Ambulance chasers before the bodies or plane are discovered: 1st lawsuit over MH370

[muriel_volestrangler]

MH370 Crash: Families Take First Step Toward Lawsuit

A Chicago law firm representing the families of passengers aboard the missing Malaysia Airlines jet has taken the first step toward a potential multimillion dollar lawsuit against the airline and the aircraft's manufacturer.

RibbeckLaw Chartered, a law firm that specializes in aviation cases, filed court documents Monday demanding that Malaysia Airlines and Boeing Co. turn over evidence of possible design and manufacturing defects that may have caused the airplane to plunge into the Indian Ocean.

The petition for discovery was filed in a Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago on behalf of Januari Siregar — whose son, Firman Chandra Siregar, was aboard MH370 when it mysteriously disappeared during what should have been a routine flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, according to a copy of the filing obtained by NBC News.
...
"We believe that both defendants named are responsible for the disaster of Flight MH370," Monica Kelly, the lead Ribbeck lawyer in the case, said in the statement cited by Reuters.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/mh370-crash-families-take-first-step-toward-lawsuit-n62216

[Glitterati]

1. Wow!

Just. Wow.

"Ambulance chasers"

Amazing.

I think I took a wrong turn and ended up on freerepublic by mistake somehow.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Wow. I think you're accusing me of saying something right wing

Here we have a lawsuit trying to blame 2 firms when there's no evidence yet of any fault, because there's no debris yet recovered. The rush to launch lawsuits is pretty much what ambulance chasing is about.

Why does that have anything to do with Free Republic?

[Glitterati]

4. Your whole framing of your argument

is as right wing as it comes.

Sorry. Those are the facts, ma'am.

[former9thward]

6. Are you in favor of filing lawsuits where there are no facts in evidence?

You think our legal system should be misused that way? Throw out some shit and see if anything sticks...

[Glitterati]

7. This isn't hard to understand

the Malaysian government has declared flight MH370 lost.

That's all the evidence needed. There's no "shit" here - just dead people.

[former9thward]

8. There are no facts whatsoever about why the flight was lost.

And the Malaysian government which has proven themselves totally incompetent in this investigation has no facts to make their declaration -- just assumptions.

Is isn't hard to understand at all.

[Glitterati]

10. And THAT is why attorneys have filed a lawsuit

to get at the discovery.

Just in case you don't understand, a lawsuit MUST be filed before the discovery process can begin.

[former9thward]

15. Nope, not it at all.

ANY lawsuit must make specific allegations of a violation of a law or legal principle. To file a lawsuit before ANY facts are known means that is not being followed. There is no reason to file this early.

[Glitterati]

16. The FACTS are known

MH370 is lost with hundreds of lives aboard.

Some of those are American citizens.

So you're saying that my husband, who got hospital acquired MRSA, had no right to file a lawsuit unless he knew WHICH instrument was infected with MRSA and how it became infected?

You do see how utterly silly your argument is, correct?

[pnwmom]

18. No, he has no right to file a lawsuit against a hospital unless he knows

which hospital he got sick in.

These people don't know, and they'll probably never know, what caused the plane to crash -- whether it had anything to do with the plane design, which is extremely unlikely given its safety record, or maintenance, or a suicidal pilot, or terrorism, or . . . a combination of circumstances.

There is no reason they couldn't wait till they found out SOMETHING about why the plane crashed.

[Glitterati]

20. There most certainly IS reason

Especially, when dealing with a foreign country.

There's absolutely nothing, but a lawsuit, stopping Malaysia and its government from destroying the records of the maintenance on that airplane.

Even a lawsuit can't stop a foreign country from doing such things, but international law WILL come down on a country doing such a thing WHEN the lawsuit proves it has happened.

[pnwmom]

21. Why include Boeing in the lawsuit then? They're not in a foreign country

and they're the least likely to be at fault in this situation. There wasn't a hint of a problem in the plane itself before it went off course.

[Glitterati]

22. BECAUSE the manufacturing specs

will be part of the discovery.

Nothing else stops Malaysia from "blaming" the entire thing on Boeing.

[pnwmom]

23. They don't have to include Boeing as a defendant to get that information. n/t

[Glitterati]

24. Oh but they do

Good heavens, you've never been a party to a lawsuit, have you?

The bottom line is simple - when "blame" has to be appropriated, every defendant points the finger at the other guy. ALWAYS.

[pnwmom]

27. My husband has been. And they didn't draw in extraneous parties.

They can call Boeing as witnesses and take depositions without charging Boeing.

But I bet the FAA already has the specs on a 777, way before they let it fly.

[Glitterati]

28. Those specs are considered "proprietary"

and certainly NOT available to the general public.

But, no worry, if these attorneys didn't "involve" Boeing, you can bet your bottom dollar that Malaysia WILL insist they be made a party to the lawsuit.

[warrant46]

131. Then let them file a Third Party Complaint

But I can see a Motion to Dismiss on the part of Defendant Boeing coming shortly

[newdemocrat999]

77. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Ms. Toad]

29. So - you are saying that it is proper to require the airplane manufacturer

and the airline to pay millions of dollars to defend themselves even if, when the dust settles, it turns out that:

• Space debris tore a hole in the plane, causing it to crash?
  
• TSA (or the Malaysian equivalent - who are not under the control of the Malaysian airline) negligently permitted terrorists to make it on board the plane?
  
• Terrorists using ocean to air missiles brought the plane down?
  
• Something else happened which is completely beyond the control of the airline or manufacturer?
  

We don't know yet who the proper defendants are, and it is a violation of legal ethics to file suit without doing sufficient pre-litigation investigation to determine the proper defendants and to have a reasonable and articulable theory of legal liability because being sued requires one to bear the significant legal defense costs.

Your case is different. If you have hospital acquired MRSA, by definition it came from the hospital - so the hospital would be a proper defendant. Although it is possible for MRSA to spread through non-negligent means. so your attorney should do enough investigation before filing suit to determine that proper safety protocols were breached..

[Glitterati]

31. Yes.

It's as simple as that.

Yes.

[Ms. Toad]

39. Why should the airline or the manufacture be required to spend millions of dollars

if they did nothing wrong?

I assume you're ok, then, if I sue you when my kid is killed playing at your house when the house explodes (even when it later turns out to be because of a natural gas line which runs beneath the house, over which you had no control)?

If so, you are legally (and IMHO morally as well) off kilter. Plaintiffs choose litigation; defendants don't - and defendants are required to spend large amounts of money defending themselves merely because someone targeted them). Because of this, there is an ethical obligation to be reasonably certain you are suing the right person before you file your claim. You don't (as a plaintiff) get to impose massive legal costs on someone just because you were hurt and they are a convenient target - you are obligated to do a reasonable investigation to determine if they are the one who hurt you - and if that hurt arose out of an action sufficiently wrongful or intentional to make it reasonable to hold them financially accountable for it.

[uppityperson]

95. Wow. Why should an airline have to pay millions if they did nothing wrong?

And you yell "freerepublic" at muriel_volestrangler? Wow. Just wow.

[pnwmom]

67. +1000. n/t

[TorchTheWitch]

193. not knowing the proper defendants is par for the course

in many types of cases. Maybe even in most. Medical malpractice for instance is rife with the need to file suit in order to determine what happened, if anyone is responsible and who that is. It's nearly impossible to know who is responsible for what or if anyone's responsible in the average case. In filing a suit you name everyone you can think of that may have had some responsibility for the simple reason that you need to preserve those records from each possible entity, you need to compel those defendants to give them to you to review in order to make the determination of whether or not they have responsibility, and it's much easier to release a defendant from a suit than to try to add one later after the suit has been filed. It's as common as the sun coming up in the morning that various doctors or nurses or ambulance services or clinics may have never seen the patient at all, but the only way to be certain is to add them as defendants so they can be compelled to prove they never saw the patient.

All the information a plaintiff attorney really has is what their client tells them, and they very often can't recall names of the doctors that treated them or who the ambulance service was, or if such and such occurred at X clinic or Y clinic, etc. Everyone involved is well aware of how this works, and no one gets their panties in a bunch over it. Sometimes they have to go all the way through discovery including depositions in order to show they never saw the patient or never treated the patient or treated the patient for something else unrelated, etc. And once they sufficiently show they have no responsibility they get dropped from the suit.

