Lowering the Bar

Your Dog's Body Damaged My Car, Says Alleged Creep

"I have complete compassion for them," said Jeffery Ely about the family he sued after killing their dog.  Ely had been driving at night on January 4 when Nikki Munthe's dog, Fester, a miniature pinscher, ran out into the road and maliciously hurled his 13-pound body into the front of Ely's Honda Civic.

Ely later sued the Munthe family for about $1,100, which he said was the cost of fixing his bumper and radiator and the time he had to take off from work.

"I know how it feels," he said, not meaning how it feels to be struck and killed by a Honda Civic but rather how it feels to lose a beloved pet.  "I love dogs.  But once you get them, they are your responsibility."  He blamed the family for letting the dog off-leash.  (The family filed a countersuit.)

In January 2008, you may recall, Tomas Delgado dismissed a somewhat similar lawsuit that he filed against the family of a boy he had killed.  Delgado argued that the boy and his bike had negligently damaged the front of his Audi when he hit them, traveling somewhere around 90 mph on a rural highway at night.  Delgado agreed to drop that lawsuit after his attorney arrived at the courthouse for a hearing to find hundreds of local residents had also taken an interest in the matter, and that they were not Delgado supporters.

In the more civilized (but much less festive) environment of St. Louis County, Minnesota, the lawsuits were resolved by a judge rather than by an angry mob.  After emotional testimony by both sides on May 10, Judge Gerald Maher dismissed both lawsuits, saying there was no proof anyone had been negligent.  (It turned out the leash law did not apply partly because the family lived outside city limits.)  "You don't have a legal cause of action," Judge Maher said, though it's unclear if he said it to one or both sides.  "You never should have been here."

They had planned to be on TV instead, apparently -- the parties had agreed to appear on "Judge Joe Brown" to settle the matter, but that seems to have fallen through.  Ely told the Duluth News Tribune that nationwide coverage of the matter had "ruined his reputation," although his willingness to appear (and probably lose) on national TV drops that down a bit on the sympathy scale.

According to local sources, Ely has since fixed his radiator himself, for about $120.

Link: CBS News
Link: Duluth News Tribune

Judge Who Lost Pants Wants Job Back

In what is certainly welcome news for amateur legal humorists everywhere, Roy Pearson has filed another lawsuit.  As you may recall (see, e.g., "Judge Drops Pants; Suit Still On," Lowering the Bar (June 6, 2007)), Pearson was formerly Judge Pearson, but ultimately lost his job after adverse publicity due to a lawsuit he filed demanding millions in compensation for a pair of lost pants.  A D.C. judge dismissed Pearson's claims after a trial in which, among other things, Pearson wept on the stand when describing how his dry cleaners had allegedly mistreated him.

In the new lawsuit, filed this time in federal court, Pearson alleges that he was actually fired for exposing corruption within the department where he worked.  He says he was a protected whistleblower and that the media circus in which the pants occupied the center ring was just the city's pretext for getting rid of him.

Pearson now wants his job back.  He is also seeking $1 million in damages, or approximately $64 million less than he sought for the loss of the treasured pants.

Link: Washington Post

Claim Alleges Trip Ruined by Dung

A New York woman who says a family trip to Connecticut was ruined when her child stepped in dog feces has filed a claim against the city they were visiting.  Kelly DeBrocky says that she and her family were planning to visit the Norwalk Aquarium on April 5, but that the trip was derailed when her 1-year-old took the fateful step.  Apparently believing the dog was employed and/or encouraged by the city to create the nuisance, DeBrocky is demanding $100 in compensation for the costs of parking, admission, and replacement baby shoes.

Norwalk's city attorney, Jeffry Spahr, said that the claim had been denied, and nicely summarized the city's legal defense.  "Poop happens," he said.

Link: Yahoo! News

New Video Questions Dupre's Claim

Welcome back to the case that poses the following legal questions, among others:

1. Is it possible to have less than zero credibility, and
2. What happens if both parties to a lawsuit suffer from that handicap?

I think the answer to the first question is yes -- if a credibility level of zero means that no one believes anything you say, then negative credibility would mean that, just because you say something, people are more likely to believe the opposite is true.  In legal terms, we would call that an inference or possibly a rebuttable presumption of falsity as to any fact to which the witness might testify.

The second question is harder, but it's clearly at issue in the case filed on April 28 by Ashley Dupre (a.k.a. "Kristen") against "Girls Gone Wild" founder Joe Francis.  Dupre's allegation that she had no idea what "Girls Gone Wild" was all about did not really have the ring of truth, but then neither did Francis's comment that he was shocked, shocked, to discover there was drinking going on and that he personally put Dupre on a bus home as soon as he learned this deeply disturbing fact.

At that point, it looked like this credibility battle was already at the Rocky-II-Finale stage, in which both fighters are laying on the canvas and neither one should get up but you figure one probably will at the end if only because Burgess Meredith won't shut up otherwise.  But the next day, Francis got in another punch.  Late on Tuesday, April 29, he released a video that he said proved the falsity of Dupre's allegations that she had not consented.  Maybe -- you be the judge:

Complaint, Paragraphs 13 and 14 (emphasis added):

13.   At no time did Plaintiff consent to any use of her likeness or image in any manner or to be used for the advertisement or commercial gain of the Defendants.

14.  It is the regular business practice of Defendants . . . to induce unsuspecting young girls to perform for their cameras.

Video released today:

Q: Do you know what "Girls Gone Wild" is?

A: [laughs] Yes, I do.

Q: Can I use this on "Girls Gone Wild"?

A: Of course you can.

The video also shows Dupre displaying a fake ID.  That of course does not prove that Francis didn't know he was dealing with underage girls, or that a 17-year-old's consent would be legally valid.  But it does tend to undermine Paragraphs 13 and 14.

Really, both parties ought to stand down at this point, before they reach critical mass and form a credibility black hole from which no truthful statement would ever be able to emerge.  Though I'm concerned it may already be too late.

Link:  MSNBC.com

Client 9's Playmate Sues Over "Girls Gone Wild" Video

Ashley Alexandra Dupre, well into her 14th minute of fame due to her affiliation with Eliot Spitzer, has sued "Girls Gone Wild" founder Joe Francis for allegedly taking advantage of her youth and vulnerability by once filming her sans T-shirt.

Why does it seem like these two may be perfect for each other?

