General Discussion

onenote

(46,204 posts)

211. would never happen in this situation.

Thu Mar 27, 2014, 06:37 PM

Mar 2014

The pleading standards in Rule 11 are extremely lenient. As I posted elsewhere, if the plaintiffs claimed the plane crashed because it was hit by a laser beam from the alpha galaxy, a court would dismiss (probably not with prejudice the first time), but where a complaint states that, upon information and belief (standard pleading terminology), the cause of the plane crashing was mechanical failure -- a well known and common cause of plane crashes -- the court's going to let the case go to discovery in a heartbeat.

Hell, I once defended a client who was sued by a nutjob who claimed that all of a local television stations transmissions went through his head before they could be received by anyone and therefore he was entitled to $10,000,000 from my client. We moved to dismiss on the grounds (among others) that he had failed to state a legal claim upon which relief could be granted. The plaintiff's response was a one line opposition that read: I oppose the motion to dismiss because I have a good case. As tempting as it was, we didn't reply by saying "No you don't." In the end, the judge dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiff then sent our client a bill for $10 million and when it wasn't paid, filed a new lawsuit. That one was dismissed with prejudice.

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