As others have explained, the only way to compel the information to determine who did what and whether or not it was negligent or beneath legal standards is to file the suit naming all those people and entities that might have. Sure you can ask these people and entities for their information, but without a lawsuit they can't be compelled to provide it, and they won't. Boeing, for example, will not hand over any information about the plane, it's maintenance history, information concerning common problems with other 777's, etc. The only way they'll give it over is to legally compel them to by filing a suit against them. Malaysia Airlines will not divulge information about their pilots, their practices nor any other information they've received from other sources about the plane or the pilots or the crash, etc. unless they are legally compelled to. This is the whole point to discovery - for compelling a named entity or person to divulge all the information requested and to truthfully answer questions under oath that are put to them in depositions concerning what information they have, who they got it from, what it is, what it shows, what they know and what they don't about the crash, the plane, the pilots, the passengers, etc.

The suit is HOW the attorney investigates the situation in order to compel information that would not be given without the suit. Often all the information they can get without the suit is the bare bones facts (X person died due to plane crash or X person was stricken with MRSA while in Y hospital).

[Ms. Toad]

195. Sorry - but you need a refresher course in Rule 11.

And rule 8. It is an ethical violation, and legally sanctionable, to file suit just for the sake of preserving evidence which may be in the possession of an entity which may not have committed any wrongful act - or to claim without a specific legal theory sufficient to put the defendant on notice of what is being alleged against them (a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief).

A hospital setting is somewhat different. There you have pretty well defined set of actors - the hospital, and medical staff which have a legal relationship to the entity for which they work. You also have an event which generally does not normally happen without negligence by one or more of that closed universe of actors. In circumstances like that, the concept of res ipsa loqitur (the thing speaks for itself) permits all parties - one of which must have been acting negligently - to be made defendants.

In this case, we do not have that scenario. Something went wrong - but as of today we don't know whether it was innocent or wrongful (although it certainly appears wrongful). we don't know whether it was mechanical failure, deliberate diversion, or an outside force which brought the plane down.

We don't have any good reason to believe that the actors against whom claims were brought acted wrongfully - and that (under Rule 11) is a prerequisite to filing a claim. Both the airline and the manufacturer may be entirely blameless - in fact the bulk of the evidence I have seen suggests they are - it appears that the pilot or co-pilot, acting independently or together, diverted the plane and no one, so far, has been able to connect the dots in a way which would make the airline negligent via a respondeat superior or negligent hiring theory. An injured party isn't ethically entitled to bring claims against them just because they may possess evidence they believe might be helpful to sort out what really happened.

[onenote]

212. Rule 11: A refresher course

Rule 11, prior to 1993, used to create roadblocks for plaintiffs who wanted to pursue novel theories of their case. But it was revised in 1993 to make it much more lenient. Here is how one court has described Rule 11(a)(3):

"Rule 11(b)(3) is designed as a safety valve for parties who must plead certain facts, but cannot confirm them
before pleading because an adversary controls the information necessary to substantiate these
claims.”

[Ms. Toad]

219. Not really.

Rule 11 requires that "the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery"

That is different from going on a fishing expedition before you are able to articulate the facts to plead - or identify the party against whom to plead them. It does allow you to assert in pleadings that you believe certain things (as long as you have been reasonably diligent in coming to that belief), without being absolutely able to prove them. What has been claimed in this thread is that you are able to file suit before you have gotten to the stage of having a reasonable basis to believe anything specific. Rule 11(b)(3) doesn't create a safety valve for that.

[former9thward]

33. I hope you did not go to law school.

If you did you have grounds to sue them for a fraudulent education -- and that is a FACT.

[Glitterati]

34. Thanks for that gratuitous personal attack

So sweet. So typical of someone losing the debate.

[former9thward]

37. It is an attack on your lack of legal education.

Only a frivolous lawyer would file a lawsuit at this point. I hope the judge does not allow him to amend the suit.

[Laelth]

91. Glitterati, you are dead-on correct in everything you have said here.

To see alleged Democrats trying to protect a corporate behemoth like Boeing from nothing more than simple discovery is flat-out revolting.

Thanks for fighting the good fight.

-Laelth (a Plaintiffs' attorney--one who fights for people, not mammoth, blood-sucking corporations)

[Glitterati]

100. Thanks, Laelth

Yeah, Boeing is evidently more important to DUers than the Americans who died on MH370!

Hell, we've got one calling it blood money and telling victim families they should take the 5K Malaysia is paying them and shut the fuck up!

A life worth 5K!

Who wudda thought, huh?

[uppityperson]

103. "I didn't say not to take the money. I just said I wouldn't. You are free to do so."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4730672

I really hate seeing people misquoted and then nasty accusations given.

[Laelth]

107. Forty+ years of right-wing propaganda against attorneys has been very effective.

Even DU's denizens are not immune. Much of the framing in this thread is disturbing. Plaintiffs' attorneys are working for the people. Sad that some here refuse to see this.



-Laelth

[COLGATE4]

138. ^^^ THIS ^^^

[msanthrope]

199. And another attorney wishes to echo the praise of your post. nt

[uppityperson]

98. Says the person who wrote the first reply of the thread as a gratuitous personal attack.

Here, just in case you missed what I mean, here is what you wrote.
"I think I took a wrong turn and ended up on freerepublic by mistake somehow"

[AngryAmish]

60. A lawsuit was not filed

A petition for discovery was filed. This is what you file when you know of a loss and are seeking facts. You are also getting a protective order to prevent spoilation of evidence.

[former9thward]

81. "And THAT is why attorneys have filed a lawsuit"

The whole back and forth with the poster I was replying to was based on his/her assertion a lawsuit had been filed.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

90. Maybe you should read the fist couple lines of the article before insulting people.

[former9thward]

92. I was the one consistently insulted if you BOTHERED to read the posts.

Odd you are sticking up for a poster who had their facts wrong.

[treestar]

88. Didn't even know you could do that

A cool thing for a state to have. Discovery is the problem of every litigation. They are madly shredding documents somewhere now.

[TorchTheWitch]

163. the only facts necessary to file a lawsuit is that the plane crashed

and everyone on it is dead which was admitted to by the airline. The particulars of how exactly the plane crashed thereby making everyone on it dead doesn't take away fault just like if your car hits something and kills someone or everyone on board. Even if it's your car but you weren't even in it at the time it hit something and killed someone in it it's still your legal responsibility and what you pay insurance for because the car is your property and you are responsible for what your property does to others.

WHATEVER the particulars are concerning the plane crash the airline is still legally liable regardless - it's their plane and their pilots. If it's discovered that there was something wrong with the plane that the manufacturer is responsible for or some outside maintenance company is responsible for, etc. then the airline can turn around and sue the manufacturer/maintenance company, but they're still liable for the passengers on their plane being dead simply because they owned the plane.

The point of this lawsuit and why it's been filed now is to preserve evidence from being disappeared or altered as well as to gain access to that evidence so they can't be lied to by the airline concerning what happened and why. It's for the families of the passengers to get the truth about how and why their loved one/s died. I can't see why anyone would have a problem with that especially since the airline is already liable for the deaths anyway.

[former9thward]

164. If someone hijacks your car and kills someone

you do not have the liability that you would have if you intentionally ran someone down. Facts matter. If they want to get to the truth of the matter they should file in Malaysia. That is where the airline is. The U.S. has nothing to do with it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. You haven't given any facts

just an opinion without argument. 'Ambulance chaser' is a common term here: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ambulance+chaser%22&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

[Glitterati]

11. Perhaps

you should understand that calling your fellow DUers names, who happen to be attorneys is a bit disconcerting to those of us who believe namecalling isn't conducive to conversation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. I have no knowledge that any employee for Ribbeck posts here

If they do, they can post and defend the lawsuit they've brought when there is nothing at all to point to fault on the part of Boeing or Malaysia Airlines. But I can't assume that Ribbeck people are DUers before I post something.