In the complaint, filed on April 28 in the Southern District of Florida, Dupre alleges that she encountered "agents and representatives" of Defendant and his production company in 2003, when she was 17 and just trying to stay out of trouble while on spring break:

10.  On said date, Plaintiff was socializing with friends at the Chesterfield Hotel when she was approached by [said agents and representatives].  They offered Plaintiff alcoholic drinks.  After Plaintiff became drunk, they induced her into [sic] exposing her breasts while being filmed.  While drunk, Plaintiff was told to sign a "release." . . .

11.  At the time of these events, Plaintiff did not understand the magnitude of her actions nor that her image and likeness would be displayed in videos and DVDs produced and distributed by Defendants.

12.  Likewise, at the time Plaintiff signed the "release," Plaintiff did not and could not foresee that she would later have sex with a famous person for money, thus herself becoming famous and therefore acquiring a valuable legal claim.

Okay, I made up Paragraph 12, but Dupre does allege that the defendants have profited by means of advertising designed to capitalize on Plaintiff's "fame and notoriety," which, if I'm not mistaken, is due to having had sex with a famous person for money.

According to the Miami Herald, Francis's version of the Paragraph 10 events is very different.  As he tells it, Ms. Dupre was completely sober while going wild, and he personally -- personally, mind you -- put her on a bus home after catching her with a beer.  As you know, drinking is strictly against "Girls Gone Wild" policy.

Dupre's complaint contains eight counts, including unjust enrichment, Lanham Act claims, state-law false advertising and unfair competition claims, unauthorized publication of Plaintiff's likeness, and, of all things, cybersquatting.  The complaint seeks damages of not less than $10,000,000.  That is likely to pose some proof problems, especially as to the Lanham Act allegation that defendants' acts "have cause[d] substantial and irreparable injury . . . to the Plaintiff's business, reputation and good will."   I doubt that the reputation of someone who [disturbing phrase deleted] with Eliot Spitzer while [matter redacted due to protective order] and also putting [sanitized for your protection], not once, but [illegible], while in Washington, D.C., has been harmed that much by an ad for "Girls Gone Wild."

Joe Francis, who has made millions from the GGW videos and who, according to this month's issue of Scientific American, is an utter sleazebag, paid someone to come up with a pretty good line.  "I think it's ironic," he told CNN, "that she charged Gov. Spitzer $2,000 for sex and she wants to charge me $10 million for taking some naked pictures of her."  Not bad, and a lot better than the line he tried out after being held in contempt in 2007, also in Florida; that, Francis announced, was a case of a "judge gone wild."  A little more effort, please.

Link: CNN.com
Link: Miami Herald
See also "'Girls Gone Wild' Founder Says Judge Has Gone Wild in Suit Filed by Girls Who Had Previously Gone Wild," Lowering the Bar (Apr. 6, 2007); and "'Girls Gone Wild' Creator, Residing in Hole, Continues to Dig," Lowering the Bar (Apr. 16, 2007).

Woman Sues for Injuries Caused by Large Dancing Mystery Man

A woman in Vero Beach, Florida, has sued a Palm Beach nightspot claiming that she was injured by a 300-pound Canadian who fell on her there.  Kathryn Muth accuses Cucina Dell'Arte of negligence on the grounds that the restaurant is not authorized to operate as a nightclub, as she says it was doing on the night of the injury.  The unauthorized dance music allegedly encouraged the large man to hoist himself up onto the bar with intent to groove, only to then fall onto Muth, who suffered a torn rotator cuff.

According to Muth's attorney, Cucina was allowed to expand its outdoor area in 2004 only on condition that "no loud music, dance floor or D.J." were to be allowed.  It is not clear from the report whether any of those conditions were technically violated, but the attorney also seemed to suggest that the bar might have been defective to the extent it was intended or permitted to be used for dancing.  "This was not a bar that was made for [300-pound drunk Canadian] people to dance on," she said.

An attorney for Cucina's insurance company did not want to comment, which he made clear by commenting that "[t]he bottom line is that the only comment we have is 'no comment.'"  He had no further comment.

One of the mysteries surrounding the event is the identity of the falling tortfeasor, who has not been sued, probably because he cannot be found.  None of the witnesses seem to know him personally.  "They all just call him 'the large man,'" said Muth's attorney.  According to the report, police were somehow able to identify The Large Man as one "Remington Wayne Lawrence."  With a name like that, he is likely either a private eye or a serial killer, or both.  If in fact he is both, it may not be surprising that he has apparently vanished back into the Canadian mist from whence he came.

Link: Palm Beach Post (longer article from Apr. 14)
Link: Palm Beach Post (shorter version from Apr. 15)

Canadian Dollar, Lawsuit Activity Up

Now that Canadians have a currency that can actually compete with the U.S. dollar, it looks like they may be trying to catch up to us in unnecessary lawsuits as well.

Last week, the National Post of Canada reported on the "growing trend" of teachers being sued by students and their parents.  The story was prompted by a case in which a father in British Columbia sued his son's second-grade teacher for, among other things, not making the boy do his assignments and failing to give him daily homework, thus "knowingly setting up the son for failure."  After the boy apparently refused to finish a poem he had been assigned, the teacher put the half-finished poem up in the hallway.  By this and other means, the teacher "falsely created and attempted to reinforce artificial differences between his son and his peers," allegedly inflicting compensable emotional distress.

Another lawsuit referred to in that article claims $155,000 in damages for another family's son who felt "fearful and constantly victimized" by his grade-school teacher.  Allegedly, the boy has suffered long-term effects from this, "including a facial tic that still appears when he discusses Grade 4."  Just a suggestion, folks, but I would encourage your boy to avoid law school.

Meanwhile, in Ottawa, the Supreme Court of Canada recently heard the appeal of a man who claimed that his life was ruined after he found a dead fly in a bottle of water.  Waddah Mustapha said that he saw the fly (and later, half of another one) in a sealed bottle in late 2001, and as a result suffered from "major depression, anxiety, specific phobias, and obsessional thoughts flowing from seeing the dead flies in the bottled water."

To make sure the public understood this was a serious matter, Mustapha told the CBC that this was not just any fly, it was one of the "blue-butts."  "We all know flies of that kind, with the blue butts," he said.  "They land on feces and dead rats on the side of the road and end up in the [bottled?] water.  This is a public health issue."  Mustapha did not actually drink any of the blue-butt-infested water, but the trauma allegedly ruined his sex life and his hair-salon business, and makes it difficult for him to shower.

