General Discussion

Ms. Toad

(38,664 posts)

198. My point, precisely.

Thu Mar 27, 2014, 04:24 PM

Mar 2014

The plaintiffs do not have enough information yet to determine the appropriate defendants BECAUSE this is not a case of res ipsa. It is NOT ethically proper to file a suit in lieu of doing proper pre-filing investigation - absent a res ipsa situation.

As for your assertion of insurance - that is completely irrelevant. There are not special rules which apply to entities or people who are likely to have insurance which make it acceptable to ignore a party or attorney's ethical and legal obligations under Rule 11, just because the target entities are likely to have bought insurance. Bans on frivolous or unfounded litigation (which protect innocent defendants from having to expend massive amounts to defend themselves merely because some plaintiff decided to throw spaghetti at the wall and see where it stuck) have to apply equally, whether or not the target party is likely to have insurance.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

221 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Ambulance chasers before the bodies or plane are discovered: 1st lawsuit over MH370 [View all] muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 OP

Wow! Glitterati Mar 2014 #1

Wow. I think you're accusing me of saying something right wing muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #3

Your whole framing of your argument Glitterati Mar 2014 #4

Are you in favor of filing lawsuits where there are no facts in evidence? former9thward Mar 2014 #6

This isn't hard to understand Glitterati Mar 2014 #7

There are no facts whatsoever about why the flight was lost. former9thward Mar 2014 #8

And THAT is why attorneys have filed a lawsuit Glitterati Mar 2014 #10

Nope, not it at all. former9thward Mar 2014 #15

The FACTS are known Glitterati Mar 2014 #16

No, he has no right to file a lawsuit against a hospital unless he knows pnwmom Mar 2014 #18

There most certainly IS reason Glitterati Mar 2014 #20

Why include Boeing in the lawsuit then? They're not in a foreign country pnwmom Mar 2014 #21

BECAUSE the manufacturing specs Glitterati Mar 2014 #22

They don't have to include Boeing as a defendant to get that information. n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #23

Oh but they do Glitterati Mar 2014 #24

My husband has been. And they didn't draw in extraneous parties. pnwmom Mar 2014 #27

Those specs are considered "proprietary" Glitterati Mar 2014 #28

Then let them file a Third Party Complaint warrant46 Mar 2014 #131

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ newdemocrat999 Mar 2014 #77

So - you are saying that it is proper to require the airplane manufacturer Ms. Toad Mar 2014 #29

Yes. Glitterati Mar 2014 #31

Why should the airline or the manufacture be required to spend millions of dollars Ms. Toad Mar 2014 #39

Wow. Why should an airline have to pay millions if they did nothing wrong? uppityperson Mar 2014 #95

+1000. n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #67

not knowing the proper defendants is par for the course TorchTheWitch Mar 2014 #193

Sorry - but you need a refresher course in Rule 11. Ms. Toad Mar 2014 #195

Rule 11: A refresher course onenote Mar 2014 #212

Not really. Ms. Toad Mar 2014 #219

I hope you did not go to law school. former9thward Mar 2014 #33

Thanks for that gratuitous personal attack Glitterati Mar 2014 #34

It is an attack on your lack of legal education. former9thward Mar 2014 #37

Glitterati, you are dead-on correct in everything you have said here. Laelth Mar 2014 #91

Thanks, Laelth Glitterati Mar 2014 #100

"I didn't say not to take the money. I just said I wouldn't. You are free to do so." uppityperson Mar 2014 #103

Forty+ years of right-wing propaganda against attorneys has been very effective. Laelth Mar 2014 #107

^^^ THIS ^^^ COLGATE4 Mar 2014 #138

And another attorney wishes to echo the praise of your post. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #199

Says the person who wrote the first reply of the thread as a gratuitous personal attack. uppityperson Mar 2014 #98

This message was self-deleted by its author former9thward Mar 2014 #32

A lawsuit was not filed AngryAmish Mar 2014 #60

"And THAT is why attorneys have filed a lawsuit" former9thward Mar 2014 #81

Maybe you should read the fist couple lines of the article before insulting people. Hassin Bin Sober Mar 2014 #90

I was the one consistently insulted if you BOTHERED to read the posts. former9thward Mar 2014 #92

Didn't even know you could do that treestar Mar 2014 #88

the only facts necessary to file a lawsuit is that the plane crashed TorchTheWitch Mar 2014 #163

