Astronauts’ dietary needs are met when they’re in space—but would you want to eat that stuff on a regular basis?

So, Maisano’s not giving up. And the sheer number of lawsuits do speak for themselves. He’s gotten the attention of multiple federal judges, just not the favorable kind. In fact, in 1992, a judge attempted to stop the nuisance suits by forbidding Maisano from filing any lawsuits without the court’s permission. Maisano ignored the order but did slow down his production over the following years. However, since 2013, he seems to be making up for lost time. USA Today reported that in 2014 he filed more federal lawsuits than all the federal cases lodged in the states of Maine, New Hampshire and Wyoming combined. Wow! Wouldn’t that earn him some kind of honorary degree? Apparently, he filed 249 lawsuits in one day…

Maisano told USA Today that he’s not crazy but “could use some mental health help.” Despite having thousands of his complaints dismissed just as quickly as he’s filed them, he believes his hard work is making an impression—”If I would have filed five cases and let them go,” he said, “would you be talking to me?”

Uhh, probably not.

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See, Emerging Issues | No Comments »

Single Discrimination? Chick Sues for (Alleged) Restaurant Diss

April 20th, 2015. By LucyC

Valentine’s gone sideways? Maybe. This is an interesting and slightly odd lawsuit filed by one Kathleen Hampton of Portland, OR. She is suing Enzo’s Caffe Italiano, in Portland, alleging they refused to serve her on Valentine’s Day because she came into the restaurant solo. Yeah, well, it was Valentine’s deary, one of the top business nights in restaurant land.

But Kathleen, not faint of heart I must admit, bravely decided F@*! it, when her husband allegedly declined to join her for dinner out, and off she went to Enzo’s. When she arrived, they were busy, no surprise there, and instead of giving her the reserved table for two, they ignored her, refused to take her order, and wouldn’t allow her to do take-away. That’s her version. Oh, and that they didn’t serve her because of her race (African-American).

Needless to say, on a busy restaurant night, a cover’s a cover and if you’re one person taking up two seats well….

So according to the restaurant owner, they offered her a seat at the bar, with other singletons. Ok, this is the stuff of Bridget Jones nightmares! She had two glasses of wine and left without paying. (Who knows what she had, but a 2007 Gaja Barbaresco would’ve gone down nicely…)

What to do with all those allegations of lousy service? Drumroll please—Kathleen decided to sue the restaurant. For $100,000 and an apology. Now, she may not have grounds for the lawsuit except if she can prove deliberate infliction of emotional distress. She can’t claim, for example, that Enzo’s refusal to seat her at the table was negligent or an assault, or that it resulted in personal harm or trespass, oh no—most certainly not trespass.

If we take a page from our aforementioned singleton heroine, Bridget Jones, being shuffled off to the bar with other similarly situated people—i.e. Singletons, at least on the premises—is certainly cause emotional distress. It’s enough to warrant walking out of the restaurant, sobbing, proceeding straight home and polishing off that bottle of Pinot Grigio (the horror!) and possibly the remnants of the vodka, passing out on the sofa, only to wake up the next morning—well actually more like noon—feeling like sh*t, physically and emotionally, then remembering you’ve missed half a day at work. Awesome! And ALL because you couldn’t get the f%#@ing spaghetti bolognese, seated, as planned. It’s a terrible state of affairs!

On the other hand, if you’re married like Kathleen, and your hubby just chose to stay home, it probably wasn’t the best night of the year to have dinner out stag, and perhaps ordering in some pizza might have proven the wiser choice. That might’ve netted a convenient (read: no need to cook) dinner at home with the hubby and a little Valentine’s Day celebration away from the hustle and bustle of a busy restaurant.

Thrilling? Probably not. Haute Cuisine? Definitely not. But then again, you wouldn’t have wound up trying to sue anybody. Worst case, you might only have woken up the next morning reflecting on the previous night with a “gee whiz” and feeling a bit of a gluten-belly bloat–at least you wouldn’t have a hangover and/or a possible attorney fee.

Kathleen opted for the lawsuit route, as we know…

Severe emotional distress—FYI—varies in definition from case to case. Some courts have held that emotional distress is severe if it manifests as some kind of bodily harm, such as an ulcer or headaches. What about hangovers?