The trial court found in his favor, despite admitting that his reaction was "objectively bizarre."  Because the nature of bottled water is to assure "purity and cleanliness," it held, it was foreseeable that psychiatric injury might result from finding a bug in it.  The court awarded him no less than $341,775.  It looked like he could finally afford that fly filter for his shower head, but the award was overturned on appeal.

This important matter is now being contemplated by the Canadian Supreme Court.

Link: National Post (Canada)
Link: Yahoo! News

Junk-Mail Deliverer Sues After Mailbox Injury

"When I received a solicitor's letter," said Paul O'Brien of Leeds in Great Britain, "I thought someone was having a laugh."  This was because the letter explained that Mr. O'Brien was likely to be sued by a woman who had injured herself while putting junk mail through the slot in his front door.

The letter stated, "We understand that the circumstances of the accident are that our client was delivering a leaflet to your house when your letterbox snapped back on to her right index finger.  As a result of this, our client suffered from personal injury and loss."  The treacherous letterbox appears to have been what Americans would call a "mail slot" with a swinging door.  Joy Goodman claims that the tip of her right index finger was actually severed by the letterbox door, and that consequently she can no longer work as a cake decorator.

"I just cannot believe," O'Brien said, that "someone who came on to my property uninvited, to put junk mail through my door that I didn't want, can now sue me because she hurt herself."  The letter apparently did not claim that O'Brien had somehow been negligent or that the letterbox was defective in any way.

"I asked the Royal Mail if they had had any problems with it," O'Brien said.  "They said they hadn't and that in any case their staff are trained to make sure they don't get hurt while delivering."  The report did not provide details about what training Royal Mailmen might need to avoid losing a finger when poking a letter through a slot, but the Cake Decorators and Junk Mail Deliverers' Union may want to look into that.

The letter did not make a specific claim for damages, and Goodman declined to comment, saying that the matter "is in the hands of my solicitors."  Maybe that's the problem, O'Brien said.  "It seems like we're becoming more and more like America," he complained.  "Everyone wants compensation."

Link: Daily Mail, Feb. 21, 2008

City Sues to Force Alleged Recycler to Keep Trash Service

Eddie House of San Carlos, California, was sued on January 22 by the city of San Carlos, California, for municipal code violations related to garbage.  The problem is apparently that Mr. House doesn't generate any.  Garbage, that is.

House, who claims to "care" about the so-called "environment," says he recycles virtually everything he uses and disposes of what little is left over in ways that makes it unnecessary for him to have his garbage picked up by the city.  So he canceled that service about a year ago.  "It's just me and my dog," he said, "so I don't have a whole lot of garbage to begin with and I recycle everything."

As a result, the city is suing House to force him to maintain trash service, whether he needs it or not.

According to the report, the lawsuit alleges that House's failure to pay for the pickup of trash he doesn't generate is a violation of the municipal code, which requires everyone to contract with the Allied Waste company for pickup at least once a week, or more, possibly, if you don't need it more often than that.  The city is seeking a permanent injunction that would force House to follow that requirement.

"I don't understand a city ordinance that requires you to fill up a can," said House.  "That's downright foolishness."

A city manager told the Examiner that the lawsuit was prompted by complaints from neighbors that House was burning some of the garbage, causing a bad smell.  (If that's true, seems like the remedy should be an order forbidding him to burn things.)  House admits the fire department has been to his home several times, but says that each time he was only burning (evil-smelling?) firewood.  He believes the lawsuit is retaliation for his own complaints about the building next door, a charge the city manager denies.

"We don't go out looking for these things," he said.

Link: Examiner.com

UPDATE: Driver Drops Lawsuit Against Family of Cyclist He Killed

As I (and many, many others) reported last week, Tomas Delgado sued the family of a teenage boy he killed in a traffic accident in 2004, on the grounds that the boy and his bicycle had negligently damaged the front of Delgado's Audi.  Due apparently in large part to the public outcry, Delgado dropped the case this morning.

The prior report suggested that the boy had at least contributed to the accident by riding his bike at night with no reflective gear.  And Delgado was not charged with any criminal wrongdoing, despite the fact that he was speeding on a rural highway.  The traffic report stated that Delgado was traveling at 70 mph in a 55 mph zone, though an expert hired by the boy's family estimated Delgado's speed at 107 mph.  (It was even faster in metric units, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.)  Still, the public seemed to feel that Delgado was lucky to have escaped jail, and that to sue the dead boy's family for the cost of the damaged car was just a bit over the line.

I infer this public feeling from the fact, reported today, that "hundreds of people descended on [the] courthouse" in Spain where a hearing on the case was to be held, and "broke into applause" when they learned Delgado was dismissing the case.  Now, I firmly believe that cases should be decided on their merits and not by public reaction.  But I also firmly believe that if the citizens who are likely to be in your jury pool have stormed the courthouse before you even get there, it might be time to dismiss or at least think about a change of venue.  Just as a practical matter.

Delgado himself, wisely, did not show up, having sent his attorney to be torn apart by the mob instead.  (Attorneys do represent their clients, but just FYI, at least at my firm we charge time-and-a-half for being torn apart by mobs.)  Delgado's attorney told the court that his client felt that the bad publicity about the case amounted to a "public lynching," but that isn't true.  The public lynching would have amounted to a public lynching.  The bad publicity was just a sign of a bad case.

The boy's father said he was content with the dismissal, but also said he would pursue criminal charges, suggesting he was not content with the dismissal.  A local prosecutor said that authorities would be revisiting the case in the near future.

Link: CNN.com

Cyclist Sued for Damaging Front of Driver's Car

A Spanish newspaper reports that businessman Tomas Delgado is suing for damage that 17-year-old Enaitz Iriondo caused to Delgado's car during an accident in 2004.  Delgado alleges that Iriondo thoughtlessly caused 20,000 Euros worth of damage to the Audi A8 by allowing his body and bicycle to be impacted by the front end of it while Delgado was trying to speed.

Delgado is sorry that Iriondo was killed in the accident, but he also wants his car fixed.

Delgado has not been criminally charged in Iriondo's death, apparently because Iriondo was riding his bike alone at night without wearing reflective clothing, and was not wearing a helmet.  Iriondo's family was paid 33,000 Euros by Delgado's insurer based on the acknowledgement that Delgado was speeding, but Delgado still maintains that the family should have to pay for the damage (plus another 6,000 Euros for the cost of renting a car while the Audi is fixed).

