Slashdot Log In
iPod Lawsuit Lawyers Sue Their Own Plaintiff?
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed May 24, 2006 04:32 PM
from the saving-face dept.
from the saving-face dept.
Guinnessy writes "Jason Tomczak, who is mentioned as the lead to the iPod Nano 'Scratch' Class Action law suit
filed against Apple computers has published an open letter to the mac community. In it he claims that he never asked to be represented by David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, the lawyers in the case. He spoke to them once by phone about his scratched iPod case and asked that his name not be used. In fact, the two firms agree there is no signed document proving that Tomczak asked for representation. However, because Tomczak wants nothing to do with the case, David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro are currently suing him to try and stop him from pulling out. They also say Tomczak is legally liable for their fees if they lose the court case against Apple. Needless to say Tomczak isn't happy with the arrangement, and is likely to still lose thousands of dollars under the best scenario."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
next up (Score:4, Funny)
Re:next up (Score:5, Informative)
The Truth Behind the iPod Nano "Scratch" Class Action Suit
May 22, 2006
Dear Mac Community:
Hello! My name is Jason Tomczak. Many people around the world rightly know me as a mild-mannered techie, photographer, writer, and nature-lover. I am an Apple fan and have been fortunate enough to use Mac computers and other Apple products since about 1985.
On October 19, 2005, my life changed due to the unauthorized conduct of others. From that date forward, countless numbers of people around the world were driven to hate me and slander my name, sometimes using foul and threatening language.
Since October 19, 2005, my name has been infamously tied to the iPod Nano "Scratch" Class Action law suit filed against Apple.
What You Don't Know About The Nano Suit
The truth is that I never sought out nor did I ever hire David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro to represent me in any case, much less the iPod Nano Class Action suit.
The iPod Nano Class Action law suit was initiated by David P. Meyer & Associates Co. LPA of Columbus, Ohio and their representative firm, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP of Seattle, Washington and filed on October 19, 2005.
David P. Meyer & Associates contacted me, soliciting my opinions and comments about the scratching of my iPod Nano after finding Nano-related blog posts I'd written on my own website, on The Unofficial Apple Weblog and on The MacCast. They informed me that they had received an "overwhelming number of complaints" about the Nano and that they wanted my "insight into the problem". Yes, I answered their communication and told them that I had problems with my iPod Nano, however I clearly told them that they should do their own professional and technological study of the iPod Nano.
I emphasized that I did not have any access to any specific data about the materials used in making the iPod Nano. David P. Meyer & Associates used my personal comments and opinions as the basis of the iPod Nano suit. To my knowledge, there was no actual technical study done on the iPod Nano before the Class Action suit was filed.
Additionally, I told David P. Meyer & Associates that I wanted to remain private, and that my wish for privacy, among other considerations, would preclude me from getting involved in the case.
No Documentation
At no time did David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro ever receive any attorney-client agreement form from me. On their own time and based on their own schedules and plans, they prepared the paperwork and filed the iPod Nano Class Action suit in California using my name as Lead Plaintiff, however this was done without my knowledge or consent.
The Filing and The Call
The senior partner of David P. Meyer & Associates and one of his representatives called me during the afternoon of October 21, 2005 to urgently request my signature on an attorney-client agreement - two days after the Class Action suit was filed; two days after they began their action against Apple; two days after the press had begun running the story. They then warned me that my family, friends, clients and I should expect to hear from the media and others interested in the iPod Nano Class Action suit.
During that phone call to me, David P. Meyer and his associate blamed the faulty Nano filing on Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.
Spin Cycle
During that week and the following months, my name was posted in relation to the iPod Nano Class Action suit on websites all over the world, even in foreign publications like Russia's "Pravda" newspaper, the Enquirer, Stuff Magazine, Popular Mechanics, CNN, BusinessWeek, MTV, VH1, etc.
Google results for my name skyrocketed. I began getting hate mail from people upset about the iPod Nano suit. I had to take my website down and remove legitimate references to my name on numerous web services. My fiancee and I were afraid to go outside in our own home town for fear of recognition a
Parent
Odd choice ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:next up (Score:5, Interesting)
They would not remove his name from the lawsuit even though they had no proof he wanted to be involved and he explicity stated he want to NOT be involved.
They did not comply so he was forced to file a lawsuit to clear his name. Instead of settling, the offending lawfirm counter-sued using Anti-Slapp laws. Now the guy will be in for a boatload of money because some scum bag lawfirm decided to use a few quotes of his from a blog and his name inappropriately for a class action lawsuit.
The headline says they are suing him because that is the news. This guy should be suing the lawfirm, but them suing him? Now that's news.
Parent
Re:next up (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, there is always a race to the courthouse with class-action suits: the firm that gets listed as lead counsel stands to get a big share of any settlement. Whereas most of the class ends up getting things like coupons, the counsel gets a big chunk of change. Being the first to file, especially if they have a good representative plaintiff, will be considered favorably by the court when picking a lead counsel.
I don't know much about either firm, but in this environment, it wouldn't surprise me to find a few i's and t's that weren't crossed. I suspect that they don't often get a lead plaintiff who says "Not interested."
