SWA Lawsuit
04-16-2008, 04:39 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 919
All lawyers aren't scum. APC has Vagabond, and she is not scum. Perhaps the statement should read, "All lawyers except Vagabond are scum" - that I could agree with whole-heartedly.
Class action lawsuits are a scam. The biggest class action firm, Millberg Weiss, imploded because most of the senior partners have plead guilty to paying plaintiffs extra to initiate lawsuits - basically bribing people to join the class. These partners will be doing time. Another major class action attorney, Dickie Scruggs in Mississippi, is going to be doing hard time for his involvement in trying to bribe a judge to help him screw over another attorney.
Class action suits only benefit the attorneys - the actual "victims" get little to nothing. They should be outlawed, or at least highly regulated.
Class action lawsuits are a scam. The biggest class action firm, Millberg Weiss, imploded because most of the senior partners have plead guilty to paying plaintiffs extra to initiate lawsuits - basically bribing people to join the class. These partners will be doing time. Another major class action attorney, Dickie Scruggs in Mississippi, is going to be doing hard time for his involvement in trying to bribe a judge to help him screw over another attorney.
Class action suits only benefit the attorneys - the actual "victims" get little to nothing. They should be outlawed, or at least highly regulated.
04-16-2008, 06:54 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 744 CA
Posts: 4,772
LOL...okay we can give vagabond a pass.... as for Scruggs interestingly enough I have met Mr. Scruggs.... and he is the consummate scum sucking lawyer albeit a very good one.... Also being very familiar with the case.... money says he does 18 months or less in a federal white color institution ...no HARD time for some one of his ilk.
04-16-2008, 07:28 AM
#14
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Lear 35
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot
Is that a white COLLAR institution????
Samir: I don't want to go to ANY prison!
04-16-2008, 07:54 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 919
Originally Posted by HercDriver130
LOL...okay we can give vagabond a pass.... as for Scruggs interestingly enough I have met Mr. Scruggs.... and he is the consummate scum sucking lawyer albeit a very good one.... Also being very familiar with the case.... money says he does 18 months or less in a federal white color institution ...no HARD time for some one of his ilk.
How much money have these things drained out of the economy? Would be interested in hearing from Vagabond as to whether Class Action suits have ever served a legitimate purpose, or if they have always been primarily for the benefit of attorneys.
04-16-2008, 10:00 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 727 VIP Left
Posts: 141
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
I would imagine that if a person bought a ticket with a credit card (most of people probably do), they could electronically figure out the day of flight and which tails were flown using the maintenance logs. Of course, as it already has been said, SWA might not have to prove anything -- they'll probably settle this out of court.
New question. Isn't the PIC responsible if he/she flies an airplane that isn't air worthy? I only bring this up because of sutuations that I know of at other carriers. On one such instance, an airplane was missing a required fire bottle and the FAA went after all of the pilots that had flown the aircraft.
Just curious if the pilots could not possibly be wrapped up into this. This is going to spell trouble for ALL airlines, not just SWA.
-Fatty
New question. Isn't the PIC responsible if he/she flies an airplane that isn't air worthy? I only bring this up because of sutuations that I know of at other carriers. On one such instance, an airplane was missing a required fire bottle and the FAA went after all of the pilots that had flown the aircraft.
Just curious if the pilots could not possibly be wrapped up into this. This is going to spell trouble for ALL airlines, not just SWA.
-Fatty
MX releases the aircraft to operations. So if the Airworthiness Releases were signed by MX (which they were) it's on MX.
04-16-2008, 06:01 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Student Pilot
Posts: 849
so let me get this straight.. in essence these people are suing because they MAY have gotten hurt, and so they should be compensated irregardless of the FACT that they did NOT get hurt in any way????????!!!!!!!!
04-16-2008, 06:04 PM
#19
Permanent Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,677
I know someone who has severe peanut allergies. Therefore, I am going to file a class action lawsuit against ALL airlines, because the thought of what could possibly happen if he eats a peanut on a plane, has caused me great emotional distress.