"I'm also a victim in all of this," Delgado said, still weeping over the broken corpse of his beautiful young A8, which had barely begun to live.  "You can't fix the lad's problems, but you can fix mine."  I'm not so sure about that last part.

Delgado may have earlier expressed remorse for killing the lad, since Iriondo's family said they had previously felt sorry for him "for the guilt he must feel" at killing their son.  But the family said their feelings now are more in the neighborhood of disgust.

Iriondo's mother described the lawsuit as "a kick in the teeth."

Link: London Daily Mail

UPDATE: Law Student Sues School; Says Low Grape Point Average Explained by Disability

A former law student at Southern Illinois University has sued the school and its dean after they refused to re-admit her for her second year based on what they said was poor performance.  Lisa Dawn Rittenhouse ended up with a 1.948 GPA, and a law school rule apparently provides that only those with a 1.95 or better will be invited back for another year.  Doesn't seem too unreasonable, on its face.

But Rittenhouse says that her low scores are due to disability, not a lack of ability.  She claims she suffers from bipolar disorder,  hyperactivity, ADHD, and dyslexia.  One or more of these disorders may or may not explain why Rittenhouse's complaint describes ADHD as "Attention Span Deficit Disorder" and says it contributed to her "low grape point average."  She alleges that she has one or more impairments that substantially limits here [sic] ability to perform" and that the school's failure to accommodate her was a violation of the "Americans for [sic] Disabilities Act."

Rittenhouse also claims a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, on the grounds that minority students with even lower grapes than hers were readmitted.

UPDATE: I recently came across a post at the very good blog Simple Justice which argued that it seemed unfair to make fun of Ms. Rittenhouse for typos in her complaint, given that she may have dyslexia.  That is a valid point, and I think I was lazy in doing the initial post.  I should have clarified two points:

• First, I wasn't and still am not sure that Rittenhouse's allegations actually even describe dyslexia -- could that make someone call ADHD "Attention Span Deficit Disorder"?  Not sure.  So I was suspicious of the underlying claim, not setting out to make fun of a disabled person, which I would not knowingly do.  But the post does read that way, which is my fault.
  
• Second, the post would have been more accurate and a lot funnier had I made clear that Rittenhouse was not representing herself.  (The corrected links below now go to articles that clarify that point.)

I haven't found any evidence that her attorney suffers from any disability that may hinder his ability to write in a way that will not embarrass his client, but if that turns out to be the case, I will run another correction.

Thanks to Scott at Simple Justice for bringing this to my attention.

Link: Madison County Record
Link: Law.com

Trekkie Sues Auction House Claiming Trek Prop Is Fake

The Associated Press reported Friday that a Star Trek fan who paid $6,000 for what he believed to be a poker visor worn by the android "Data" on "Star Trek: The Next Generation" is now suing, claiming it is a fake.  Ted Moustakis of Towaco, New Jersey, filed suit in New York state court against Christie's auction house, demanding a refund for the visor as well as a table ($6,600) and uniform ($11,400) that he bought in the same auction.

Surprisingly, Moustakis is also demanding millions in punitive damages.

Moustakis claims that he brought the visor to a Star Trek convention in August to have it autographed by Brent Spiner, who played Data in the TV show.  Spiner allegedly then told Moustakis that the visor could not be the real thing because he (Spiner) had sold the real one years ago.  Moustakis said he felt "humiliated" after the android's revelation and that the pride he felt for getting such a "great piece of memorabilia" was dissipated.

Upon close examination, Moustakis said, the table and uniform did not seem authentic to him, either.

In a post reprinted on the excellent stupid-news blog SNAFU-ed, Wil Wheaton (who played "Wesley Crusher" on the show), said that Moustakis's story did not ring true in some ways based on his experience in the show (such as the fact that they did not have "one-of-a-kind" costumes as Moustakis apparently alleges).  In another post, "James Tiberius Kirk" comments that, if Moustakis has $24,000 to spend on Star Trek props, maybe he can afford to go ahead and move out of his mom's basement.

Link: International Herald Tribune
Link: SNAFU-ed

Jury Finds Pool Store Not Liable For Goose Attack

Earlier this month, a jury in Maryland found against a woman who sued a shopping mall and pool store in Rockville after being attacked by a goose while on the mall's property in 2004.

Suzanne Webster said the goose's ferocious attack had caused her to fall and break her hip.  It appears that employees knew the goose was nesting on the property, but the defendants successfully argued that -- setting aside whether they could be responsible for the goose's decision to attack in the first place -- the goose is a protected species and so they were not allowed to interfere with the goose or the nest in any way.  The plaintiff's attorney argued that the store negligently allowed employees to feed the goose, making the situation worse, but the jury did not agree.

This is at least the fourth animal-attack lawsuit I know of that has failed.  As I previously reported, in 2006 Marcy Meckler sued the Old Orchard Shopping Center in Skokie, Illinois, claiming that it should be liable for the actions of a squirrel that jumped on her leg, causing her to panic, fall and suffer injury.  Like Webster, she also argued that the mall had "encouraged the squirrel" by feeding it.  I can't find any further record of this case, which usually means a case has quietly been dismissed.

You might think that animal-attack claims can't get more tenuous than those, but they can.  In 2005, an Illinois woman sued Lowe's Hardware after a bird flew into the back of her head while she was in the outdoor lawn & garden area.  The woman said that Lowe's was responsible for the bird strike because it "allowed wild birds to enter" said area (namely, the outdoors), thus creating a dangerous condition.  I did find one report stating that this case was dismissed in January 2006.

Finally, I also happen to know that in the late 1990s, a woman sued Sears, Roebuck & Co. making allegations similar to those later made by Meckler.  That woman claimed she fell and hurt herself after panicking when a bat flew at her head.  (A fruit bat of some kind, not a bat that somebody threw at her.)  I know this because we represented Sears in that  case.  It was the only deposition I've ever desperately wanted to take.

After the Maryland verdict, the score in negligent-animal-attack cases is now: Animals 4, Women 0.