PS…so far, the quiet party in all this has been Kathleen’s husband. No matter…KOIN 6 reports that the case has been dismissed with prejudice. (Isn’t it ironic?)

 

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See | No Comments »

Here’s a Jury you just might PAY to be on!

April 8th, 2015. By LucyC

How weird is this? A woman in Utah sued herself for killing—accidentally—her husband. Got it? Yeah? No? Ok.

So here’s the skinny. Barbara Bagley wanted the insurance money payable upon her hubby’s death. Problem is the insurance company didn’t want to pay.

How did she accidentally kill her husband? (Heads up, this could be useful). One night in November, 2011, Bagley was driving with her husband, Bradley Vom Baur, the passenger, when she lost control of the vehicle. The car subsequently rolled over, and her husband later died in hospital from his injuries.

Now, Bagley is the executor of her late husband’s estate (plaintiff) and the person responsible for his death (defendant). In order to get the insurance company to play ball, she was forced to bring a wrongful death and survival action against the driver (defendant) owing to the driver’s negligence causing her husband’s death. She has one very savvy lawyer.

Theoretically, by bringing a successful lawsuit against herself as the defendant, the insurance carrier would have to cover the cost for her negligence while driving. According to CBS Money Watch, the insurance company would then pay plaintiff Bagley as the personal representative and heir of her husband’s estate.

Still with me?

Not surprisingly, I suppose, the district court dismissed Bagley’s action. BUT—you knew there was a but—the court of appeals reversed the district court’s ruling. The whole thing boiled down to language, and not just language—punctuation marks!!! (Yes!)

The court of appeals determined that the “absence of punctuation marks separating” the words “death of a person” from “of another” in the language is read to mean that the two are connected, and “another” only refers to a person other than the decedent, according to the opinion. (Think “Eats Shoots,and Leaves“—not ”Eats, Shoots and Leaves”—an excellent read by the way.)

The wrongful death statute reads:

When the death of a person is caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another, his heirs…may maintain an action for damages against the person causing the death. The same separating punctuation is also missing from the survival action statute, which is interpreted by the court as meaning that the “another” is anyone other than the decedent, even if the “another” is both the defendant tortfeasor and the heir and personal representative of the estate, according to an article on this by the National Trial Lawyers.

Believe me, I couldn’t make this up. There’s more, but I’m betting you have the gist of it by now.

Moving on from the grammar and punctuation (do I hear a sigh of relief?) the attorneys provided by Bagley’s insurance company to defend Bagley argued that the reading of the statute to allow for her to file an action against herself, was “’contrary to…basic notions of fairness and decency’ and contrary to public policy.”

However, this was rejected by the court of appeals because the defendant did not define the public policy nor make reference to any policy in Utah regarding the notions of fairness and decency. Instead, the defense only cited cases outside of the state of Utah. Not so bright, in retrospect. But maybe there weren’t any other cases in Utah. I’m betting.

The court said that its proper role was to interpret the “meaning and application” of a statute’s text and avoid “judicial mischief” which they would do by allowing the Legislature to correct any statutory language that may be contrary to public policy.

Ready…Payday!

Just in case you’re interested, the case is Bagley and the Estate of Vom Baur v. Bagley, Case No. 20131077-CA in the Utah Court of Appeals, Third District. And if this baby winds up before a jury, you bet you’d be paying to be on that one—they don’t even have to give you the brown bag lunch! Wonder if there’d at least be costume changes…

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See | 1 Comment »

Sisterhood causing a Ruckus in the Neighborhood?

April 6th, 2015. By LucyC

Oh saints preserve us! The nuns that own one of New York’s oldest preschools have decided they want to get into the real estate game—shut the school, sell the building, maybe, and pocket several million, most likely. Problem is, the parents are mad as hell and have filed a lawsuit.

The school’s two brick brownstones, located in Chelsea, could be worth a cool $20 million—not exactly chump change, and the possibilities are likely not lost on the Sisters. Located on West 15th Street, the sisterhood bought the facility for $5,000 in 1901 then set it up as a school for the children of women (read single mothers) who worked in the meat packing district. Nice.