If someone hijacks your car and kills someone former9thward Mar 2014 #164

You haven't given any facts muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #9

Perhaps Glitterati Mar 2014 #11

I have no knowledge that any employee for Ribbeck posts here muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #35

They didn't file a lawsuit. AngryAmish Mar 2014 #61

Says the person who wrote uppityperson Mar 2014 #101

EXACTLY correct Glitterati Mar 2014 #102

Here are your 2 quotes. Can you see the problem? Probably not, but I can uppityperson Mar 2014 #106

ROFL, sure Glitterati Mar 2014 #108

Noticing conflicting statements = outrage? Huh. uppityperson Mar 2014 #112

Decades ago I worked on a plane crash case... WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2014 #42

I don't know what you're trying to say to me muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #44

Sorry, yeah WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2014 #49

Can you name an airliner crash where there isn't some negligence on the part of one of the parties? Hassin Bin Sober Mar 2014 #105

If I had a loved one killed, I'd tell a lawyer to fuck off muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #121

Lol. Completely naive. Hassin Bin Sober Mar 2014 #127

I wouldn't want an expert in litigation; I'd want an expert in finding crashed airplanes muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #129

"Money doesn't fix things" Hassin Bin Sober Mar 2014 #162

Do you work in the insurance industry? DefenseLawyer Mar 2014 #136

No I don't. FWIW, my brother is a barrister muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #140

When you start throwing around a term like "ambulance chasers" DefenseLawyer Mar 2014 #147

They have announced they're going to sue for millions of dollars per passenger muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #155

And if I call one black man a n***** DefenseLawyer Mar 2014 #157

Saying that is an act of racism, based on who they are muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #158

Telling lawyers to fuck off isn't going to pay the bills. JVS Mar 2014 #137

Bills? The main bills here seem to be this firm's muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #144

They are going to be treestar Mar 2014 #109

There is some sense of res ipsa loquitur treestar Mar 2014 #86

What if one of the pilots is entirely responsible? muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #113

That's complicated treestar Mar 2014 #118

well you did say something wrong CreekDog Mar 2014 #139

What? muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #145

do you want me to say it louder? CreekDog Mar 2014 #148

You haven't said anything in this thread (nt) muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #154

That's exactly what they are. No one knows what happened or who is responsible. n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #17

I feel you on this!!! mstinamotorcity2 Mar 2014 #40

So simple Glitterati Mar 2014 #41

If we hold on long enough.... mstinamotorcity2 Mar 2014 #46

Probably. He is an attorney, after all Glitterati Mar 2014 #48

We needed an ambulance chaser mstinamotorcity2 Mar 2014 #54

AMEN! Glitterati Mar 2014 #55

Isn't this blood money yeoman6987 Mar 2014 #78

Wow. Glitterati Mar 2014 #79

Wow! yeoman6987 Mar 2014 #83

Right. Glitterati Mar 2014 #87

Insinuated? yeoman6987 Mar 2014 #97

Wow, indeed. Laelth Mar 2014 #94

Defending a defense contractor. AngryAmish Mar 2014 #175

Oh, yes, we all know lawyers are all models of urbane civility and moral rectitude. Warpy Mar 2014 #161

I'm not an ambulance chaser. I'm usually there before the ambulance. - Melvin Belli. Brother Buzz Mar 2014 #2

Death to you all! Death to you all! Orrex Mar 2014 #5

Lawsuits are generally what make these corporations clean up their act. Lex Mar 2014 #12

Not to mention Glitterati Mar 2014 #13

There's no evidence that they need to clean up their act muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #36

You have an interesting perspective for a progressive DefenseLawyer Mar 2014 #43

I think there should be some evidence of responsibility before law suits are launched muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #45

He's harmed because someone in his family is dead. DefenseLawyer Mar 2014 #47

Wait until there's a reason to think Boeing may be at fault muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #50

I assure you, nothing you think or say in your lifetime will impact my "feelings" DefenseLawyer Mar 2014 #53

Engineers will have to get involved too muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #57

You have an interesting perspective for a defense lawyer. pnwmom Mar 2014 #69

are you suggesting that the statute of limitations has begun to acrue without Supersedeas Mar 2014 #191

Their insurance will pay for the litigation. It will not impact the search. morningfog Mar 2014 #51

Apart from diverting engineers who have proper jobs to do muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #58