Link: WJZ-TV (Baltimore)

Snowball-Assault Case to Be Retried This Week After Mistrial

Colorado sources report that a mistrial was declared Friday, December 7, in the trial of Andrew Thistleton.  Thistleton, an Australian, faces criminal assault charges due to an incident last season at Copper Mountain ski resort, where he and the victim then worked.  Thistleton (and his mother) paid $6,000 to return to the U.S. and face trial, after Thistleton refused to plead guilty to a lesser charge.  He seems to think he did nothing seriously wrong by hitting Michelle Oehlert with a snowball.

According to police reports, Oehlert said she was walking to the bus stop last February 4th when Thistleton and two other people began "taunting" her.  Shortly thereafter she was hit in the back or side with a wintry object.  (The two sides dispute whether the object was a fluffy "snowball" or the feared "iceball.")  Oehlert does not claim that the ball itself was enough to hurt, but rather says it was painful because it happened to hit near her spleen, which had been lacerated the year before in a car accident.  Thistleton denied the taunting but admitted to throwing the ball, and tried to apologize.  But Oehlert is pressing charges.

In opening statements Thursday, the district attorney said that there was already bad blood between the two, who worked together at a ski-rental shop, and that this was the motive for the unprovoked "iceball" assault.  He asked the jury to reject the defendant's position that the act was all in "good fun."  (Is there a bad kind of fun?  Well, maybe there is.)  "It's not a joke to chuck an iceball at someone from behind who's not looking," he said.  "This wasn't in good fun.  This was malicious."

But this was not "chucking an iceball," said the defense attorney, it was a mere "lob of a snowball."  Far from being an assault, she said, it was simply "playful action in the snow," apparently a legal term of art that translates to "goofing around.")  She said wasting time on the case was "insane."

But the "playful action" defense was never tested.  When Oehlert took the stand Friday morning, she brought up new allegations of harassment that neither side had heard before.  The defense objected and Judge Ed Casias decided that he had to declare a mistrial.  Seemingly determined to get a conviction, the state has decided to retry the case.  Thistleton's mother was reportedly in tears at the prospect of another week in the U.S. with the assault case still unresolved.  "This has been hanging over our heads for nine months now," she said.  "I don't think we've slept a full night since this started."

Jury selection in the retrial is set for Thursday, December 13, at 8:30 a.m.

Link: Summit Daily News

Federal Court Dismisses 15-Count Lawsuit Alleging That Plaintiff Was Unfairly Given a "C"

All of us have likely had an issue with grading "on the curve" at one time or another, but what is one to do if "the empirical data was quite clear and convincing to any reasonable mind that [one's] performance was well within a higher range" than reflected in one's final grade?  One's course is clear.

In January, Brian Marquis, a student at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, filed a 15-count class-action lawsuit in federal court after he got a C instead of the A- he thought he deserved in his political philosophy class.  In the suit, Marquis, acting on behalf of himself and Does 1-25,000 (all of whom apparently agree that Brian should have gotten a better grade), alleges that the practice of grading on the curve, as implemented by defendant and teaching assistant Jeremy Cushing, violated the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-83, 1985, and 1986; 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy to do the foregoing); the Massachusetts consumer protection law; and common-law doctrines including promissory estoppel and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Coincidentally, Marquis is a paralegal who has returned to college to get a degree in legal studies.

Marquis alleges that Cushing set forth a grading formula at the start of last semester under which, by Marquis's calculation, he should have scored a 92.5, "translating, by universally accepted standards," into an A-.  Whilst reviewing his fall 2006 grades, however, "Plaintiff noticed a grade of C in the . . . Problems in Social Thought" class.  "On or about 10 January 2007," the complaint continues, "Plaintiff e-mailed Cushing with this apparent discrepancy and ask[ed] him to reevaluate, or in the alternative, explain the method used . . . ."  Cushing responded that, by his calculations, Marquis had scored an 84, not 92.5, but that Cushing had graded on a curve in any event.  And he told Marquis that "I thought your grade (of C) was a good reflection of your work."  The school's ombudsman did not agree with Marquis that he had a grievance.

Next stop, federal court.  The key paragraph of the complaint is really paragraph 23, in which Marquis describes the harm.  Scarring his transcript with a C "has left Plaintiff's undergraduate transcript as a dismal record of non-achievement. . . . [T]he chances of any student with C letter grades seeking admission to graduate school is remote. . . . Since Plaintiff did not earn a C final letter grade, he should not have to bear the burden of carrying this beast around with him forever."

Those of you who have been worrying about "grade inflation," take note: the Scarlet Letter used to be an A.

Last week, after what the Boston Globe described as a "brief hearing," Judge Michael Ponsor dismissed the lawsuit.  Marquis later discussed the case with a reporter for the Globe, delivering the quote above as to the clear-and-convincingness of the empirical data and so forth.  (The article notes that Marquis "salts his comments with 'strike that.'")  Marquis also said that he is considering an appeal.

Link: Boston Globe
Link: Marquis v. University of Massachusetts, et al. 

Lawsuit Seeks $1 Million for Those Who Bought Full-Price iPhone

Dongmei Li, one of the many consumers who bought the original iPhone for $599 only to see the price go down to $399 two months later, has now sued Apple on behalf of herself and other "early adopters," alleging "price discrimination."

Facing a consumer backlash, Apple refunded the $200 difference for those who had bought the more expensive iPhone less than two weeks before the price cut, and offered a $100 credit to those who bought it earlier.  Still unhappy, Li has sued in federal court, saying that Apple (and AT&T) have engaged in unfair business practices.

In the lawsuit, Li apparently claims that the price reduction injured early adopters like herself because they now cannot resell their iPhones for the same profit as those who bought the phones after the price cut.  In other words -- if I understand this correctly -- those who bought an iPhone before the price cut paid more those who bought one after the price cut; and so if later buyers want to resell their phone today, they will be better off in doing so than those who, certainly through no fault of their own, were cruelly forced to buy an iPhone at the earlier, higher price; and this is unlawful price discrimination.

That settles it -- the free market is illegal.  Or maybe it's just price cuts that are illegal?  My head hurts.

Steve Jobs, shown here illegally failing to tell
consumers that iPhone prices may later be reduced.

The article doesn't make clear exactly what kind of price protection or guarantee Li claims "early adopters" were entitled to expect, given that gadget prices have historically dropped pretty quickly.  But it appears that, at least in this case, an award of approximately one million dollars would be enough to heal the wounded hearts, repair the shattered expectations, and pay the creative attorneys of those who trusted Apple not to lower the price of the iPhone, ever.