Meanwhile, what about your accusation that my post belongs on FreeRepublic? Can't you see that you are insulting me with that (without any evidence that using the term 'ambulance chaser' is right wing), while I have applied a general term to a specific firm of lawyers that have, as far as we all know, no connection to DU at all?

You're the one calling DUers names, not me.

[AngryAmish]

61. They didn't file a lawsuit.

[uppityperson]

101. Says the person who wrote

"I think I took a wrong turn and ended up on freerepublic by mistake..." as the first reply.

[Glitterati]

102. EXACTLY correct

and your offense is what?

[uppityperson]

106. Here are your 2 quotes. Can you see the problem? Probably not, but I can

"I think I took a wrong turn and ended up on freerepublic by mistake."
yet
"namecalling isn't conducive to conversation"

[Glitterati]

108. ROFL, sure

whatever you say. Not wasting time on your outrage.

Moving on.........

[uppityperson]

112. Noticing conflicting statements = outrage? Huh.

?c07647

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

42. Decades ago I worked on a plane crash case...

falls under "wrongful death."

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. I don't know what you're trying to say to me

Are you saying that all plane crashes are 'wrongful deaths', and the fault of the plane manufacturer and operator, and therefore the should always be automatically sued for every crash? That your experience on one plane crash applies to them all?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

49. Sorry, yeah

[Hassin Bin Sober]

105. Can you name an airliner crash where there isn't some negligence on the part of one of the parties?

I can't think of one.

People paid for a trip to Beijing, not the bottom of the Indian Ocean.

There's no such thing as "oh well shit happens" when it comes to airliner crashes.

And yes, "ambulance chaser" is right wing BS when referring to incidences such as this. I bet you would sing a different tune if YOU had a loved one killed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

121. If I had a loved one killed, I'd tell a lawyer to fuck off

A suit is not going to bring them back, or find out what happened. It makes this about money, which I would find distressing.

I don't think that lawsuits are appropriate at this stage. I'd want everyone, including Boeing and Malaysia Airlines, to be trying to find out what happened, not filing papers with a court in Chicago which knows fuck-all about this.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

127. Lol. Completely naive.

The attorney is an expert in international aircraft crash litigation based in Chicago. Duh.

[muriel_volestrangler]

129. I wouldn't want an expert in litigation; I'd want an expert in finding crashed airplanes

and, as I said, I'd find the involvement of a lawyer with the cry of "someone must pay up!" deeply distasteful. Money doesn't fix things.

Duh.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

162. "Money doesn't fix things"

Spoken like someone who has never had someone in their family wrongfully killed.

Never mind some families may have lost a sole source of income - I guess they should just go in the poor house.

Some people sue because they want answers and lawyers don't work for free.

We found that out when a hospital killed my dad by shipping him out with pneumonia and no medicine or breathing treatments and without doctor's ok - and then lied to my sister's face saying she MY SISTER authorized the move. My sister left the nurses station in a panic to go track down my father but turned around to gather some belongings to hear the head nurse say "well we fucked up and shipped another one out without authorization"

We couldn't get anyone to talk to us unless we promised not to sue. My dad was 80 years old. Should we have just said oh well thems the breaks!

Maybe those people can gets some free airline miles if they don't burden the poor airline.

[DefenseLawyer]

136. Do you work in the insurance industry?

I'm not trying to be snarky, but your virulent hatred of trial lawyers is of a particularly potent strain. I'm interested to know what brings you to this particular world view.

[muriel_volestrangler]

140. No I don't. FWIW, my brother is a barrister

(ie basically what Americans would call a trial lawyer), and my uncle is a retired barrister/judge. And my cousin's wife is a retired solicitor. I respect them all, and don't think any of them would get involved in lawsuits like this before there's any reason to suspect the companies.

I have said nothing about trial lawyers, and it's quite worrying the number of DUers who think I have. The people I am criticising are the particular firm mentioned in the OP.

[DefenseLawyer]

147. When you start throwing around a term like "ambulance chasers"

you have said something about your point of view regarding plaintiffs attorneys, whether you intended to or not. You are certainly entitled to your point of view. After all that has been said here, if you still can't understand why the families of the dead would want to gather and preserve evidence I don't think you ever will.

[muriel_volestrangler]

155. They have announced they're going to sue for millions of dollars per passenger

This is not just about 'preserving evidence'. Again, you seem incapable of understanding that calling one firm ambulance chasers does not mean I consider that about plaintiffs attorneys in general. As a lawyer, your grasp of logic sucks. I don't think you're doing your reputation any good here.

[DefenseLawyer]

157. And if I call one black man a n*****

You, logically, wouldn't think I was a racist would you?

[muriel_volestrangler]

158. Saying that is an act of racism, based on who they are

My criticism of Ribbeck is about what they are doing in this case, not that they are 'trial lawyers' or 'plaintiffs' attorneys'. If you cannot tell the difference between criticising someone because of their actions and insulting them because of who they are, you can't do very well in the law.

[JVS]

137. Telling lawyers to fuck off isn't going to pay the bills.

[muriel_volestrangler]

144. Bills? The main bills here seem to be this firm's

It's filed this under the name of a passenger's uncle, who happens to be a lawyer involved in a previous airline case:

The law firm said it expected to represent families of more than 50 percent of the passengers on board the flight, but declined to give details on how many families have sought their representation in the case.
...
The petition was filed on behalf of Januari Siregar, whose son was on the flight, the firm said. Siregar, a lawyer, had known Ribbeck's staff when working on a case involving Garuda Indonesia a few years earlier, Ribbeck said.

Contacted by Reuters in Indonesia, he confirmed the petition, but said he was the uncle, not the father, of a passenger on the plane.

Additional pleadings will be filed in the next few days against other potential defendants that designed or manufactured component parts of the aircraft that may have failed, Kelly said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/26/us-malaysianairlines-boeing-lawsuit-idUSBREA2P0PP20140326

So a Chicago firm has unilaterally declared this to be a mechanical problem, although there's no evidence for that, intends to annoy more manufacturers in the next few days, and thinks over half the families will go through it, despite there being just 3 Americans on the Malaysian flight going to China. This is ambulance chasing.

[treestar]

109. They are going to be

A crash of an airliner will never escape a lawsuit. Boeing is more than used to it, I'm sure.

[treestar]

86. There is some sense of res ipsa loquitur

a clear weather air mishap has to be negligence of some type.

Then when a law firm, you cannot rule anything out, or that'll fur out to be the thing creating liability and you're screwed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

113. What if one of the pilots is entirely responsible?

(which seems the mostly likely explanation to me, at the moment). Then Boeing will have nothing to do with it at all, and we have wasted resources by forcing them to respond to a meaningless demand. And if you're saying that Malaysia Airlines is responsible for what their pilot does, then that should be sorted out in Malaysia, where the airline and pilot come from.

[treestar]

118. That's complicated

Discovery hopefully shows up what happened. This case is unusual and shouldn't be used to prove anything about the system. I used to hate it when the OJ case was used to reform the system, as it was a case no system could ever handle. As a tort case, with so many countries involved and so many factors involved, the thing for the lawyer to do is to look at everything. Otherwise it can end up as malpractice. Lawyers hate that and worry about it all the time. the Lawyer is the easiest scapegoat. If it turns out Boeing made a defunctive plane here, and it could be, that lawyer doesn't want to be the one who didn't do all he/she could to get the evidence as soon as possible.

This state has a cool procedure for doing discovery without suing. Boeing could end up just as witness - there would be witnesses from Boeing about how the plane was contracted needed to prove a case against the pilots, for example.

[CreekDog]

139. well you did say something wrong

[muriel_volestrangler]

145. What?

[CreekDog]

148. do you want me to say it louder?

[muriel_volestrangler]

154. You haven't said anything in this thread (nt)

[pnwmom]

17. That's exactly what they are. No one knows what happened or who is responsible. n/t

[mstinamotorcity2]

40. I feel you on this!!!

No ambulance chasing in this case!!! They have declared the plane lost and passengers dead!!! And I know from personal experience that paperwork and all other documents can just disappear!!!! One must move quickly to preserve the paper trail before anyone can start shredding.

[Glitterati]

41. So simple

Yet, the outrage continues. Sadly.

[mstinamotorcity2]

46. If we hold on long enough....

It will be the President's fault

[Glitterati]

48. Probably. He is an attorney, after all

Right? One of those "ambulance chasers" no doubt.

[mstinamotorcity2]

54. We needed an ambulance chaser

after Dubya/Shooter

[Glitterati]

55. AMEN!

ROFLMAO!

[yeoman6987]

78. Isn't this blood money

I don't think I would want any money. I mean the airlines are giving each family 5,000 dollars. I can't imagine a family wanting 2 million dollars when their child or whomever is not coming back.

[Glitterati]

79. Wow.

DU never ceases to amaze me.

[yeoman6987]

83. Wow!

I can't believe it such a shock. I didn't say not to take the money. I just said I wouldn't. You are free to do so.

[Glitterati]

87. Right.

You just called it blood money.

And then, insinuated that $5,000.00 was all a life was worth to anybody.

I repeat.

Wow.

[yeoman6987]

97. Insinuated?

That is just a word meaning a guess. No knowledge of intent except guessing.

[Laelth]

94. Wow, indeed.

Seeing alleged Democrats defending a corporate behemoth like Boeing from nothing more than simple discovery is shocking and a bit revolting.

Some of us fight for people. Others prefer to defend a blood-sucking behemoth like Boeing. Curious, indeed.

-Laelth

[AngryAmish]

175. Defending a defense contractor.

Sick.

[Warpy]

161. Oh, yes, we all know lawyers are all models of urbane civility and moral rectitude.

who would never prey upon grieving people looking for a way to hit back to make a buck.

I sincerely doubt there is much to be discovered except that no effort has been spared by multiple countries to find out where the plane crashed.

No one will know why until it is found and unless enough of it is raised to find out what went wrong. Then it will be a slog to try to prove negligence on Malaysia Air or Boeing's parts.

This is premature, to say the least.

[Brother Buzz]

2. I'm not an ambulance chaser. I'm usually there before the ambulance. - Melvin Belli.

[Orrex]

5. Death to you all! Death to you all!

[Lex]

12. Lawsuits are generally what make these corporations clean up their act.

If there was any malfeasance on the part of the airline, do you think they are going to step forward on their own and admit to the families?

[Glitterati]

13. Not to mention

that filing of a lawsuit gives some minor protection to the documentation.

Once a lawsuit is filed, someone can go to jail if records are destroyed and a coverup is started.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. There's no evidence that they need to clean up their act

But this causes Boeing and Malaysia Airlines work, and thus money, when both should be concentrating on anything they can do to help the search. Will this law firm pay for all that?

[DefenseLawyer]

43. You have an interesting perspective for a progressive

Those who feel harmed by a corporation should refrain from preserving their rights because of the money and time it will cost to the company? Well, cheer up, I'm pretty sure Mom and Pop Boeing will scrape by if they have to respond to the families of those dead people. For the record I'm not an "ambulance chaser", I represent people accused of crimes. I don't even want to know what you call me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. I think there should be some evidence of responsibility before law suits are launched

I regard "the first thing you do is sue" to be a particularly capitalist point of view, and so, yes, I think it is progressive to say that this rush to court is bad. This guy (from Indonesia, as far as I can tell) may feel 'harmed' by Boeing, but there's no evidence that he has been.

[DefenseLawyer]

47. He's harmed because someone in his family is dead.

Suppose the only hard evidence that Boeing caused that harm is in the hands of Boeing? What mechanism would you prefer for preserving and collecting that evidence? Perhaps "Pretty please with sugar on top"?

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. Wait until there's a reason to think Boeing may be at fault

and then, if you find Boeing have been destroying evidence, sue them. It's a regulated industry - they can't just destroy evidence of dangerous problems. It would be a problem even if it hadn't caused a crash.

If Boeing and the airline get fully compensated for all they have to do because of this "blame everyone before we know what happened", and if no-one from either company is diverted from work that should be happening to help the search, then we can call this "fishing for business" rather than "ambulance chasing". Will that help your feelings?

[DefenseLawyer]

53. I assure you, nothing you think or say in your lifetime will impact my "feelings"

But thanks for the gesture. However, referring to trial lawyers as "ambulance chasers" is a corporatist position, which you are of course entitled to have. You're world, where we let the corporation decide whether it is at fault before anyone has the right to complain is a Republican dream come true. Just how much do you think it costs to respond to a complaint? Dealing with litigation is a cost of doing business. Do you seriously think that lawyers working at, or for Boeing are going to be searching for that plane? I don't think you really think that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. Engineers will have to get involved too

This is a fishing expedition for "possible design and manufacturing defects". Engineers will have to go through all their data about the plane, since there's no evidence for any particular area these supposed defects are in.

I'm not talking about trial lawyers; I'm talking about one firm that is launching a law suit before any evidence about what happened to the plane has been gathered (apart, that is, from radar evidence that shows the plane made several turns, implying it was under control, and thus not defective, and evidence from the engines that they were functioning normally). I'm not proposing "let the corporation decide whether it is at fault"; there are independent accident investigation bodies. If they think there was a fault with the plane, then a suit might be appropriate. As a lawyer, you shouldn't put words in people's mouths.

" Just how much do you think it costs to respond to a complaint?" Quite a lot, if engineers with real jobs have to drop them when a law firm leaps to conclusions to try and drum up business for itself. And I expect Boeing's lawyers don't come cheap. You may feel that "dealing with litigation is a cost of doing business", but you would say that, wouldn't you? I'm sure bankers feel that increasing their profits without adding anything to a product is 'a cost of doing business'.

[pnwmom]

69. You have an interesting perspective for a defense lawyer.

Why should Boeing be subject to the expenses of defending itself from a lawsuit when there is so far zero evidence that a defect of the plane had anything to do with the crash, assuming there was a crash?

[Supersedeas]

191. are you suggesting that the statute of limitations has begun to acrue without

any lead as to the location of the plane itself, much less the cause of the disappearance.

You have a strange sense of what a progressive's attitude toward justice? Are you suggesting that the corporation is guilty until proven innocent--is that what progressives always believe in--anlways? That's just weird.

[morningfog]

51. Their insurance will pay for the litigation. It will not impact the search.

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. Apart from diverting engineers who have proper jobs to do

to show that there aren't any defects in the plane.

And if insurance pays for it, then the price of insurance goes up, and so does the price of plane tickets, to pay for it. Law suits before there's any evidence that a firm did anything wrong are parasitical.

[morningfog]

166. The evidence is a missing plane. More than enough to get the ball rolling.

[RandoLoodie]

177. Filthy rich international corporate behemoths

are probably used to doing more than just one thing at a time.

Just sayin.

[Lex]

70. Their plane fell out of the sky.

If a terrorist or highjacker, what where their security measures?
If a plane malfunction, what was their maintenance record?

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. If a terrorist, then it's nothing to do with Boeing

Security measures are run by the airport/country it departed from, not the airline.

But there's no evidence it's either, yet. This is like the pointless speculation on TV, except it diverts engineers from real work, and costs money that will eventually be put onto people's airline tickets.

[Lex]

89. But we don't know that. I tend to be wary of large corporations.

They very seldom step forward. Generally they obfuscate until someone pushes them. I'm for the families having every ability to flush information from all involved.

[stranger81]

192. Really? At the very least, Malaysian Airlines is a legitimate lawsuit target

for failing to purchase Boeing's satellite service, which would have allowed them to track this f&*(ing plane, obviated the need for an extensive multinational search, and allowed the families to deal with the loss of their loved ones without this protracted ambiguity.

I say sue 'em. If no one does, nothing will ever change.

[muriel_volestrangler]

194. You want to sue every airline that doesn't buy a 'satellite service'

when it's not mandated? (not sure if it's sold by 'Boeing' - I think it's from Inmarsat)

“When ACARS is turned off, Swift continues on,” he said. “If you configure Swift to track engine data, that data will be streamed off the plane. It continues to be powered up while the aircraft is powered up.”

Many major airlines use the full package of Swift options. The detail it provides is mandated under international aviation guidelines for airlines that ply the busy North Atlantic corridor between the United States and Europe. There are no such requirements elsewhere in the world, the industry official said.

In addition to sending information to the airline, Swift also can be programmed to send data to the manufacturer — usually Boeing or Airbus — and the engine maker — usually Rolls-Royce or Pratt & Whitney.

“It’s a choice of what you do with your aircraft,” the satellite industry official said. “When you get your plane from Boeing, you can get an engine management app, a route management app, or you might decide that you want the bare minimum. There isn’t a mandated requirement.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/malaysia-airlines-didnt-buy-computer-upgrade-that-could-have-given-data-on-missing-flight/2014/03/19/40e2484c-af7c-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html

I think this is an American attitude - "the outcome was not perfect, therefore someone should be sued", rather than "someone was negligent, therefore someone should be sued". Hindsight is a marvellous thing, but it shouldn't be a reason for a lawsuit. If you want things to change, then push for it to be mandated all over the world. That doesn't have to be done in law courts - there are regulators.

[stranger81]

202. Yes, it probably is an American attitude -- because the American regulatory system is broken.

There may be regulators, but at least in this country, regulators (FAA included) work for what we call "captive agencies." They listen and respond almost exclusively to the corporations they're ostensibly regulating, instead of being guided by the public interest. There's also what amounts to a revolving door between the regulating agencies and the industries being regulated, such that the "regulators" are either industry insiders before they take their government job, or are angling for a lucrative industry position when they leave government.

Regulation without litigation may be an appropriate solution in other corners of the world (particularly Western Europe, which has a very strong regulatory regime). In the U.S., though, leaving it to the regulators without additional external pressure, through litigation or otherwise, is nothing more than a wish and a prayer.

In this case, it's not unfair Monday morning quarterbacking to insist that MAS did something legally actionable when they decided to skimp on satellite services that would likely have avoided losing the plane somewhere in the vast Indian Ocean. It's perfectly forseeable that choosing not to subscribe to such services would lead to exactly the result we see now in the event a plane goes off course. The legal negligence standard in the U.S., of course, would be the benchmark for whether that forseeability rises to the level of a tort -- e.g., whether a reasonable person or company would have acted the same way under the same circumstances.

[closeupready]

93. Exactly. I don't even bother with these thinly-veiled "I hate lawyers" threads.

There is no discussion sought or welcomed, so I'm just like, fine, not going to waste any effort.

[Laelth]

104. Precisely, Lex.

That's one of the primary functions of tort law. You stick a big company with a big judgment against them (and it has to be big enough to hurt them), and then they'll actually decide to be good corporate citizens. The world becomes safer as a result.

-Laelth

[Blue_Tires]

14. sadly, this is SOP for law firms

it just doesn't always make big news after an airliner crash...Get in line first, cast as 'wide' a net of possible big-pocket defendants as you can to hedge your bets, and wait...

Fun fact: Boeing/Airbus always, always, ALWAYS get sued after a crash with heavy fatalities, no matter the cause...Sometimes they are tangentially at fault, sometimes they truly are negligent, sometimes they just get sued to "save face" or take heat off of the truly guilty party, and it goes without saying sometimes they get sued ONLY because they can afford a to shell out a big payday....

[treestar]

26. Looking at posts 12 and 13 it may not be all that sad

and I would agree no crash is going to take place without lawsuits.

[pnwmom]

19. How can they say the "believe" both defendants are responsible

when there is no information yet on how the plane crashed?

Either the lawyers are idiots or they think everyone else is -- probably the latter.

[morningfog]

52. There is enough to get the suit started.

[pnwmom]

62. That's only because any lawsuit can be started at any time,

no matter how unsupported.

[morningfog]

167. And if there is nothing to it, it will be dismissed in due time.

If there is something to it, the suit was properly initiated. It will all work out.

[pnwmom]

168. If you had ever had had to hire an attorney and spend thousands of dollars

to fight a ridiculous lawsuit that would eventually be dismissed by a judge, you would feel differently.

[morningfog]

169. You'll forgive me if I can't muster any sympathy for these corporations

defending themselves in this suit. I would bet that the suit survives, and for good reason. Regardless, I won't lose any sleep on the impact to their profit margin (which will be negligible).

[pnwmom]

170. Why would you think the plane design was at fault when there was no evidence

of any problem with the plane before it was deliberately sent off course?

[morningfog]

172. I have no idea what will be produced in discovery.

Again, I won't lose sleep for the major corporations who build litigation defense into their profit margin when one of their products disappears.

[pnwmom]

173. What did you mean when you said, "I would bet that the suit survives, and for good reason."

Why would you bet there would be a good reason for the suit against Boeing to survive, when there is yet no evidence that a design defect was involved?

Instead of betting that this is an attorney just throwing out a plate of legal spaghetti and hoping something sticks?

[morningfog]

174. If it is all spaghetti, it will be dimissed along the way. Boeing's insurance will cover the legal

expenses. And, the plane disappeared, apparently crashing into the Indian Ocean.

We may not know what happens for a long time, but very well could get clues through the course of this litigation. Who knows? I don't, you don't. I simply bet the suit will survive because something clearly went wrong. You can, and obviously do, think there is not enough evidence right now.

Either way, I don't lose sleep when big corporations are sued.

[treestar]

25. How can that court have jurisdiction?

Not saying it's impossible, but what did that crash have as connection to the USA, let alone Chicago?

[Glitterati]

30. US citizens were aboard that plane

and one of them lived in Chicago.

[AngryAmish]

64. Boeing is HQ in Chicago

Malasian Air does business in Chicago. Plaintiff's estate is in Chicago. No diversity of citizenship. Law Division, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

[pnwmom]

68. They probably picked Boeing to go after because it's a US company. n/t

[AngryAmish]

72. They picked Boeing because they made the airplane.

[pnwmom]

80. And there is zero evidence so far that a defect in the plane caused the crash.

They haven't even found the plane yet.

This is just grandstanding and ambulance chasing at this point. A lawyer trolling for publicity to get more clients.

[treestar]

85. I can get the idea they might be on it now

out of fear of someone later saying "why didn't you do such and such back then?" Fear of malpractice suits drives this a lot more.

[pnwmom]

111. There's no malpractice involved in not suing a company when there is no evidence

yet that the company did anything.

This is all about them trying to be the first out of the gate, with their name in all the headlines, so that other victims -- worldwide -- join their lawsuit, whoever it turns out to be against.

[AngryAmish]

132. and for the thirdtime, they have not sued Boeing

IF the case is converted to a lawsuit then the plaintiff must allege facts (Illinois is a fact pleading state) that Boeing did something wrong. If not then the case will be dismissed before discovery. If facts are alleged and there is no evidence Boeing did something wrong then Boeing will win via summary judgment.

[pnwmom]

134. Why have they instigated anything against Boeing at this point when they don't even know

where the plane is, much less what caused any crash?

[AngryAmish]

150. To make sure no evidence is destroyed

Believe it or not big companies destroy unfavorable evidence all the time to avoid liability and bad publicity.

If this is indeed one nutter pilot Boeing is in the clear.

If not they should be held responsible.

I know for a fact that there is a major design flaw in the 777. It is not implicated in this incident. But Boeing has been trting like hell to cover it up for some years without a redesign which is too expensive.

Boeing is no saint.

[pnwmom]

151. If you know this for a "fact" then what is this design flaw? And if a design flaw

caused the crash, why are all the recordings perfectly normal until the plane flew off course?

[muriel_volestrangler]

152. They expect to file soon

"Our theory of the case is that there was a failure of the equipment in the cockpit that may have caused a fire that rendered the crew unconscious, or perhaps because of the defects in the fuselage which had been reported before there was some loss in the cabin pressure that also made the pilot and co-pilot unconscious," Monica Kelly, head of Global Aviation Litigation at Ribbeck Law, told reporters.
...
The lawsuit, soon to be filed, would seek millions of dollars of compensation for each passenger and ask Boeing to repair its entire 777 fleet.

The law firm said it expected to represent families of more than 50 percent of the passengers on board the flight, but declined to give details on how many families have sought their representation in the case.
...
Additional pleadings will be filed in the next few days against other potential defendants that designed or manufactured component parts of the aircraft that may have failed, Kelly said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/26/us-malaysianairlines-boeing-lawsuit-idUSBREA2P0PP20140326

There's no evidence for the crew being rendered unconscious; to the contrary, the plane appears to have made several turns to end up where it's thought it finally crashed, which indicates someone was in control. They are speculating just as much as the talking heads on CNN. For some reason, they think that, with just 3 Americans on board a Malaysian flight to China, they will get over a hundred families using them in a lawsuit. How will this law firm make up for the time of Boeing engineers lost in replying to this demand for technical information?

[AngryAmish]

156. Boeing chooses to build airplanes

They make a lot of money doing it. If there is a design flaw that causes casualties then they must pay for it. That is product liability law.

For decades Boeing denied a problem with the 737 rudder. Three planes went down in the US. Boeing even alleged that the pilot of the Colorado crash was suicidal and cheating on his wife.

Well there was a problem and Boeing had to fix all the rudders. The only reason it came to light was a few nutty Chicago lawyers kept pushing and found the defect.

[treestar]

133. No lawyers see it that way

It goes south, it's going to be considered malpractice. Or at least a lawsuit for that can come up.

[treestar]

84. Yep the US is the best place for lawsuits

Many of the Defendants might do business here. But there can also be rules about the location of the accident. Should be interesting.

[AngryAmish]

130. Also have to consider the Warsaw Convention

I have forgotten all this stuff, have not had an airplane case in 18 years...and that was a domestic case.

[treestar]

82. Totally amazing

There will be lawsuits all over the world.

Wonder if those in China have a way to sue there?

Also the same plaintiffs might have to go to Malaysia to sue the airlines - though perhaps Malaysia airlines does business in the US and that could be a ground for jurisdiction.

[Sheepshank]

38. Working hard to maintain a reputation for attorneys....apparently n/t

[closeupready]

96. Barack and Michelle are both attorneys. n/t

[Sheepshank]

160. I should have included "Negative Stereotype" so it would be understood what I meant? n/t

[ecstatic]

56. I support the lawsuit. This entire situation has been a clusterfuck

Inmarsat had the info on where the plane most likely was on March 11, 3 days after the plane disappeared! I can't help but wonder if any survivors held on for the first 14 days while Malaysia & Co. goofed off, but ultimately died by the time Australia finally started searching the area on the 20th. Then, after all the delays and contradictory information, knowing their credibility is destroyed, they simply announced that everyone is dead without having retrieved a single piece of wreckage.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. It's the Great American Answer to everything - "Sue! I don't care who, just sue!"

Neither Boeing nor Malaysian Airlines were responsible for what was done with the information from Inmarsat, yet you support suing them over it. It's a ridiculous "money will solve this" attitude.

[pnwmom]

63. Why do you support them suing Boeing when there is no evidence a plane defect

had anything to do with the crash? Why shouldn't they wait until there is some evidence of what happened?

[AngryAmish]

65. There is no lawsuit.

[pnwmom]

66. They took the first step in a lawsuit, going on a fishing expedition against Boeing. n/

[AngryAmish]

71. If they didn't it would be malpractice.

[pnwmom]

75. Not true. There is no rule in law that says a lawsuit must be filed a couple weeks

after a crash, and there's no evidence so far that a defect of the 777 was involved.

And it is a violation of legal ethics to instigate spurious lawsuits.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4729394

[onenote]

210. No rule. But good practice.

There are a variety of completely valid, strategic reasons for filing sooner rather than later. These include preservation of evidence. Choice of forum. Maintaining control over the case to be presented. If I hire a lawyer who I think is the best lawyer for the job, you can be damn sure I want that lawyer to be in a position to be the lead counsel in a suit that likely will involve lots of plaintiffs and lots of lawyers.

There is nothing inappropriate about what this particular firm, which is one of the most experienced aviation crash litigation firms in the world, is doing. Someone cited rule 11. But rule 11 sets a very low threshold, which is a good thing because otherwise individuals would have a horrible time trying to bring valid lawsuits against corporate defendants. Here is what rule 11 says:

b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.


Dismissals or sanctions based on asserted violations of Rule 11(b)(3) are rare because it is a very forgiving rule: "to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances" and " will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery"

So, if the lawyers file a complaint here that alleges that the plane crashed because aliens from the alpha galaxy shot it down, then a court's gonna dismiss it. But if it alleges that, on information and belief, mechanical failure was the reason for the crash of a plane for which there is no known cause, the court's going to let the case go forward to discovery.

[pnwmom]

215. Here is where it fails logically, though that doesn't mean a court won't let it go on:

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery;


The factual contentions have no evidentiary support now; and nothing we know now makes it 'likely" that they will have evidentiary support for a mechanical failure later. All the recordings till someone sent the plane off course were normal, including the pilot's audio communications.

The point of dragging Boeing in is to have a US defendant so it can be tried in a US court, where the laws are more favorable to the victims. Even if Boeing is later excluded, the trial will remain here.

[COLGATE4]

142. "Fishing expedition" is laymans' snark for

what is known in the trade as 'Discovery'. It's a totally legitimate practice which allows you to get to paper and preserve evidence that otherwise has a tendency to magically disappear even as we speak.

[ecstatic]

74. Because I fly frequently and would like all the facts on the table ASAP

If their planes are sound, then they'll prevail. However, from what I've read, Boeing and other companies love blaming pilot error / terrorism when things go wrong. I'm not comfortable with that.

[pnwmom]

76. This particular plane has only had a single crash till now, and that one was

the one in San Francisco that has been definitively established to be caused by pilot error.

[pnwmom]

116. What a nasty thing to say. n/t

[Glitterati]

119. Why?

Because that's been your behavior over the last 2 weeks.

[ecstatic]

165. Egyptair 777 had a cockpit fire 3 years ago with 291 passengers on board

Luckily it happened just before takeoff. http://www.avherald.com/h?article=44078aa7&opt=0

Actually, there have been other Boeing 777 fires. Yet we keep hearing that it's the safest plane:

While there have been no "hull loss accidents" involving the planes, there have been a few incidents in recent years.The one death involving a 777 was at Denver International airport in 2001 when a ground worker received fatal burns while refuelling BA flight 2019.The accident saw the aircraft's wings badly scorched but repairs were carried out and the plane was soon back in service.In August 2004 a Singapore Airlines 777-312 suffered an engine explosion as it took off from Melbourne airport.This was later found to have been caused by erosion to high pressure "liners" within the Rolls-Royce engines.And on March 1, 2005, there was a problem involving a Pakistan International Airlines 777-200ER . Fire was seen around the left "main landing gear" as it came in to land at Manchester International Airport.The crew and passengers were evacuated and there was minor damage to the aircraft which was later repaired.The most recent incident involving the 777 prior to today's Heathrow emergency landing involved a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777-200ER on August 1, 2005.The plane had taken off from Perth, Western Australia, en route to Kuala Lumpur when it started to "overspeed and stall" and then "pitch" at 41,000 feet.The pilots executed an emergency landing at Perth and no one was injured.

That article covered various incidents up to 2005. Maybe flight MH370 wasn't so lucky....

[COLGATE4]

141. Because i\f you don't, the paper shredders at

Boeing are going to be going 24/7. That simple.

[closeupready]

99. Don't tell anyone, but did you know that Barack and Michelle Obama are both attorneys?

Just keep that between us, though.

[Glitterati]

110. ROFL, I know!

gasp!!!!!

[treestar]

114. There are all kinds of practices

I don't know if either practiced or what kind of law, but would be surprised if it involved any personal injury/tort stuff. John Edwards did that and got somewhere, though.

[Laelth]

120. Indeed.

Some of us work for corporate behemoths and the rich. Others of us work for the poor and the defenseless. Which job would allow you to sleep better at night? Me? I work for the poor and the defenseless, and so do all personal injury Plaintiffs' attorneys, as far as I know.

-Laelth

[treestar]

135. They can get pretty rich doing it

or, at least they used to.

I don't know as I'd be so judgmental on practices, though. The world is not that easily divided into "rich behemoths" and the "poor and defenseless." And you have to make some money or you can't stay in business. So the poor and defenseless as a complete practice are out of the question.

