Reimbursement Denied

Now this is entertainment (at least to me it is). And if you’re a securities class action lawyer that’s a word that might not enter your daily routine all that often. In the Motorola securities class action, Dr. Antonio Pagnamenta (Professor of Physics, emeritus at UIC), wrote a letter to the court which says (along with my annotations in Nugget green italics below of course):

Your Honorable Wise, and Most Hopefully Generous Judge Pallmeyer:

[A]s a member of the Class, I have carefully considered the entire situation so please don’t waste your time repeating my extensive work, and then agreed to be a witness out of conviction that this was the right thing to do. I never expected any award for this as I am only concerned about others.

Only now, can you believe it, I have heard that you have awarded some money to the Class member witnesses for their efforts and, well, it’s a lot so….

I am pleasantly surprised to say the least, but now please allow me to draw your attention, pardon the legalese, to my special situation:

I was travelling by CTA, because these professor salaries stink let me tell you, to my first interview at Fay Clayton’s law office. I passed out and had a Fall so big that I capitalized it on the CTA station which I readily admit is the only part of this story that readers should feel compassion about.

In this I suffered considerable injuries to the right side of my face. Specifically, three teeth on my right side needed to get root canal work, in the amount of approx. $6000 and I knew I should have listened to mother and became an endodontist.

Medicare essentially covered my emergency and medical cost which is fortunate in light of my ridiculously low professor salary and pension. However, my dental work was referred to my dental insurance, which only covered $2000. These are approx, numbers, the exact amounts will be documented.

As I suffered these injuries because of my willingness to testify, I would not have had the accident if I had not gone to the law office which I am sure you will agree is a classic but-for situation. The doctors found no basic reason for this sudden fainting spell. I would appreciate it very much if the court could consider to reimburse me for my own out-of-pocket expenses of approx $4000, which are clearly the fault of the defendants in this class action.

The accident, the injuries, the expenses, all can be documented as soon as I am back in Chicago, within 10 days and if I pass out and hit my head while on the flight I would appreciate being reimbursed for that too, since if I hadn’t agreed to testify I wouldn’t have wrote this letter, and therefore wouldn’t have left for the airport at the same time (see, e.g., A Sound of Thunder), and therefore it is also the direct fault of the defendants.

Respectfully submitted,
Antonio Pagnamenta
Professor of Physics, emeritus, and Professor of Confusing Cause and Effect

So I bet you’re wondering, what did Judge Pallmeyer say? Well, she wrote back that “I am sorry to hear about your accident. Unfortunately, the court has no funds available to reimburse you for the expenses resulting from that accident.”

You can read the letters, both dated August 10, 2007, right here.

Nugget: The only other sentence in the Judge’s response letter, and we at the Nugget, despite our jesting, wholeheartedly agree: “Best wishes for your complete recovery.”

Posner Prose

Classic Judge Posner.Just classic.I never get tired of reading his opinions, and believe you me I get tired of many of them quick.So, listen to this from yesterday’s Seventh Circuit opinion in the AT&T/Georgeson class action.You see, as he puts it, “after you buy a car and drive away with your new possession, much can happen to affect the value of your purchase. If what happens is traceable to something that occurred before the sale was complete, such as a defective engine block, you may be able to undo the sale on the basis that that something happened ‘in connection with’ the sale. But if something happens after the transaction is complete to make it less worthwhile to you, such as the dealer’s replacing a tire that has worn out with one that is the wrong size, it is a separate wrong, not anything connected with the original sale unless the wrong is a breach of warranty.”

But “of course there is a literal sense in which anything that happens that would not have happened but for some prior event is connected to that event. In that sense the fraud of which the plaintiff complains is connected to the merger, without which there would not have been such a fraud against the plaintiff and her class. But in the same sense the fraud is connected to the Big Bang, without which there would never have been a MediaOne or even an AT&T.”

There’s more where that came from, so if you like Posner (Yeah!), or you really can’t wait to read another SLUSA case (until now, always a big Zzzzz), you can read the opinion or listen to the oral argument in Gavin v. AT&T & Georgeson, issued September 6, 2006, right here.

Nugget: “Georgeson’s lawyer told us that the defendants had not sought removal on the alternative ground of diversity because they were certain there was jurisdiction under SLUSA. That was a mistake, but he added that he doubted that the plaintiff’s complaint satisfied the requirement that the amount in controversy exceed $ 75,000. That was another mistake.”

Sex, Lies, and Lead Plaintiff

It’s Friday, so let’s keep it light, shall we? So, what do Wolf Popper, an alleged stalker, sex at the lake, a New York City Police detective, a former model allegedly cheating on her new husband with the alleged stalker, and an uber-famous journalist’s third marriage have in common? No, it’s not the screenplay for Pulp Fiction 2, but that was a pretty good guess.

Actually, seems the Lead Plaintiff in the Genesis Microchip securities class action (which is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit after being dismissed this September), Christine Kuehbeck, is the center of attention in an alleged love triangle gone awry. Very awry. This time, you’ll have to read the decision to get all the details, so find a friend with a Lexis password, and break out the beer and popcorn. It’s going to be a wild ride.

Do not pass GO, go directly to Silver v. Kuehbeck, issued November 7, 2005, at 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26956.

Nugget: “As Plaintiff walked away, Defendant turned to him and said, ‘I’m going to have you taken care of.’”

Judge Scolds Arrogant Defense Counsel

As Justice Stone proved once and for all in his legendary dissent in United States v. Carolene Products Co., sometimes the best stuff really is in the footnotes, and well, Judge Reggie B. Walton (D. D.C.) is no exception. Sure, the Plaintiffs won, but you’re ready to head out for Labor Day weekend, grab a cold one, and who really cares, right? Well, read on, because this is what you’ve hoped for – a judge who finally calls out that slightly overzealous, mildly impolite (OK, who are we kidding, that pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, that belligerent old fart, a worthless steaming pile of cow dung — figuratively speaking, of course) attorney we all love to hate. Here it is folks, enjoy your holiday. Bet these guys won’t after General Counsel reads this.

“Based upon the papers thus far submitted to this Court, it is clear that this is a highly contentious litigation. Despite the apparent animosity between the parties, counsel are reminded that they are expected to treat each other, and every other individual involved in this litigation, with ‘dignity, respect and civility, both in court and in out-of-court conference, meeting and discovery proceedings.’ (Judge Walton’s General Order and Guidelines for Civil Cases). This includes civility in the papers submitted to this Court.”

“The papers submitted by the defendants do not demonstrate the dignity and respect the Court expects of litigants appearing before it. See, e. g., Def.’s Reply at 7 (“Defendants agree that a review of the Amended Complaint is a ‘painstaking’ endeavor.”); 18 (“If Plaintiffs do not appear to understand their own claims, how can Defendants?”); 29 (“Defendants are not obligated to teach Plaintiffs how to properly plead their complaint. However, we will give Plaintiffs a clue.”). Such condescending invectives do nothing to advance a party’s position. As members of the Bar, counsel surely know how to vigorously advance their respective party’s position without being disrespectful or mean spirited. The Court will look with disfavor on any further circumstances that warrant such a reminder, and if warranted, will take appropriate action to sanction such behavior.”

Finally, somebody said it. Let’s just hope someone is listening.

You can read Burman v. Phoenix, issued August 30, 2005, at 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18572.

Nugget: “Construing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, as this Court must do, it is clear that the plaintiffs predicate their securities fraud claims not on misrepresented projected revenue, as the defendants contend, but rather on the fact that Phoenix allegedly misrepresented that various contracts had been signed.”