Link: MSNBC.com

"I'm Feeling Lucky," Say Plaintiffs Suing Google

Many sources have reported recently on the growing number of lawsuits against Google, suits that allege everything from copyright violations to alleged fixing of Page Rank results.  This week, the New York Times reported that crazy people have jumped on the bandwagon, which puts the story in my jurisdiction.  Two recent complaints added even more diversity to the anti-Google claims.

In a complaint filed in Pennsylvania federal court last week, Dylan Jayne accuses Google of stealing his social security number.  Apparently, if you turn Mr. Jayne's SSN upside down, "it is a scrambled code that does spell the name Google."  (He didn't describe the nature of the code, so don't bother trying to turn "Google" upside down to get the guy's SSN.  He is way ahead of you.)  Predictably, this is only the latest in a series of outrages against Mr. Jayne by the founders of Google, various correctional officers, the city of Milford, Pennsylvania, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania itself.  Google is the only defendant, though; it's not clear yet how it influenced these other entities to act but I'm sure those details will come to light eventually.  The Commonwealth may have been especially compromised by Google, since Jayne warns that it "and other states of the same standards . . . may be subject to restructuring by the United States Government."

Jayne asks for a mere five billion dollars out of the vast GoogleHoard.  Since victory is assured, he provides helpful payment instructions, directing Google to pay in two installments, first a check for $250,000 and then a second check for "the amount that remains."  This is a signal that Mr. Jayne may have a slight cash-flow problem, as is the in forma pauperis request he filed along with the complaint in which he lists his assets as "one Burton Fish Snow Board value $200.00."

In the second lawsuit, Denis Maringo sued Google in the Southern District of Texas on behalf of the Gogo tribe of Tanzania, for reasons that are probably obvious.  For similarly obvious reasons, he also named Yahoo! as a defendant, acting on behalf of the Yao tribe.  And for even more obvious reasons, Denis Maringo was Plaintiff No. 3, with standing to sue as a representative of both tribes because great-grandma was a Gogo and great-great-grandma was a Yao.  Maringo asks for $10,000 for each member of each tribe for the last three generations, which probably adds up to a lot.

I guess I should say that he "asked" for that relief, because his case lasted less than one week and has already been dismissed.  Moving swiftly, Judge Nancy Atlas dismissed Maringo's case on September 25th on multiple grounds: (1) Maringo is not an attorney and so cannot represent others, tribal affiliation notwithstanding; (2) the name-stealing claims are "patently meretricious" -- although Judge Atlas doesn't say how she knows this for sure -- and most if not all of the allegations are "delusional"; and (3) "this is not the first frivolous complaint filed by Maringo, who is well known in this district."  She cites seven others filed since last year, when Maringo (currently awaiting deportation) became a guest of the federal government.

The Gogo and Yao tribes are real, but there is no way to confirm that Maringo is actually a member of either one.  I did learn that the explorer Henry Stanley was not a fan of the Gogo, saying:

No natives know so well [as the Gogo] how to aggrieve and be unpleasant to travelers. One would think there was a school somewhere in Ugogo to teach low cunning and vicious malice to the chiefs, who are masters in foxy-craft.

Henry Morton Stanley, In Darkest Africa, p. 405 (1890).  But then you could probably replace "Ugogo" with "England" and have a pretty good idea of how the natives felt, so that's how much that is worth.

Anyway, based on Maringo's own personal record of foxy-craft, Judge Atlas dismissed his complaint, fined him $500 and barred him from filing further complaints until he pays that fine.

UPDATE: Jayne's case against Google has also been dismissed, having lasted two additional days.

Link:  New York Times

Nebraska State Senator Sues God to Protest Frivolous Lawsuit

Angry about frivolous lawsuits, in particular one recently filed against a Nebraska judge, State Senator Ernie Chambers has decided to cut to the chase and take legal action against the source of all his irritation, namely God.

Chambers says he is making a point -- that anybody can sue anybody -- to protest what he says is a frivolous lawsuit against Lancaster County District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront.  Cheuvront was in the news himself not long ago for granting a motion in limine to exclude the word "rape" from a rape trial.  (He decided using that word would be unduly prejudicial.)  The case ended in a mistrial, and the accuser in that case has sued Cheuvront, which is what Chambers is mad about.  He filed his lawsuit even though the judge hearing that case has already suggested there is no legal basis for it.

Chambers called his lawsuit "appropriate," at least in comparison to the accuser's lawsuit.  "People might call it frivolous," he said, "but if they read it they'll see there are very serious issues I have raised."

Okay.

In the complaint, Chambers accuses Defendant of making "terroristic threats" and of directly and proximately causing "fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes," and otherwise offering a lot of alliteration in the crackpot complaint pursuing his ponderous point.

Chambers asks the court to waive the personal-service requirement on the grounds that Defendant and His agents are present throughout Douglas County, but Plaintiff cannot determine which agent to properly serve. He says he has tried to serve Defendant by publication (apparently by shouting, "Come out, come out, wherever you are") to no avail.  The court is asked to take judicial notice of the fact that Defendant is omnipresent, and has actual notice of the action by virtue of being omniscient.

Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction against Defendant.

It is unlikely that Chambers will succeed, partly because there is already a fair amount of precedent rejecting this kind of a claim.  For example, in 1971, a federal court in Pennsylvania dismissed Gerald Mayo's civil-rights action against Satan and various unnamed servants, on the grounds that there was no jurisdiction over the defendants.  United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and his Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1971).

I found it comical that, in the Associated Press photo posted on CBS's site, Chambers is posed in front of a fan so that he looks like he's got a halo.

That probably makes him furious.

Ironically, and very probably making him even furiouser, Chambers also looks an awful lot like Morgan Freeman, who has actually portrayed God in at least one movie (Bruce Almighty).

I assume this is just another one of the Defendant's little jokes.

Link: CBS News
Link: Chambers v. God, Case No. 1075/462 (District Court for Douglas County, Neb., complaint filed Sept. 14, 2007).

Tool Sued

The New Orleans bureau has alerted me to a new lawsuit against the rock band Tool, filed in federal court in Louisiana.  Tool, whose music is described as "heavy metal," "alternative metal," "art rock," "art metal," "progressive rock," "progressive metal," "post-metal," and "genre-transgressing" in their extremely detailed Wikipedia article, was founded in 1990 and remains active today.  The band is also known for its creativity and elaborate stage shows and even packaging (Tool's album 10,000 Days won the 2006 Grammy for "Best Recording Package").

Turns out, all this time Tool has been exploiting Jason Crowley from Shreveport.

Crowley sued the band (named in the suit only as "Tool") on September 5, alleging that Tool had used him "to base their music on."  Crowley alleges that Tool uses his name in their music and has used his "likeness in video on screens on stage in live performances."  (Maybe this is the guy in the video for "Sober.")

More troubling is the allegation that Tool "managed to get into my apartment and place a ring, that you would wear on your hand, inside."  Crowley claims to have recently found a picture of said ring in a CD booklet insert.  He does not explain what Tool's motive might have been for breaking into his apartment and planting a ring (the hand kind) inside.  According to the complaint, Crowley has been trying to get the Shreveport Police Department interested in Tool (or at least the ring story) since 2003, but they accepted his report only in May of this year.

Crowley demands ten million dollars for "invasion of privacy, the use of my name, the images, and the trespassing."

Link:  Crowley v. Tool, Case No. 5:07cv1475 (W.D. La. filed Sept. 5, 2007) (PDF).
Link:  Justia Docket Search

Judge Pearson Ignores Standing Eight-Count, Staggers Back Into Ring

Apparently unable to live without being mocked daily, and desperate to not be reappointed as a D.C. administrative law judge, Roy Pearson has now asked Judge Judith Bartnoff to reconsider her dismissal of his $54-million-pants lawsuit.  In his motion for reconsideration, which is comprised of no fewer than 35 pages (longer than most briefs and much too long for a virtually-always-futile motion for reconsideration), he accuses Judge Bartnoff of a "fundamental legal error":

The court effectively substituted a guarantee of satisfaction with "reasonable" limits and preconditions for the unconditional and unambiguous guarantee of satisfaction the defendant-merchant chose to advertise for seven years.  That was a fundamental legal error.

How does somebody who can't understand that the statement "Satisfaction Guaranteed" should be interpreted "reasonably" by a court even get a driver's license, let alone an appointment to a judgeship?  I guess if they unconditionally guaranteed his unreasonable satisfaction, they have to be his slaves for life, or until Roy Pearson feels satisfied, whichever comes first.  Hard to argue with that logic.  Roy, I know -- why don't you make them sew you the world's biggest pair of pants?  Wouldn't that feel satisfying?  Maybe your ego could wear them.  Yes, have your new slaves make you the world's biggest pair of pants, and then have your ego stomp around in them with your slaves peeking out of the monstrous cuffs as it lays waste to the District of Columbia, in brutal revenge for the District's failure to recognize the legal genius of its master, Roy Pearson.  Only then shall the wrong done you be truly avenged.

Roy hasn't thought of that yet, or at least it's not in his motion.  What is in the motion, apparently as a reply to the cleaners' motion last week asking that Pearson pay the $83,000 legal fees they incurred because of his lawsuit, is this astonishing claim:

Plaintiff [Pearson] therefore seeks reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $425,000 for excellent legal work performed under extremely trying circumstances - including holding down a more than full time job.

A statement proving that (1) as noted above, Roy Pearson doesn't know what "reasonable" means, (2) he also doesn't know what "excellent" means, and (3) being a dummy of this caliber is not something you can achieve on a part-time basis.  You have to be willing to work overtime.

Link: Washington Post (Marc Fisher)
Link: CBS News

Granddaughter of Zorro Sues For Treaty Violation

I have no details yet, but this report indicates that a very dramatic lawsuit was filed Wednesday in San Francisco Superior Court:

Eowyn v. b.b. Cts. de la Vega v. St. Vincent de Paul Society and Mercy Housing Corp., CGC-07-464019

Complaint for quiet title and wrongful death. The plaintiff challenges the Treaty of September 9, 1850, signed by Zorro Diego de la Vega, her grandfather, with whom she spent the summer of 1956 along with Vladimir Putin.

Like I say, no details yet, but there appear to be a few problems with this lawsuit just based on that description.

• First, the only "Treaty of September 9, 1850" that I can find is the Robinson-Huron Treaty, which is the reason that Native Americans don't own the land north of Lake Huron.  But other facts, discussed below, make this unlikely to be the relevant agreement.
• According to the Texas State Historical Association, that was also the date that the Texas-New Mexico Boundary Act was passed, as part of the Compromise of 1850 that apparently averted a fight between Texas militia and federal troops over that border dispute.  (And you thought you'd never learn anything useful by reading this blog.)  It's also the date that California was admitted to the Union.  Neither of these events involved "treaties," but they are possible candidates.
• That's because plaintiff's reference to "Zorro Diego de la Vega" appears to refer to Don Diego de la Vega, who of course was (secretly) Zorro.  To my knowledge, Zorro did not work the area around Lake Huron, which is why I think Texas and/or California are more likely.
• One problem, though, with plaintiff's claim that she is the granddaughter of Zorro/de la Vega is that he was fictional, and not even created until 1919.  Both of these facts make it unlikely that Don Diego de la Vega signed any treaty in 1850, in costume or otherwise.
• Plaintiff also appears to claim that she spent the summer of 1956 with her grandfather.  Had he been real, this would not have been completely impossible, although assuming you have to be 18 to sign a treaty, he would have been 124 years old at the time, longer than any other human is known to have lived.
• It's unclear whether plaintiff claims that she spent the summer of 1956 with Vladimir Putin or that he signed the treaty "along with" her grandfather.  (This is an example of how a comma can make all the difference in interpretation).  Putin could not have signed anything in 1850 because he was not born until October 1952.  But, again, it is not completely impossible that plaintiff spent the summer of 1956 with Vladimir Putin, although it does seem unlikely.

Therefore, construing plaintiff's allegations as favorably as I can, she appears to claim that she has standing to enforce a non-existent boundary-dispute treaty signed 157 years ago by her fictional grandfather, who advised her of the possible claim during a glorious summer she spent in the mid-50s with the then-124-year-old Zorro and a three-year-old Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, later to become the leader of post-Soviet Russia.  Sadly, it looks like (even if plaintiff resolves the problems above) this lawsuit would be barred by the statute of limitations.  But stay tuned.

