Posted on 10/28/2009 12:55:08 PM PDT by DemforBush
What's the cost of not showing up to court? For PepsiCo Inc., it's a $1.26 billion default judgment. A Wisconsin state court socked the company with the monster award in a case alleging that PepsiCo stole the idea to bottle and sell purified water from two Wisconsin men.
Now the company is scrambling to salvage the situation. The damages award was handed down on Sept. 30. PepsiCo filed motions to vacate the order and dismiss the claims on Oct. 13, saying it wasn't even aware of the lawsuit until Oct. 6....
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
What a novel idea...!
Pepsi..keep on pushing your GAY agenda! Strange things like this will start to happen...
The charge sounds ridiculous...the “Idea” to bottle water has been around for ages. I have an old stoneware water bottle.
So Pepsi, and not the courts, are the sole arbiter of what is right, and what is not?
Didn’t say “sole arbiter”.
If some yahoo files a gazillion dollar suit against you because he claims copyright on the phrase “So Pepsi, and not the courts, are the sole arbiter of what is right, and what is not?” and says you stole that phrase to his everlasting agony, will you proceed to spend several thousand dollars responding to the suit? No, you’ll blow him off.
Ditto Pepsi. A couple Yahoos from Wisconsin say selling water in a bottle was their idea and Pepsi stole it. Does Pepsi take them - and all other frivolous/trolling/harassing suits - seriously at a cost of several thousand dollars each? or just ignore the idiocy?
well anyone can produce water bottles. it takes a special kind of industrial genius to put the water into the water bottles.
Not if I've been served with official docs telling me I'm being sued, and knowing that courts find for the party actually appearing and not "blowing them off", then yes, I would appear.
My point was that Pepsi does not have the right to decide what is legally correct and what is not. That is for the courts to decide.
This will cost Pepsi millions of $$$$, and quite frankly, I’m happy they get to pay. The slimeballs running that company deserve to get “bitch-slapped” twice a day in my opinion.
You go right ahead and try that course of action the next time someone serves you with legal papers. Be sure you keep detailed notes so you can share the outcome with the rest of the class.
Thanks,
L
please see my response #7
I think your memory is a bit off - by ‘acknowledging’, they meant ‘commenting in public’ on a lawsuit. Hence why the universal corporate answer to “Are you being sued?” is “We do not discuss any ongoing litigation.”
no, I have been told that in some cases it is best not to acknowledge a lawsuit by a lawyer.
“I was told acknowledging a lawsuit could be detrimental to your defence. I made no judgment about the case itself. “
I think you’ve got a good cause of action against your business law school. You HAVE to answer a law suit or you lose by default.
That’s part of the problem with our system. Walmart for instance, gets sued dozens of times every day - and they have to answer every one - or face a default judgement.
All that said, the reward amount is silly and sure to be reversed.
Basically, they are above the law. Why don’t you, “do the right thing,” by not acknowledging the next traffic ticket you get.
I’d love to see a citation on that.
Traffic tickets are dismissed everyday because the cop didn’t show in court that day.
Then you need to get your money back on that course. That can get you zinged for ridiculous amounts of money. (I have a family member who *is* an attorney.) You’re not supposed to acknowledge as in comment publicly, but you are supposed to respond in the court system lest you get a default judgement lodged against you.
You’re trying to be funny?
Based on what PepsiCo is claiming about not knowing of the suit, if that’s true, there may be a defect in the service on the company’s WI registered agent. And, typically, the courts will give a notice, “show of cause” when a party doesnt respond to a complaint or motion, especially one that would warrant a $1.26B judgment.
Something is definitely odd about this.
They will have to settle this, idiots.
I can see why you are not now a lawyer. Ignoring a suit and all the attendant notices from the court and the plaintiff is like really bad (see above judgment).
**”Based on what PepsiCo is claiming about not knowing of the suit, if that’s true, there may be a defect in the service on the company’s WI registered agent.”**
If you read the article (which is written by ignorant ‘journalists’ and reported on Yahoo), PepsiCo is using the famous ‘the dog ate my homework’ defense. Their legal agent WAS served but put it aside because she was too busy ‘preparing for a board meeting’. Try that excuse next time you get a ticket or get served with legal papers.
**”And, typically, the courts will give a notice, “show of cause” when a party doesnt respond to a complaint or motion, especially one that would warrant a $1.26B judgment.”**
Neither the court nor the plaintiffs could know before hand what the final judgement would be, unless they were prescient. So that wouldn’t enter into it.
If the plaintiffs can show that PepsiCo received legal service on their legal corporate registered agent, who then put the papers aside because she was ‘too busy’ with other things, PepsiCo SHOULD take it in the shorts. Tough luck.
Maybe the judge should ask them if the tables were turned and PepsiCo had been the one filing the suit and the other guys were ‘too busy’ or ‘too big’ to properly handle the papers, what would PepsiCo want done- ‘to be fair’. And if they say they’d just let it go and wouldn’t sic all of their several hundred lawyer firms to strangle the last little loophole or undotted i or uncrossed t, then they’re lying through their teeth. And SHOULD take it in the shorts.
I don’t necessarily take either side on this one, but IF the plaintiff’s award was based on something like the number of bottles of bottled water PepsiCo sold from the time of the claimed infringement, then I don’t doubt that the $1.26 billion is a fair figure. Look up some statistics on what PepsiCo sells and their income and revenue figure per product line. Worldwide.
The plaintiffs may have just lucked out and PepsiCo screwed up royally, but ‘the dog ate my homework’ or ‘we were too busy to answer the suit’ - WHICH PEPSICO’s LAWYERS ADMIT in their answers/motions to vacate - makes me feel like the judge should tell them ‘TOUGH LUCK’ and they should take it in the shorts this time. The next time, maybe they won’t be ‘too busy’ to answer a suit and lose a billion or so...
#8^D
If the registered agent was served properly and is a company that specializes in accepting service for corporate clients, seems that company is open to a counter suit. If the registered agent is an in-house employee, I’d guess his/her career with PepsiCo is pretty much history.
“Neither the court nor the plaintiffs could know before hand what the final judgement would be, unless they were prescient. So that wouldn’t enter into it.”
The judgment was probably the full amount claimed in the unanswered complaint, wouldn’t you think ? It’s not likely a judge would pull that amount out of thin air.
My guess is that the legion of PepsiCo lawyers will take the tack of telling the plaintiffs that they will appeal and drag out any payment until they are both long dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.