« District Attorney Elections in 2019 | Main | Nevada v. Hall and Intergenerational Legal Change »

Tuesday, January 22, 2019

Frivolous lawsuits for me but not for thee

What are the odds that the New Orleans Saints season-ticket holders bringing these absurd lawsuits vote Republican and support litigation reform?

Posted by Howard Wasserman on January 22, 2019 at 11:31 PM in Howard Wasserman, Sports | Permalink


What are the odds that both of the lawsuits were filed by shameless lawyers seeking some cheap publicity rather than good-faith lawsuits brought by actual plaintiffs?

Posted by: jph12 | Jan 23, 2019 6:57:47 PM

I stand correct as to D'Amico, who is acting consistently with his priors. Still curious as to the other named plaintiffs.

I presumed that at least a plurality of NFL season-ticket holders are Republicans; I presumed that was true in a Republican-dominated state such as Louisiana. It was a Saints season-ticket-holder who sued for emotional distress over kneeling players. That presumption may have been wrong (the Saints fan base leans Democrat, although I wonder if, given costs, the make-up of season-ticket holders is different than the make-up of the fan base). As was my inference. Again, I would like to know about the other plaintiffs.

Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Jan 23, 2019 12:51:41 PM

Wow. So, actually, a personal injury and mass tort plaintiff's attorney brought this lawsuit. What are the odds you will take this as a learning experience?

I'm confused about why you assumed the plaintiff was for tort reform. Are the overwhelming majority of NFL fans Republicans? Is it because this lawsuit is absurd and Republicans are all idiots? I really am curious as to what biases prompted this post. More importantly, for your sake, I hope you are curious.

Posted by: Biff | Jan 23, 2019 12:20:35 PM

FEC records show that Frank D'Amico, Jr. has contributed to Elizabeth Warren and Caroline Fayard, so I'd describe these odds as long

Posted by: who dat nation | Jan 23, 2019 12:20:08 PM

We "lost" that game in the same way that your hypothetical plaintiff was "healed" by her negligent doctor.

Sorry. Still bitter. (But, no, not suing or anything . . . probably.)

Posted by: Anguished Saints Fan | Jan 23, 2019 11:51:09 AM

Seeing as how one of the three plaintiffs appears to be a personal injury lawyer working in the office of the personal injury firm that filed one of the lawsuits, I'd guess the odds aren't really that high.

Posted by: jph12 | Jan 23, 2019 10:40:30 AM

Sorry--that should be group of men.

Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Jan 23, 2019 6:36:45 AM

It is not intellectually dishonest to point out that one political party has and acts on the goal of narrowing (if not eliminating) judicial remedies for people injured by a negligent doctor or by an exploding car or by toxic chemicals released into the groundwater. And it is not intellectually dishonest to point out the inconsistency of someone who supports that policy or ideological goal running to court because a group of mean, of which they are not a part, lost a football game.

Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Jan 23, 2019 6:35:38 AM

"Where Intellectual Honesty Has (Usually Doesn't) Trump Partisanship Since 2005"


Posted by: YesterdayIKilledAMammoth | Jan 23, 2019 4:55:18 AM

I don't know. What are the odds?

Is there a cheaper argument to be made than one that speculates that others possess attributes that allow you to dismiss them as hypocrites?

What's the point, if there's a substantive point to be made about the merits?

Posted by: Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk | Jan 22, 2019 11:43:30 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.