The evidence is a missing plane. More than enough to get the ball rolling. morningfog Mar 2014 #166

Filthy rich international corporate behemoths RandoLoodie Mar 2014 #177

Their plane fell out of the sky. Lex Mar 2014 #70

If a terrorist, then it's nothing to do with Boeing muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #73

But we don't know that. I tend to be wary of large corporations. Lex Mar 2014 #89

Really? At the very least, Malaysian Airlines is a legitimate lawsuit target stranger81 Mar 2014 #192

You want to sue every airline that doesn't buy a 'satellite service' muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #194

Yes, it probably is an American attitude -- because the American regulatory system is broken. stranger81 Mar 2014 #202

Exactly. I don't even bother with these thinly-veiled "I hate lawyers" threads. closeupready Mar 2014 #93

Precisely, Lex. Laelth Mar 2014 #104

sadly, this is SOP for law firms Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #14

Looking at posts 12 and 13 it may not be all that sad treestar Mar 2014 #26

How can they say the "believe" both defendants are responsible pnwmom Mar 2014 #19

There is enough to get the suit started. morningfog Mar 2014 #52

That's only because any lawsuit can be started at any time, pnwmom Mar 2014 #62

And if there is nothing to it, it will be dismissed in due time. morningfog Mar 2014 #167

If you had ever had had to hire an attorney and spend thousands of dollars pnwmom Mar 2014 #168

You'll forgive me if I can't muster any sympathy for these corporations morningfog Mar 2014 #169

Why would you think the plane design was at fault when there was no evidence pnwmom Mar 2014 #170

I have no idea what will be produced in discovery. morningfog Mar 2014 #172

What did you mean when you said, "I would bet that the suit survives, and for good reason." pnwmom Mar 2014 #173

If it is all spaghetti, it will be dimissed along the way. Boeing's insurance will cover the legal morningfog Mar 2014 #174

How can that court have jurisdiction? treestar Mar 2014 #25

US citizens were aboard that plane Glitterati Mar 2014 #30

Boeing is HQ in Chicago AngryAmish Mar 2014 #64

They probably picked Boeing to go after because it's a US company. n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #68

They picked Boeing because they made the airplane. AngryAmish Mar 2014 #72

And there is zero evidence so far that a defect in the plane caused the crash. pnwmom Mar 2014 #80

I can get the idea they might be on it now treestar Mar 2014 #85

There's no malpractice involved in not suing a company when there is no evidence pnwmom Mar 2014 #111

and for the thirdtime, they have not sued Boeing AngryAmish Mar 2014 #132

Why have they instigated anything against Boeing at this point when they don't even know pnwmom Mar 2014 #134

To make sure no evidence is destroyed AngryAmish Mar 2014 #150

If you know this for a "fact" then what is this design flaw? And if a design flaw pnwmom Mar 2014 #151

They expect to file soon muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #152

Boeing chooses to build airplanes AngryAmish Mar 2014 #156

No lawyers see it that way treestar Mar 2014 #133

Yep the US is the best place for lawsuits treestar Mar 2014 #84

Also have to consider the Warsaw Convention AngryAmish Mar 2014 #130

Totally amazing treestar Mar 2014 #82

Working hard to maintain a reputation for attorneys....apparently n/t Sheepshank Mar 2014 #38

Barack and Michelle are both attorneys. n/t closeupready Mar 2014 #96

I should have included "Negative Stereotype" so it would be understood what I meant? n/t Sheepshank Mar 2014 #160

I support the lawsuit. This entire situation has been a clusterfuck ecstatic Mar 2014 #56

It's the Great American Answer to everything - "Sue! I don't care who, just sue!" muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #59

Why do you support them suing Boeing when there is no evidence a plane defect pnwmom Mar 2014 #63

There is no lawsuit. AngryAmish Mar 2014 #65

They took the first step in a lawsuit, going on a fishing expedition against Boeing. n/ pnwmom Mar 2014 #66

If they didn't it would be malpractice. AngryAmish Mar 2014 #71

Not true. There is no rule in law that says a lawsuit must be filed a couple weeks pnwmom Mar 2014 #75

No rule. But good practice. onenote Mar 2014 #210

Here is where it fails logically, though that doesn't mean a court won't let it go on: pnwmom Mar 2014 #215

"Fishing expedition" is laymans' snark for COLGATE4 Mar 2014 #142

Because I fly frequently and would like all the facts on the table ASAP ecstatic Mar 2014 #74