Over time the demographics have changed, and the school now looks after 55 little people—2-6 year olds, under the banner Nazareth Nursery Montessori. And it costs—both the parents and the nuns. The parents pony up $10,000 a year per child, which apparently makes it the cheapest Montessori school in the borough. The Sisters employ 14 lay teachers who they oversee.

According to school officials, the facility is losing $100,000 a year. So the school announced it would close in August. The parents, once they had collected themselves, filed for an injunction to stop the closure.

Praise the Lord and pass the Paperwork! According to the parents, the nuns at first gave no reason why the school was closing—it wasn’t until after the announcement of closure that school officials claimed the facility “was losing $100,000” and that “the building structure is precarious.”

The parents also allege that there are no building violations with the city and that the “financial state of the school and the corporation is excellent,” citing IRS documents showing revenue of $570,000 in 2013.

The parents say that “At no time over the past four years was any parent told that the school was having financial problems and might close.” So they have concluded that the only reason for the closure is, naturally, to capitalize on their asset.

“It is clear that the defendants plan to close the school, stop providing education to the children of working mothers, sell the school’s property and transfer the money to the Sisters of St. Francis to use for other purposes, none of which is to educate children,” the Manhattan civil suit says.

So, let’s see, there’s one set of property ownership rules for lay people and another for religious organizations? The primary difference being motive? Really?

A school spokeswoman, one Rochelle Casella, is said to have countered that the litigious Manhattan parents are too wealthy for the nuns’ charity. Well, possibly not the best defense, but there’s likely some truth in it.

“The demographics of the area have changed,” Casella said, adding that the buildings are “not up for sale” but said the nuns have also not decided what they will be used for after the school closes. Casella has reportedly vowed to “vigorously defend our position in court.”

If this continues, it’s very likely the Sisters of St. Francis will have to sell their real estate to pay their legal bills. Now wouldn’t that be a win-win.

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See, Emerging Issues | No Comments »

Guess Getting Arrested for Underage S*x is a Real Grind(r)

March 27th, 2015. By LucyC

A 52-year old man who was cruising through his hook-up app—Grindr—came across the love of your life (well, at least for the next 30 minutes), arranged a meet-up, and then found himself being arrested for engaging in an app-assisted sexual encounter with a 13-year-old boy. An app-assisted sexual encounter? How very 21^st century.

William F. Saponaro Jr., from New Jersey, got a little more than he bargained for—when he and another 24-year-old Grindr guy, who also met up with the boy, were arrested for having a “three party sexual liaison” with a minor. They were both charged with aggravated sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child.

Sapanaro’s response? Sue Grindr. He claims that because the child accepted Grindr’s terms of service somehow the company failed to ensure the boy was of age—or legal, let’s just call a spade a spade. The actual claim is negligence for allowing a minor to utilize the app. Uh? How do you stop that? What about personal common sense—or is that optional now?

For those dating app neophytes, Grindr works similarly to other hook-up apps like Tinder, which is also being sued—but over charging its users, not its users being charged, if you follow. Short version, Grindr uses a person’s smartphone’s geolocation capabilities to allows its users, particularly gay and bisexual men, to communicate with other similarly inclined folk in the local vicinity. Because the nature of the conversation and encounters that are facilitated through Grindr are adult in nature, the company restricts use of the app to those 18 and over. But in this case, the boy lied, the adults got busted and—the company gets off the lawsuit. Why?

Grindr owed Saponaro no “duty of care,” according to the court ruling, because it could not foresee Sapanaro becoming a victim, and therefore was and is not liable to Saponaro under New Jersey law. Caveat emptor baby! And, since Sapanaro communicated with a third member of the three-party tryst, and not directly with the boy, there really was no way Grindr could have known what was going down. If they could, you would wonder how, and that potential scenario is even more worrying.

Also interesting, the court barred Sapanaro’s claim under the Communications Decency Act. According to the CDA’s “Good Samaritan” clause, providers of interactive computer services are prevented from being treated as the publisher of the information disseminated on them. Think about it, Facebook, Twitter et al, responsible for the content of all their users’ posts? Never mind email service providers.

Perhaps what’s most disturbing is the lack of resonance around a 13-year old using the app. Gotta wonder what happened to him.

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See | No Comments »