[muriel_volestrangler]

117. Don't tell anyone, but I'm a human

Does that mean that when I call a specific person something, I'm including myself in that, because we're both people?

There seems to be a lot of people on this thread who think that saying something about a particular firm of lawyers implies something about lawyers in general. The surprising thing is I get the impression a lot of those making this elementary logical mistake are themselves lawyers. This makes me wonder if many lawyers are crap at logic, which is a bit worrying.

[closeupready]

122. I was just trying to be a little funny, pointing out the irony.

That's all.

[muriel_volestrangler]

124. I can't see the irony, since the Obamas aren't involved in this at all

Not in the actual situation, and not in my OP.

[closeupready]

125. Okay. Thanks.

[Laelth]

123. You will have to forgive us.

"Ambulance chaser" is a serious and repugnant slur against attorneys who fight for people who might otherwise be completely defenseless in our system. "Ambulance chaser" is a meme that has been fostered and propelled by the right-wing, and it has been used to hammer us for a long time. Its purpose is to convince poor people not to sue when they have been injured (rich people and wealthy companies don't want to be sued because they might lose money). It's a bit disheartening to see a right-wing meme on DU. Forgive us if we're touchy about it.

And, yes. I am an attorney, and I work for people, most of whom are poor and utterly defenseless. Most of these people would get nothing for their injuries were it not for my assistance. I do not work for the rich, and nor do I work for any corporate behemoths (like Boeing--which you have chosen to defend).

-Laelth

[muriel_volestrangler]

126. And do you start suits before any evidence of what happened is known?

When there's a car crash, do you demand the manufacturers' engineers stop what they're doing and provide you with extensive information, when there's no reason to believe there was any fault in the car? If there's a bus crash, do you sue the municipal corporation when you've no idea if they did anything wrong at all?

[Laelth]

128. If starting the suit is the only way to get the necessary evidence?

Then, yes.

And these attorneys in Chicago are not idiots. They probably want a Court order securing the evidence before it gets destroyed by the potentially-liable parties. Give them the benefit of the doubt. They are, in fact, working for the injured party (or parties).

-Laelth

[COLGATE4]

143. You're telling them what they don't

want to hear. Although you're 100% correct. The interesting part is how this perception changes when it's their Ox that's being gored...

[COLGATE4]

146. The general rule is that you sue everbody

that could have had something to do with the accident and let them sort it out.

[muriel_volestrangler]

153. You see, my attitude is that you let air accident investigators sort it out

not law firms. But then, I'm someone who prefers to see national and international bodies handle things, rather than law firms who leap into things before there's any decent evidence.

It's the privatisation of investigation, for profit, that I object to. Making it a rule of 'sue everybody' is even worse.

[AngryAmish]

176. You do realize that Boeing has people working with the investigators?

Many NTSB investigations consist of the carrier shouting that it was a design defect and the manufacturer shouting pilot error. And the feds are in the middle. The victims don't have a seat at the table.

Although NTSB findings are not allowed as evidence, the findings more or less decide liability as a practical matter.

[COLGATE4]

180. If you wait, valuable (and often damaging)

information can be and often is 'lost'. In addition, air accident investigators only address a small part of what will be addressed in a lawsuit. For example, perhaps the investigators determine that a crash was 'probably due to pilot error'. That does not address the question of determining who has legal liability. Why was there pilot error? Was the pilot qualified? Did the airline check and recertify the pilot as required by law? Did the airline give the pilot instructions that may have contributed to the crash? Etc. etc. etc. And that's just in that one scenario. Legal liability only begins with an accident report. And, if you don't 'sue everybody' you will get some very unpleasant surprises when you find out, months (or years) into the case that the cause was due to someone that you didn't sue. At that point you're out hundreds of thousands of dollars and invaluable time, often enough to so screw things up that the victims you represent don't see a penny. There's a reason for these rules, even though it may not be readily apparent to the layman.

[muriel_volestrangler]

181. No, that makes no sense

If you want to not be "out hundreds of thousands of dollars and invaluable time", then you wait until there is some evidence of what the cause is - pilot suicide, hijack, mechanical failure, pilot error (which are, I'd say pretty obviously, from most likely to least likely at this stage). Once there is some evidence, then the invaluable time can be directed in the right direction, rather than on what is most likely a wild goose chase about mechanical failure.

There are no 'rules' that a Chicago firm must open proceedings against a plane manufacturer for a Malaysian airline crash when there is no indication of any problem with the plane. The firm has leapt in without reason - that's why it's ambulance chasing.

"Legal liability only begins with an accident report." - well, we haven't got an accident report yet, so this attempt to assign legal liability is premature, isn't it?

[COLGATE4]

182. You are, I believe deliberately

ignoring the very first point I made, which is the most important. If you do not freeze things in place with a lawsuit valuable (and often damaging) evidence will disappear. That's why you cannot afford to wait. Even at this point I will guarantee you that internal documents are under close review at Boeing and Malaysian Airlines to see what might need to be 'misplaced' or 'lost'. When this happens, innocent victims may well have their rights to some recovery shot before ever finding out.

[muriel_volestrangler]

184. Speculation on your part; a guarantee you cannot back up

and even if they are destroying evidence about the plane, it doesn't take a lawsuit to make that illegal. Manufacturers have to show their planes are airworthy, and can't just destroy evidence of problems because there isn't a current order of discovery against them.

This firm thinks that over half the families will use it for representation. That means it has been contacting them all around the world - it's beyond belief that, with only 3 Americans on board, all the others would have contacted, unprompted, a Chicago firm, when most of them are still waiting for news of what happened to their relatives. They are ambulance chasers.

[COLGATE4]

186. You really can't be serious. I have practiced law

for more than 25 years and have seen more shredding of documents, deletion of e-mails and spoilation of evidence by defendants that you will ever be able to imagine. How on earth can you seriously make a statement like "even if they are destroying evidence about the plane, it doesn't take a lawsuit to make that illegal" with a straight face. What, in your extensive legal experience supports your contention that, absent a legal order being filed, corporations are not free to destroy whatever documentation they choose to???

[COLGATE4]

183. so this attempt to assign legal liability is premature, isn't it?

Unless you think that it's perfectly normal for an airliner to disappear and, as announced officially by Malaysian Airlines in all probability into the South Indian Ocean without some fault on somebody's part, no, it's not premature at all.

[muriel_volestrangler]

185. Yes, because it's a 'legal' argument (in which this firm has gone for an unlikely cause)

when the real investigation has only just started. This firm blames Boeing, when there's no evidence for that; the plane made several turns, indicating it was still under someone's control, long after it departed the planned route. That indicates the plane was functioning fine. So, yes, trying to say Boeing is legally liable is premature.

The most likely fault is of the pilot(s) or hijackers.

[COLGATE4]

187. And yet you accuse ME of 'speculation'. Wow. nt

[Ms. Toad]

189. "somebody" may not include either the airline or the manufacturer.

There are numerous theories which would leave those parties completely innocent - and holding a massive legal bill. It IS premature until there is a better idea of what happened. Multi-party res ipsa loquitur only applies in a metaphorically locked room when everyone who is potentially culpable is in the room, and the bad result could not have occurred but for one of those locked in the room being a bad actor.

Here there are theories where it is no one's fault, theories where it is the fault of someone other than the airline or manufacturer, as well as theories whether either or both may be culpable. We do not have the metaphorically locked room scenario - since we don't even know yet the universe of potential evil doers.

[COLGATE4]

197. There is no assertion of res ipsa

either multi-party or not. What has commenced is discovery, which will in all likelihood be extended to other parties. As to your concern for the massive legal bills the corporations will have to endure, remember that they all have insurance which not only takes care of the bills but may also assume their defence. No reason Discovery can't begin with two likely parties - Boeing and Malaysia Air.

[Ms. Toad]

198. My point, precisely.

The plaintiffs do not have enough information yet to determine the appropriate defendants BECAUSE this is not a case of res ipsa. It is NOT ethically proper to file a suit in lieu of doing proper pre-filing investigation - absent a res ipsa situation.