This particular plane has only had a single crash till now, and that one was pnwmom Mar 2014 #76

Post removed Post removed Mar 2014 #115

What a nasty thing to say. n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #116

Why? Glitterati Mar 2014 #119

Egyptair 777 had a cockpit fire 3 years ago with 291 passengers on board ecstatic Mar 2014 #165

Because i\f you don't, the paper shredders at COLGATE4 Mar 2014 #141

Don't tell anyone, but did you know that Barack and Michelle Obama are both attorneys? closeupready Mar 2014 #99

ROFL, I know! Glitterati Mar 2014 #110

There are all kinds of practices treestar Mar 2014 #114

Indeed. Laelth Mar 2014 #120

They can get pretty rich doing it treestar Mar 2014 #135

Don't tell anyone, but I'm a human muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #117

I was just trying to be a little funny, pointing out the irony. closeupready Mar 2014 #122

I can't see the irony, since the Obamas aren't involved in this at all muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #124

Okay. Thanks. closeupready Mar 2014 #125

You will have to forgive us. Laelth Mar 2014 #123

And do you start suits before any evidence of what happened is known? muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #126

If starting the suit is the only way to get the necessary evidence? Laelth Mar 2014 #128

You're telling them what they don't COLGATE4 Mar 2014 #143

The general rule is that you sue everbody COLGATE4 Mar 2014 #146

You see, my attitude is that you let air accident investigators sort it out muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #153

You do realize that Boeing has people working with the investigators? AngryAmish Mar 2014 #176

If you wait, valuable (and often damaging) COLGATE4 Mar 2014 #180

No, that makes no sense muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #181

You are, I believe deliberately COLGATE4 Mar 2014 #182

Speculation on your part; a guarantee you cannot back up muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #184

You really can't be serious. I have practiced law COLGATE4 Mar 2014 #186

so this attempt to assign legal liability is premature, isn't it? COLGATE4 Mar 2014 #183

Yes, because it's a 'legal' argument (in which this firm has gone for an unlikely cause) muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #185

And yet you accuse ME of 'speculation'. Wow. nt COLGATE4 Mar 2014 #187

"somebody" may not include either the airline or the manufacturer. Ms. Toad Mar 2014 #189

There is no assertion of res ipsa COLGATE4 Mar 2014 #197

My point, precisely. Ms. Toad Mar 2014 #198

Are you really a practicing attorney? COLGATE4 Mar 2014 #204

Yes. n/t Ms. Toad Mar 2014 #205

Hard to believe. COLGATE4 Mar 2014 #206

I could say the same, based on your assertions Ms. Toad Mar 2014 #209

"these rules" include Rule 11 Ms. Toad Mar 2014 #188

As you know, suit has not yet been filed. COLGATE4 Mar 2014 #196

Rule 11 would not apply here. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #200

In Illinois state courts, it appears to be Rule 137 - Ms. Toad Mar 2014 #208

How would Rule 137 apply to a filing under Rule 224? Can you cite a case where this happened? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #213

Here Ms. Toad Mar 2014 #218

What's even more sickening is the "omg! The cost of a ticket will go up.... Hassin Bin Sober Mar 2014 #159

This post did not turn out like you wanted I assume! LOL. nt Logical Mar 2014 #149

Recommend! Go get them, RibbeckLaw Chartered! Stike while iron is hot. morningfog Mar 2014 #171

This is just part of American culture goldent Mar 2014 #178

Ambulence Chaser is a term used by those who despise plantiff's attorneys. It is derogatory Bluenorthwest Mar 2014 #179

Doesn't everyone realize that Malaysian Airways is very likely rushing to get the bullwinkle428 Mar 2014 #190

DISMISS, WITH PREJUDICE, your honors! elleng Mar 2014 #201

What would be the mechanism to do that? AngryAmish Mar 2014 #203

Defendant airlines/whomever should seek dismissal, elleng Mar 2014 #207

would never happen in this situation. onenote Mar 2014 #211

You acted with extreme patience, to NOT respond: 'No you don't!' elleng Mar 2014 #214

ok, I will attempt to wade through your word salad AngryAmish Mar 2014 #216

This message was self-deleted by its author elleng Mar 2014 #217

The law firm has form on ambulance chasing muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #220

Judge says Malaysian plane court filing improper muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #221