"Small-claims flash mob" - Car owner takes legal fight away from lawyers(latimes.com)
latimes.com
"Small-claims flash mob" - Car owner takes legal fight away from lawyers
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-autos-honda-smallclaims-20111227,0,959031.story
11 comments
So the justification for the modern class action suit is to save on court resources, so you don't have to litigate basically the same facts thousands of times.
Getting rid of it would have consequences that aren't straight forward to predict. On one hand, it would definitely hurt certain plaintiff's lawyers who depend on these blockbuster class actions. On the other hand, it would be good for plaintiff's lawyers generally, because there would be a lot more suits without the consolidation process of a class action. And it would be good for defense lawyers, since there would be more suits to defend against.
As for the impact on consumers, the vast majority would just choose not to litigate for the small sums involved. I'm not going to litigate over a fault $1,000 laptop, but I'd be happy to get a $100 settlement over it, even though it's at a huge discount over maybe what my claim might've been.
Getting rid of it would have consequences that aren't straight forward to predict. On one hand, it would definitely hurt certain plaintiff's lawyers who depend on these blockbuster class actions. On the other hand, it would be good for plaintiff's lawyers generally, because there would be a lot more suits without the consolidation process of a class action. And it would be good for defense lawyers, since there would be more suits to defend against.
As for the impact on consumers, the vast majority would just choose not to litigate for the small sums involved. I'm not going to litigate over a fault $1,000 laptop, but I'd be happy to get a $100 settlement over it, even though it's at a huge discount over maybe what my claim might've been.
Yeah, class-action may as well be criminal law. Any benefit to society comes from the risk of punishment to wrongdoers, rather than the amends to the wronged.
It seems that this could only work on certain types of cases where the damage to the individuals is sufficient to make this worth the trouble. Many class actions are class actions precisely because the amount involved for each plaintiff is far to small to make suing worth the trouble, even.
In these cases, it is likely that many of thsoe wronged by the companies actions would be and perhaps are more concerned with seeing the defendant deterred from repeating their improper action then they are in individual compensation.
Still, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
In these cases, it is likely that many of thsoe wronged by the companies actions would be and perhaps are more concerned with seeing the defendant deterred from repeating their improper action then they are in individual compensation.
Still, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
>The hearing is held, typically lasts no more than an hour, and (usually) an immediate decision is rendered and that is where it ends. Thus, even after this sort of appeal, a lay plaintiff can still have a potentially effective remedy for getting a quick decision.
Doesn't that also apply to the defendant? If the plaintiff can use this procedure, Honda can too. What stops Honda from appealing all of these decisions and getting the vast majority of them thrown out?
Doesn't that also apply to the defendant? If the plaintiff can use this procedure, Honda can too. What stops Honda from appealing all of these decisions and getting the vast majority of them thrown out?
Corporate lawyer cost (including travel) > a settlement maxed at $10k. I doubt it would be worth it for Honda to appeal.
As someone else pointed out, the attorney costs are likely more than the judgement.
On the flip side, it's death by a thousand cuts. Even just 500 customers causing a stink with little court cases all over the place are a reporter's wet dream. It's an army of self-made David's taking on Goliath. Throw in that - in many cases - they may have a local David and there will be a swarm of "local man fights monster mega corp" stories all over.
And as a few of the cases get settled, it becomes ammunition for the next cases. And that works both ways.
On the flip side, it's death by a thousand cuts. Even just 500 customers causing a stink with little court cases all over the place are a reporter's wet dream. It's an army of self-made David's taking on Goliath. Throw in that - in many cases - they may have a local David and there will be a swarm of "local man fights monster mega corp" stories all over.
And as a few of the cases get settled, it becomes ammunition for the next cases. And that works both ways.
I actually considered objecting to one of the class action lawsuits where I was a member of the class due to this. I actually wound up being a part of the class action lawsuits against Microsoft not once, but twice. While in the Iowa case, they actually got a half-decent settlement, the Arizona case was a joke.