Judge Drops Pants; Suit Still On

New developments this week in the lawsuit by D.C. administrative law judge Roy Pearson against his local dry cleaners, alleging a diabolical pants-related scheme.  As you may recall, Pearson sued under the D.C. consumer-protection statute after the cleaners allegedly lost a pair of pants, applying the statutory scheme to calculate a demand of nearly $65 million.  The news today is that, in a pre-trial brief he filed yesterday, Pearson lowered his demand to a mere $54 million, and apparently focuses now on the allegedly misleading signs used by Custom Cleaners, as opposed to the allegations of damages stemming from the loss of Pearson's pants.

I am by no means the first to use something like "Judge Drops Pants From Suit" as a headline, and I struggled with that for a while, but sometimes a headline joke is just inevitable.  A variation on the theme was the best I could do.

Since I haven't seen the brief yet, it's not entirely clear whether the pants were dropped entirely, or the focus merely changed.  If they were dropped entirely and the demand reduced to $54 million, then that seems to indicate that Judge Pearson valued the pants and associated damages at $13 million.  (I apologize for earlier statements about "$65-million-dollar pants," which it seems were wildly exaggerated.)

But the suit itself is still going forward, apparently, since the report states that trial is set for June 11.  The defendants' attorney said he was "still baffled" as to why Pearson was continuing, "unless it's simply to harass and annoy my clients."  Pearson refused to comment "in light of pending litigation," which is an awfully popular no-comment excuse these days.

The suit is costing the defendants an awful lot of money, of course.  (Pearson is representing himself, and seems to be getting what he's paying for.)  You can donate to the defense cause if you like at the Custom Cleaners link below.  There's also a link to a page on this case at the site of the defense firm, Manning and Sossamon, which includes some additional details such as these:

• Mr. Pearson alleges that on May 3, 2005 he left a pair of pants with the Chungs to be altered by May 5, 2005. The pants he submitted were grey in color and were unique in that they had a succession of three belt loops very close together on each side of the front waistband of the pants.
• The Chungs offered the altered grey pants to Mr. Pearson a few days after the May 5, 2007 deadline.
• Mr. Pearson refused to accept the pants the Chungs offered even though (1) the pants had the same unique belt loop configuration as the pants he originally submitted; (2) the pants' measurements were identical to measurements he requested for the alteration; and, (3) the tag number on the pants matched his receipt.

This is the first I've heard of the unique belt-loop configuration issue, which may make it extremely difficult for Pearson to show the pants were not his, if the pants are still an issue in the case, as I expect they will be.  Stay tuned for more dramatic developments in this titanic legal battle.

Link: DC Examiner
Link: The Facts of Pearson v. Chung (at Manning & Sossamon, PLLC)
Link: Custom Cleaners Defense Fund

Georgia Court Rules Against Mom, in Favor of Harry Potter and Satan

Earlier this week, a judge in Gwinnett County, Georgia, chose to side with the forces of darkness by dismissing a lawsuit intended to protect schoolchildren from the witchcraft-inducing Harry Potter books.  This ends, for now, a two-year quest by suburban mom Laura Mallory to have the series removed from county schools.

Mallory told the court Tuesday that she has testimony from children who have read the books and have thought about using magic and acting out spells described there.  The school board's position is that the books help encourage children to read and think creatively, which is just what you would expect the Devil to say.  Mallory was not fooled.  "They don't want the Easter Bunny's power," she said of today's children.  "[They] want Harry's power, and they're getting it."  I guess the Easter Bunny has placed its mighty colored-egg-hiding power in the service of good, and that's reassuring, but apparently kids today are more interested in being able to fly and whatnot.

The only legal argument mentioned in the article was Mallory's position that, because witchcraft is a religion to some people, the Potter books should be banned because reading them in school thus violates the constitutional separation of church and state.  Ah!  Clever, but on a collision course with Mallory's other position: "I have a dream that God will be welcomed back in our schools again [once this other religion is kicked out]."  This slight inconsistency was ferreted out by the court, causing Mallory to lose and to tell reporters that, as the article put it, "it may be time to rethink her arguments with the help of an attorney," which she did not have.  "I maybe need a whole new case from the ground up," she told reporters.  Well, it's never too late to get one, except on appeal.

For much more info than you would ever want about how Harry Potter is of the Devil, you could go to the "Harry Potter is of the Devil" webpage.  Or (and this is probably safer) you can just imagine what that page is like based on the fact that, in addition to dozens of anti-Potter articles, it also warns against Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Casper, the UN, Pocahontas, Peter Jennings, the Pope, the Lion King, Bill Clinton, Pokemon, South Park, and somehow even "Touched by an Angel" and Christianity Today,  all of which appear to be joined in a vast Satanic conspiracy.

I always suspected Peter Jennings of being the Antichrist, but then I found out he was just Canadian.

The same types of charges have been leveled at the Potter books around the world, including in Russia, where the Moscow City Prosecutor's office declined to press charges against the publisher of a Russian-language version in 2002.  But Harry Potter has survived worse than that in Russia, including the far more serious charge that the character of Dobby the House Elf is "insulting to the head of state" because he looks too much like Vladimir Putin:

These conspiracies go far deeper than I ever imagined.

Link: Pensacola News Journal.com
Link: American Library Association (on the Russian case)

Failed Valedictorian Sues Teacher Over Bad Grade

In February, shocked and embarrassed about receiving a bad grade in advanced biology, a student at Sissonville High in West Virginia sued her teacher and the county board of education, demanding that the grade be changed.

The grade was a B.  Clearly, litigation was the only option.

This was alleged to be a potential life-ruiner because the student, who was named only as "L.H." in the original complaint but has since been identified in media coverage, and whose name I decided to withhold in order to spare this young person any further embarrassment but, after reflecting on that during the time I was typing the line immediately above this one, changed my mind and decided to go ahead and write "Lindsay Hay," claims that she would otherwise have been the school valedictorian.  Or, at least, that the incident has destroyed her "goal of graduating with the highest honors," since Hay was previously sporting a 4.5 GPA before this scarlet letter B was inflicted upon her.  Hay was offered half credit after her parents and the principal intervened, but this was not sufficient.

The lawsuit charged that the teacher's action was arbitrary and capricious and was intended to punish Hay by deliberately ruining her GPA (probably by dropping it from 4.5 to 4.45).  Hay originally demanded compensation for emotional distress, "loss of enjoyment of life, [and] loss of scholarship potential," but conceded in March that it was inappropriate to seek such damages in this context.

Maybe someone who previously had a 4.5 GPA and "scholarship potential" should have been smart enough to turn in her leaf project on time.  Hay argued that she could not have turned in