CA Supreme Court Rules: Defendants should pay if a public benefit results (sic!)

LA Times ^ | 12/3/04 | Maura Dolan

[SierraWasp]

"I know,I know, he could be better...so could Bush."

Don't worry. I ain'ta gonna start in on you, of all people, cause I like you! You are absolutely correct on all counts! I'm especially embittered toward Arnold as I fought many of the same people that goaded him into that pissant CONservancy for the past decade and it just GAULS me that he fell for it!!!

I may never get over that one...

Yes, Dubya irritates me over not defending our borders, no end!!! (plus one or two other things)

[editor-surveyor]

"Lawyers for advocacy groups and others who file cases that achieve a public benefit should be rewarded by requiring defendants to pay their legal fees, a sharply divided California Supreme Court ruled Thursday."

Didn't we just beat this crap down at the ballot box last election? Prop 64 (I think) requires that a person has to have actually been damaged to bring suit.

[SierraWasp]

It's not the same thing. Sixty four was more about routine suits against merchants and businesses. This is specifically about the three causes I bolded in reply #1.

You know how "legal" distinctions are...

[editor-surveyor]

I can now see what is really happening here. If the defendants have to pay on out of court settlements, they will be more likely to fight it out in court. This will of course result in much greater payments to lawyers in general.

[SierraWasp]

"If the defendants have to pay on out of court settlements, they will be more likely to fight it out in court."

Not really... Think about it. If an environmental law firm sued you for $7.5 million, claiming you were a "polluter" of some kind, and then offered to settle for a quarter million... Would you risk going to court where at best you'd have a 50/50 chance of LOSING? Your lawyer would surely advise against it in the strongest possible terms!

So the lawyers negotiate some more and get it down to $100 large and you reluctantly agree and take a second on your house. Then the court awards atty fees of another $50 large and you CANNOT challenge that! It's ordered by the court and you'll have to go back to the mortgage company, AGAIN!!!

All this for a completely erroneous allegation against you by some activist who saw some of you hillside slide into a little seasonal tributary on your property of a major riverine stream, causing pollution described in some vague environmental law as "turbidity!"

See how easy this makes it for you to get totally screwed without any "lovin?"