04-16-2008, 08:46 PM
#20
Administrator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: C-172
Posts: 8,024
Thanks, stinson, for the support. I usually don’t comment anymore on “legal” threads since almost all of them on APC consists of unproductive posts like “all lawyers are scum” or “all lawyers deserve to die,” but I’ll give my two cents to correct some misunderstandings.
First of all, let me say that lawyers are like pilots and doctors and engineers – there are good ones and there are bad ones. It takes only one bad apple to make the rest look bad. Unfortunately, there are lots of bad ones out there. I preside over certain lawyer discipline cases and see more than my fair share of lawyers gone bad. However, it would be inaccurate to say that the plaintiff lawyers in this SWA suit are scum. There has been no evidence that these lawyers went looking for potential plaintiffs, much like personal injury lawyers listen to police scanners for accidents and run out to the accident site with their business cards.
Class action lawsuits are complicated litigation procedural devices, with their own inherent pros and cons, and those filed in federal courts are all governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23 which states the following:
Rule 23. Class Actions
(a) Prerequisites.
One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class,
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
(b) Types of Class Actions.
A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if:
(1) prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of:
(A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or
(B) adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests;
(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or
(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The matters pertinent to these findings include:
(A) the class members' interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;
(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members;
(C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and
(D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.
In other words, lots of hoops to jump through before getting a case certified as a class action. It is true that in many cases, the lawyers get a large fee. That is one of the criticisms of class action suits. Members of the suit end up with small, paltry “awards.”
Now I haven’t seen the SWA suit and everything I know about it comes from the media (and we know how they are sometimes in accuracy and slant). It appears that the passengers are alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligent and reckless operation of an aircraft. These are all very common causes of action in a class action lawsuit. They are not claiming that they could have been harmed, but that SWA breached its contract (the “Contract of Carriage”) with them. The contract with passengers say that SWA will fly them to their destinations on aircraft that is in compliance with federal regulations. We now know that the FAA has looked into its maintenance and/or maintenance records and found them wanting.
I just scratched the surface on this topic, but I hope it helps in understanding the basics of a class action lawsuit. If anyone has a more specific question, please send me a PM. When I read that thread of the media quoting a couple of APC posters, I have become wary of getting into details.
First of all, let me say that lawyers are like pilots and doctors and engineers – there are good ones and there are bad ones. It takes only one bad apple to make the rest look bad. Unfortunately, there are lots of bad ones out there. I preside over certain lawyer discipline cases and see more than my fair share of lawyers gone bad. However, it would be inaccurate to say that the plaintiff lawyers in this SWA suit are scum. There has been no evidence that these lawyers went looking for potential plaintiffs, much like personal injury lawyers listen to police scanners for accidents and run out to the accident site with their business cards.
Class action lawsuits are complicated litigation procedural devices, with their own inherent pros and cons, and those filed in federal courts are all governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23 which states the following:
Rule 23. Class Actions
(a) Prerequisites.
One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class,
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
(b) Types of Class Actions.
A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if:
(1) prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of:
(A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or
(B) adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests;
(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or
(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The matters pertinent to these findings include:
(A) the class members' interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;
(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members;
(C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and
(D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.
In other words, lots of hoops to jump through before getting a case certified as a class action. It is true that in many cases, the lawyers get a large fee. That is one of the criticisms of class action suits. Members of the suit end up with small, paltry “awards.”
Now I haven’t seen the SWA suit and everything I know about it comes from the media (and we know how they are sometimes in accuracy and slant). It appears that the passengers are alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligent and reckless operation of an aircraft. These are all very common causes of action in a class action lawsuit. They are not claiming that they could have been harmed, but that SWA breached its contract (the “Contract of Carriage”) with them. The contract with passengers say that SWA will fly them to their destinations on aircraft that is in compliance with federal regulations. We now know that the FAA has looked into its maintenance and/or maintenance records and found them wanting.
I just scratched the surface on this topic, but I hope it helps in understanding the basics of a class action lawsuit. If anyone has a more specific question, please send me a PM. When I read that thread of the media quoting a couple of APC posters, I have become wary of getting into details.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