The settlement size was pitiful and they chose to "donate" any unclaimed funds to the schools, but they could only be used to buy Microsoft products. Technically, they could be used for whole computers (but not peripherals), but I know enough about their OEM agreements to know that they get paid per computer shipped, no matter what OS is on it, so they were just funneling any unclaimed money back to themselves and forcing the schools to deal with red tape in the process.
I wanted to object, but the lawyers I talked to said it was a waste of time and going at it pro se doubly so. With the Comes documents not yet online, the only thing I could have proven legally was that I was a member of the class. In the end, they just approved the settlement. I think I got a voucher or something as compensation for that one.
The settlement size was pitiful and they chose to "donate" any unclaimed funds to the schools, but they could only be used to buy Microsoft products. Technically, they could be used for whole computers (but not peripherals), but I know enough about their OEM agreements to know that they get paid per computer shipped, no matter what OS is on it, so they were just funneling any unclaimed money back to themselves and forcing the schools to deal with red tape in the process.
I wanted to object, but the lawyers I talked to said it was a waste of time and going at it pro se doubly so. With the Comes documents not yet online, the only thing I could have proven legally was that I was a member of the class. In the end, they just approved the settlement. I think I got a voucher or something as compensation for that one.
"It is interesting to see how enhanced connectivity in our modern era is threatening to disrupt the cozy sorts of settlements so achieved through this vehicle. Probably the biggest losers will be the plaintiffs' class-action lawyers themselves, who might wind up having their back-room settlements more easily rejected and be left actually having to work hard to get a real recovery for the victims in lieu of taking a quick and inadequate deal that benefits primarily the lawyers."
It's also interesting to see how the idea of justice and representation has morphed into farming.
It's also interesting to see how the idea of justice and representation has morphed into farming.
The problem with litigation, even if affordable in the first round, is that it can be appealed and the judgment is only recognized and enforced in the jurisdiction of the court.
Compare this with low cost arbitration: Internationally recognized, final, binding and a lot of procedural freedom.
Disclosure: I am launching judge.me, a binding internet arbitration service that charges $299 fixed price and offers awards that are recognized and enforced by court systems in 146 countries.
Compare this with low cost arbitration: Internationally recognized, final, binding and a lot of procedural freedom.
Disclosure: I am launching judge.me, a binding internet arbitration service that charges $299 fixed price and offers awards that are recognized and enforced by court systems in 146 countries.
Wow, way to take a good thing and make it out as a bad thing.
You want the ability to appeal.
PS. It's cool that you are launching this, and if people want it more power to them and you, but the ability to appeal is important.
You want the ability to appeal.
PS. It's cool that you are launching this, and if people want it more power to them and you, but the ability to appeal is important.
It depends. The lady in this article wants to avoid the army of lawyers on the other side, so a quick resolution for her small claims conflict makes sense.
I agree that public policy matters need the right to appeal.
I agree that public policy matters need the right to appeal.
[deleted]
Can we use Small Claims to fight other injustices? How about going after companies that sell your email address?
Edit: for the downvoters: it is a genuine question.
Edit: for the downvoters: it is a genuine question.
From what I understood, small claims court are limited to monetary damages only. I.e. if you can not clearly show what monetary damage you suffered, there is no small claim case.
> companies that sell your email address
What monetary damages can you prove you suffered?
What monetary damages can you prove you suffered?
Not monetary per se, but how about time wasted due to the spam?
What if I control my own domain, and have to spend time fighting this spam?
We're talking about civil court here. Money is what you go to court to get. What do you want the judge to do if you win? He's handling traffic tickets and landlord disputes... then he gets to you. He's not going to try to make up some equation of how much your time pressing the delete button on your e-mail client is worth.
Depends where you are. Here in Ontario small claims court doesn't handle traffic tickets or landlord disputes. They handle things like suing your mechanic, or a business owner suing a deadbeat.
However, they still don't have the time to process your claim for damages awarded for loss of time due to junk email. Sorry, but I can't sue for the actual junk mail I get that actually causes physical expenses like garbage disposal/recycling plus time. However a judge is going to be royally pissed if I'm suing for the disposal costs of junk mail (probably a maximum of $5 a year at the dump)
However, they still don't have the time to process your claim for damages awarded for loss of time due to junk email. Sorry, but I can't sue for the actual junk mail I get that actually causes physical expenses like garbage disposal/recycling plus time. However a judge is going to be royally pissed if I'm suing for the disposal costs of junk mail (probably a maximum of $5 a year at the dump)
Seen any of Bennett Haselton's stories on slashdot?
Great idea, but what happens when every major purchase includes a EULA that requires binding arbitration, like so many contracts already do?
If I walk into a car dealer, lay down my cash and refuse to sign their EULA, would they really refuse to accept my money? Is an industry that's hard-hit by the bad economy going to put additional impediments in the way of sales?
Also, requiring this kind of EULA would be bad publicity for companies since it would emphasize to potential buyers that the seller is afraid of being sued for defective products. Companies that don't require such an agreement would be at a competitive advantage since they'd project an image of higher quality and more respect for the customer.
Also, requiring this kind of EULA would be bad publicity for companies since it would emphasize to potential buyers that the seller is afraid of being sued for defective products. Companies that don't require such an agreement would be at a competitive advantage since they'd project an image of higher quality and more respect for the customer.
A warranty is the manufacturer's bet that the car won't die within the terms of the warranty. The longer the warranty, the stronger the bet, presumably because the manufacturer knows how good its processes and results are.
I would see such a EULA as a negative warranty, the manufacturer betting against itself. I would walk.
I would see such a EULA as a negative warranty, the manufacturer betting against itself. I would walk.
Many consumer contracts in the U.S. (for example those for my credit card and my mobile phone) do require binding arbitration. Why doesn't your argument apply to them?
Make sure to use an affordable arbitration institution.
I am launching judge.me in a few days, offering $299 email arbitration service that is legally binding in 146 countries.
I am launching judge.me in a few days, offering $299 email arbitration service that is legally binding in 146 countries.
Don't most of those contracts specify the arbitrator, too? I know I've read many articles about forum-shopping by corporations; are they just relying on the consumer to not know which arbitration forums are truly neutral?
Institutional arbitration often just mentions how the arbitrators will be appointed.
Ad hoc arbitration (i.e. not using institutional rules) often specify the arbitrator(s).
Ad hoc arbitration (i.e. not using institutional rules) often specify the arbitrator(s).
> Honda sold about 200,000 of the hybrids over a six-year period, and because of resales, as many as 500,000 people are eligible to file claims against Honda.
How could a second-hand buyer claim to have suffered an unexpected loss? Could not Honda (assuming they would bother responding to the small claims action) easily show that the fault was well known and second-hand buyers should have known they were getting a 30-mpg hybrid? Or was this something that only appeared after a number of years?
How could a second-hand buyer claim to have suffered an unexpected loss? Could not Honda (assuming they would bother responding to the small claims action) easily show that the fault was well known and second-hand buyers should have known they were getting a 30-mpg hybrid? Or was this something that only appeared after a number of years?
The hybrid's battery failed earlier than expected. If Honda advertised the battery as lasting 10 years, and it failed after 5, a used buyer of a 3 year old car might have no idea it was about to fail.
I'm curious. What happens if you sue a small California law firm in small claim court? The article says that in California small claims court, the company must be represented by a non-attorney employee. If the law firm consisted entirely of attorneys plus one secretary, would they really have to send the secretary?
What if you sue a company and every employee is an attorney?
What if you sue a company and every employee is an attorney?
I love this Heather Peters. She's one clever lady that just hacked the judiciary procedures in a novel way. Impressive
EDIT: I see many other claims that could go through the small claims, one thing that does come to mind however, is it possible to go through small claims when you buy online and you don't get what you want? (Avenger controller for example)
EDIT: I see many other claims that could go through the small claims, one thing that does come to mind however, is it possible to go through small claims when you buy online and you don't get what you want? (Avenger controller for example)
if there was fraud involved, of course. why not?
While the "small-claims flash mob" is interesting, I have a problem with the original problem. Buying a car isn't a small purchase (for most people) so you would think they would have done some small amount of research or just read the sticker on the car window. The article makes it out that every civic hybrid every sold counts in the lawsuit. If the car has been out for years pretending you don't know what the mpg that it will be getting is just grabbing for money. Or was there details left out of the article?
I think you missed the part of the article where the said that the batteries on some of the cars deteriorated at a faster rate than they should have done, leading the cars to use their (gasoline) engines more - thus reducing the fuel economy which was based on the car working as an effective hybrid.
doh, saw the "Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times" at the bottom and thought it was the end or the article, didn't see the "Page 2".
This is brilliant!
As I understand it, what usually happens to small-claims cases against large, well-funded corporations is that you win the first round, then the corporation appeals and suddenly you're in grown-up court and have to pay a lawyer.
Assuming the corporation is fueled by money, it will need to weigh the cost of waging an appeal versus the expected savings in overturning the lawsuit (which is still not guaranteed).
Yes. I was thinking of the case where if you win, thousands of people will file similar suits against the same company.
In such a case, the company has more at stake than you do. It's more likely that it's not worth your while to get a lawyer to fight the appeal.
In such a case, the company has more at stake than you do. It's more likely that it's not worth your while to get a lawyer to fight the appeal.
That's the brilliant thing about the flash-mob approach. If the company has 50 cases to litigate, it may not matter if every individual is self-represented, since the company is going to have a very hard time fielding enough lawyers.
...or 50 non-lawyers since it's small claims.
Especially if they get flash-mobbed like she's calling for. Since they would need to show up at so many places to be able to even try to appeal. Some jurisdictions don't take kindly to not showing up to small claims court and then trying to appeal a default position against you.
In a case I read about recently, the megacorp sent a paralegal with zero pertinent knowledge to represent them in small claims. (I think it was on HN — does anybody remember what I'm talking about?)
Google did this, but it wasn't recently -- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=505255
Thanks, that's the one I was thinking of.
I'm for doing away with all other forms of civil court all together. Let's handle patents and copyrights and divorces this way too.
Divorces are already generally settled out of court.
As for other forms of civil court... I'm curious to hear the justification for your claim.
As for other forms of civil court... I'm curious to hear the justification for your claim.
Divorces are already generally settled out of court.
Not if they're contested.... and not if the state is not a "no fault" state. I went through divorce in NYS; let me tell you, it is hell. No house, no kids, and still the process went on for 18 months.
Not if they're contested.... and not if the state is not a "no fault" state. I went through divorce in NYS; let me tell you, it is hell. No house, no kids, and still the process went on for 18 months.
Wow. I didn't even realize there were still states without no-fault divorce. Looks like just NYS.
Thunderdome is the only real civil court methodology.
As I read this piece, however, I was most struck not so much by how the small claims remedy is particularly effective (in reality, this is a highly variable forum at best) but rather by what a joke the typical class action settlement can be. While that vehicle has occasionally proven effective in high profile cases, for the run-of-the-mill class action case you can often get a plaintiff's firm that is pretty much gaming the system to get a fee windfall for itself even as it puts a relatively low priority on the remedy it gets for the class of victims supposedly being represented. That is why remedies rarely take the form of significant cash payouts to members of the represented class and why the first instinct you have whenever you get one of those class notices is to simply throw it away rather than bothering to read all the fine print that might lead to your getting a $10 recovery or some such thing.
It is interesting to see how enhanced connectivity in our modern era is threatening to disrupt the cozy sorts of settlements so achieved through this vehicle. Probably the biggest losers will be the plaintiffs' class-action lawyers themselves, who might wind up having their back-room settlements more easily rejected and be left actually having to work hard to get a real recovery for the victims in lieu of taking a quick and inadequate deal that benefits primarily the lawyers.