Discussion of Firms and Life in SF/SV

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by frodo corleone
Man, I think for $2.1M in my neighborhood you get slightly more than 2000 sq. ft. and a good school district. Woo-hoo!

Taking us back to the three rules of real estate: Location, location, and feng shui.

It's in Nashville. And it's a "log home," which undoubtedly has lousy feng shui.

[AngryMulletMan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Taking us back to the three rules of real estate: Location, location, and feng shui.

It's in Nashville. And it's a "log home," which undoubtedly has lousy feng shui.

Lousy feng shui aside, I know the folks who bought it and they have great parties.

If you want to buy a piece, subdivision map coming soon....

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by AngryMulletMan
If you want to buy a piece, subdivision map coming soon....

I thought they don't let you live in the southern states unless you already own a piece.


(Hi!)

[AngryMulletMan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I thought they don't let you live in the southern states unless you already own a piece.


(Hi!)

From the parties I've attended, yup, that would be the case.

(Hi!)

[Jack Manfred]

Now with these two out of the way, Slave can make his move on Kerissa Fare. Link to Chronicle story about convictions in drugs-sex-murder cult.

[mayer-not-mayor]

According to the Recorder, it's effective July 1.

It's been awfully dull around here lately.

To liven things up:

Is the Peterson case going south ?

Is the masturbating Oklahoma judge guilty as charged?

Should failure to plead 17200 constitute malpractice?

Talk amongst yourselves

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by HeadLight
Should failure to plead 17200 constitute malpractice?

Why would you ever decline to plead a 17200 claim?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by HeadLight
Is the Peterson case going south ?

No idea, and no interest. The media event around this trial has all the redeeming qualities of slowing down to gawk at a fatal car accident.

Is the masturbating Oklahoma judge guilty as charged?

Okay, that's some weird shit. But, as Mrs. Finch said, he [ital]is[/ital] just sitting there with nothing to do.

Should failure to plead 17200 constitute malpractice?

Probably. Hard to imagine that this was a tactical decision; it looks like the just didn't consider the full range of claims. Given that the trial court (jury?) did determine that the plaintiffs had been stiffed on wages/overtime owed, this is a hell of a tough case for the defense. (For those who didn't read the article, the lawyers got their clients -- now their adversaries -- some 90 million for unpaid wages on a claim with a 3 year statute of limitations. If they'd used 17200, they could have extended that to 4 years, according to the malpractice suit.)

That said, the case law on 17200 has gone through a number of gyrations over the years and there may have been some obstacle to including it the claim. Though I can't think of what that would be, at least not till I finish my coffee.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That said, the case law on 17200 has gone through a number of gyrations over the years and there may have been some obstacle to including it the claim. Though I can't think of what that would be, at least not till I finish my coffee.

The more interesting aspect of the case was whether the trial court's certification order for certain claims (i.e., the Labor Code claim) absolved class counsel of responsibility to investigate and assert other claims that were reasonably related to the facts pled in the complaint. They were shooting for a "speak now or forever hold your peace" rule (also known as "Hey, brainiac, you think you can do any better than this?"). Guess not. It's not just § 17200 --- you'd better whip out the LARMAC before moving to certify the class to make sure there isn't an obscure statute or tort theory arising from your claims, because absent class members are more ornery than class reps.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The more interesting aspect of the case was whether the trial court's certification order for certain claims (i.e., the Labor Code claim) absolved class counsel of responsibility to investigate and assert other claims that were reasonably related to the facts pled in the complaint.

Why would it? The certification order does not rule out that other claims might have been certified had they been pled, does it?

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Why would it? The certification order does not rule out that other claims might have been certified had they been pled, does it?

Fight! Fight! Fight!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Flinty_McFlint
Fight! Fight! Fight!

Things a little slow at the office?

(You want me to kick Atti's ass, you gotta pay my rates.)

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Things a little slow at the office?

(You want me to kick Atti's ass, you gotta pay my rates.)

Hmmmm, I bet I could garner a pretty good PPV FB audience if I promoted a fight between you and Atticus. It might be a little awkward for you though, it's pretty hard to fight while you are simultaneously sporting wood. Perhaps wrestling would be better? I'll cut you in for 30%.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Why would it? The certification order does not rule out that other claims might have been certified had they been pled, does it?

No, but the certification order was argued to be analogous to a "retention order" between class counsel and the class, taking the place of a retention agreement between an attorney and client and circumscribing the attorney's duty of care. If the retention agreement had said, "You have retained us to bring claims A, B and C," the client could not (the argument goes) say it was the attorney's fiduciary duty to give advice regarding claim D. The court rejected this line of thinking (where, at least, claim D arises from the same set of operative facts), saying that your fiduciary duty extends to getting informed consent from the class rep to waive claim D.

I don't think it's a bad decision, necessarily. But in analogizing to the situation of individual clients, it glosses over the fact that the vast majority of little fuck-ups in communication between attorney and client are resolved with a shrug because the client basically still likes the lawyer, and the lawyer got an opportunity to choose to be in an intimate fiduciary relationship with that individual client --- good attorneys can smell the potential clients who will fuck them over in a heartbeat. In a class of thousands, someone's going to be the asshole. In the class context, decisions will get driven by anticipating the most assholish common denominator. I suppose there's no good solution to this.