As for your assertion of insurance - that is completely irrelevant. There are not special rules which apply to entities or people who are likely to have insurance which make it acceptable to ignore a party or attorney's ethical and legal obligations under Rule 11, just because the target entities are likely to have bought insurance. Bans on frivolous or unfounded litigation (which protect innocent defendants from having to expend massive amounts to defend themselves merely because some plaintiff decided to throw spaghetti at the wall and see where it stuck) have to apply equally, whether or not the target party is likely to have insurance.

[COLGATE4]

204. Are you really a practicing attorney?

[Ms. Toad]

205. Yes. n/t

[COLGATE4]

206. Hard to believe.

[Ms. Toad]

209. I could say the same, based on your assertions

the appropriate time to do your pre-litigation investigation is after you've named parties and subjected them to the cost of discovery and defense.

[Ms. Toad]

188. "these rules" include Rule 11

Which requires an attorney filing a complaint to certify that the complaint is based on his or her best knowledge, information , or beliefe - which is, in turn based on an inquiry that was reasonable in the circumstances of a particular case.

That means you can't just file suit without doing enough inquiry to reasonably determine who the proper defendants are, and the legal theory upon which those complaints are based. You don't just get to sue anyone you think might possibly have information that might possibly disappear.

There is a reason for that rule, as well. Defense is extremely costly - particularly in a large claim like this. Once a claim has been made against you, you have two options - fight (at a very significant cost to you), or concede the accusations are true. Rule 11 prohibits the practice of throwing the spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks because it is unfair to require everyone remotely connected with a loss to pay to have their walls cleaned because you chose to fling it at every wall in sight, rather than narrowing your target down.

And I am not a layman.

[COLGATE4]

196. As you know, suit has not yet been filed.

[msanthrope]

200. Rule 11 would not apply here. nt

[Ms. Toad]

208. In Illinois state courts, it appears to be Rule 137 -

but the text is pretty much identical:

The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading, motion or other document; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

Which certainly would apply to:

RibbeckLaw Chartered, a law firm that specializes in aviation cases, filed court documents Monday demanding that Malaysia Airlines and Boeing Co. turn over evidence of possible design and manufacturing defects that may have caused the airplane to plunge into the Indian Ocean.

[msanthrope]

213. How would Rule 137 apply to a filing under Rule 224? Can you cite a case where this happened? nt

[Ms. Toad]

218. Here

http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/R23_Orders/AppellateCourt/2012/1stDistrict/1110953_R23.pdf

But, as a general matter, my responses have been based on the initial article which does not address the specific nature of the legal action - and on the repeated assertions unrelated to Rule 224 in this thread that you just get to file claims and sort out later who is at fault. In general, that is not the case.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

159. What's even more sickening is the "omg! The cost of a ticket will go up....

.... if poor little Boeing has to produce/secure evidence"

When I hear shit like that I hear Papa Johns founder crying his pizza will go up $.19 cents due to Obamacare.

It's a $300 million dollar aircraft. Due you think the Boeing lawyers weren't already on the case the minute the thing disappeared? And if the price of my ticket goes up a few penny's I can live with that knowing the manufacturer is on notice to cross their Ts and dot their Is.

Leave Boeing alone!!!!!!

[Logical]

149. This post did not turn out like you wanted I assume! LOL. nt

[morningfog]

171. Recommend! Go get them, RibbeckLaw Chartered! Stike while iron is hot.

They will almost certainly prevail for their clients.

[goldent]

178. This is just part of American culture

It might be different from other cultures, but it is what it is.

[Bluenorthwest]

179. Ambulence Chaser is a term used by those who despise plantiff's attorneys. It is derogatory

in the extreme. They filed a petition of discovery which is essential to protection of the families of the victims. No law suit has been filed, they moved to preserve and to access the information that will be needed to move forward.
People have legal rights and those rights should be protected.

[bullwinkle428]

190. Doesn't everyone realize that Malaysian Airways is very likely rushing to get the

families of the victims to sign releases preventing them from instituting any kind of legal action against them or anyone else in this case?

[elleng]

201. DISMISS, WITH PREJUDICE, your honors!

[AngryAmish]

203. What would be the mechanism to do that?

[elleng]

207. Defendant airlines/whomever should seek dismissal,

and suggest it be 'with prejudice.' Court might grant dismissal on the 'merits' at the moment, which as noted would be appropriate because there is are NO facts upon which to make a decision on the substance. 'With prejudice' means the case may not be reopened or re-filed, its gone forever (with same parties.) Its kind of punishment for having tried to proceed without ANY facts at this point.

Court COULD do it on its own.

[onenote]

211. would never happen in this situation.

The pleading standards in Rule 11 are extremely lenient. As I posted elsewhere, if the plaintiffs claimed the plane crashed because it was hit by a laser beam from the alpha galaxy, a court would dismiss (probably not with prejudice the first time), but where a complaint states that, upon information and belief (standard pleading terminology), the cause of the plane crashing was mechanical failure -- a well known and common cause of plane crashes -- the court's going to let the case go to discovery in a heartbeat.

Hell, I once defended a client who was sued by a nutjob who claimed that all of a local television stations transmissions went through his head before they could be received by anyone and therefore he was entitled to $10,000,000 from my client. We moved to dismiss on the grounds (among others) that he had failed to state a legal claim upon which relief could be granted. The plaintiff's response was a one line opposition that read: I oppose the motion to dismiss because I have a good case. As tempting as it was, we didn't reply by saying "No you don't." In the end, the judge dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiff then sent our client a bill for $10 million and when it wasn't paid, filed a new lawsuit. That one was dismissed with prejudice.

[elleng]

214. You acted with extreme patience, to NOT respond: 'No you don't!'

How the heck there can be ANY discovery at this point is beyond me. HAPPY I didn't do civil litigation, just administrative!

[AngryAmish]

216. ok, I will attempt to wade through your word salad

Why I am trying this, I do not know. But maybe to offer some light...

What has been filed is a Petition for Discovery, not a lawsuit. It allows some limited discovery (documents mostly, or limited depositions to discover negligent parties). In Illinois it is used primarily in medical malpractice - for example you wake up from your knee surgery and your leg is off. You were unconscious so getting the medical records and seeing who was rooting around in your leg would be important.

So a petition for discovery has six months to get stuff, after which it can be converted to an actual lawsuit or just go away. ....
Shit I am going to bed. I'll sort the rest out tomorrow. Let leave you with this: you know nothing about Illinois civil procedure.

[muriel_volestrangler]

220. The law firm has form on ambulance chasing

Indeed, the National Transportation Safety Board last year said it had received an unspecified number of complaints about solicitations in the wake of the July 6 Asiana crash at San Francisco airport. At least one pof the complaints involved was Ribbeck Law.

The NTSB told NBC Chicago last year that it had reported the company to the Illinois agency that regulates attorneys. Nobody at the NTSB was available to comment Thursday about the outcome of last year's complaints or the latest case.

A U.S. law bars uninvited solicitation of air disaster victims in the first 45 days after an accident, but it was not immediately clear how that would apply in other jurisdictions.

Healy-Pratt said it was unlikely that families could successfully sue Boeing in the United States even if an eventual investigation found the manufacturer responsible. “I think it is highly misleading to tell the families they might get additional compensation in the United States when all of the recent accidents prove otherwise,” he said.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/missing-mh370-how-do-you-sue-when-theres-no-wreckage-n63931

[muriel_volestrangler]

221. Judge says Malaysian plane court filing improper

CHICAGO | A judge has thrown out a civil action on behalf of a relative of a Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 passenger, scolding the Chicago law firm involved for what she described as an improper filing.
...
Judge Kathy Flanagan rejected the firm's request in her four-page ruling Friday, saying the filing didn't conform to Illinois law, in part, because ordering evidence to be preserved can only happen when potential defendants are known.
...
Flanagan noted she tossed two similar filings by Ribbeck Law last year, including in the crash landing of Asiana Flight 214 in San Francisco.

"Despite these orders, the same law firm has proceeded, yet again, with the filing (on the Malaysian plane) knowing full well that there is no basis to do so," she wrote. "Should this law firm choose to do so, the Court will impose sanctions on its own motion."

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/illinois/chicago/judge-says-malaysian-plane-court-filing-improper/article_7306264f-f3f7-500c-b421-2b8f26f18fbd.html