Parent
Re:next up (Score:5, Informative)
First, he is suing the plaintiffs' firms, not the other way around. His letter actually states this, but it's buried. That's the reason that he was deposed by malpractice defense firms. That's also standard procedure. If you sue someone, they may depose you and any law firm will hire a malpractice defense firm to do it. Depositions are invasive, but if you're subjected to one you'll have your own attorney to object to questions beyond their permissible scope. He doesn't mention it, but that attorney was sitting right beside him.
A firm does not need a written agreement to use a person as a lead plaintiff, but they won't do it without knowing *everything* about you. You have to want to be part of the case and want it *badly* for a class-action plaintiffs' firm to put you in that position. For two firms to have done so means that this person submitted to all sorts of pre-screening, interviews, and reference-checking. Notwithstanding the tactics he's now using, a class-action suit that loses its lead plaintiffs (or even whose lead plaintiffs don't hold up to scrutiny by the defense) surely will lose the case. Given how much money goes into these, it's simply not a chance that firms would take. Not getting a written agreement from him was a big gaffe, but don't think for a second that that means he didn't agree to do this. Without question, he did.
If he never wanted to be a part of this suit? Why didn't he go public immediately? The plaintiffs' firms *can't* sue him under those circumstances, so he could tell his story with impunity.
A "demurrer" is a motion to dismiss, nothing more. He makes it sound like a counter-suit, but it isn't. He sued them; they moved to dismiss. Under those circumstances who wouldn't? And of course they want to block discovery during the pendency of their motion to dismiss. Discovery is expensive and damaging to a law firm. It's entirely proper for them to "pause" discovery until a judge rules on their motion to dismiss..
I could go on, but you get the idea. The man is lying through his teeth.
Parent
Re:next up (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you want to talk about the proper methods by which to balance the processor consumption versus memory bandwidth consumption of index generation algorithms using doubly linked list sectorization on Opteron processors, I can't think of what you could question me about for six hours that wouldn't intrude on my sense of personal-space.
As a lawyer you might find these things routine, but to the average citizen six hours of questioning by people with hostile intentions has to be a bit unnerving.
The statement, "...but they won't do it without knowing *everything* about you" seems self-disproving. That sounds like an assumption by a competent person about how these things should be handled. If they'd questioned him enough to know close to *everything* about him they would have chosen another lead plaintiff. The fact (if it is a fact) that they couldn't produce a single signed document from Mr. Tomczak to defend their (mis)use of his identity would seem to me to lend credence to the argument of that their research was cursory at best. I don't know what the minimum number of whiners have to be to start a class action lawsuit, but I'd guess it's several, and I find it hard to believe Mr. NoPaperwork was the best choice for a competent legal firm, when suing Apple.
"Discovery is expensive and damaging to a law firm." When you stated this you were making a good point about the reason for a motion to dismiss. But I empathize with the fact that it's proportionally more expensive for Mr. Tomczak. How much disposable income does he have to put toward this. He'd have to be pretty rich to just laugh off his likely expenditures thus far.
That the lawfirm he is fighting is just doing what is most likely to make them money seems obvious. I wouldn't vilify them for knowing how the game is played.
That said, it was their lack of proper research that caused this mess, and had they done this properly they could have (rightfully in my opinion) chosen a non-adversarial approach to solving this problem. For X thousand dollars (where X is a single digit number) I'll bet they could have purchased a statement from Mr. Tomczak that stated he would not be able to participate for "health reasons." This would seem a great excuse to amend their complaint. Real lawyers would come up with dozens of even better alternatives, that would have allowed them to continue to pursue the juicing of Apple. Instead, they acted as unmitigated jerks and ruined their grab for the golden ring.
The shortsightedness of their behavior is to me the most convincing argument against the assertion that Mr. Tomczak is being deceitful. I would counter that he views his legal predicament through a glass darkly.
Parent
That is quite a "unique" viewpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm fully willing to accept there are two sides to the story and take both sides with a pinch of salt.
That said, it's incredible to suggest that there is "simply not a chance" that the legal firm decided to take on a high profile case guaranteed to generate an enormous amount of free publicity and do try and do it off the back of "some guy they found on the internet" (who they can later try arm twist into staying on board by trying to make him feel like he's "locked in" and has agreed to it all).
There is every chance the legal firm did not behave appropriately, realised they made a mistake when they couldn't arm twist the "plaintiff" into going along for the ride and are now engaged in damage limitation.
I think you'll find there are plenty of highly unscrupulous law firms who take on cases of dubious merit and cajole people into taking up legal action in order to drum up business for the legal firm (even when the plaintiff's are unsure of the merits of the case and are liable to regret it later - it's not like these guys are family solicitors and can be counted on to look after your best interests). If your in any doubt of their prevalence, sitting down in front of the TV and watching the adverts should resolve it.
To be even more explicit, the plaintiff is asserting the legal firm called him after finding his details on the internet. That ought to raise all sort of warning flags and brings the legal firms credibility in to further disrepute (it is possible that's a lie, but it would be a ridiculous thing to lie about as it's going to be reasonably easy to prove or disprove either way from call logs from the operator).
Not getting a written agreement from him was a big gaffe, but don't think for a second that that means he didn't agree to do this. Without question, he did.
No, that's exactly the question, that's what is being disputed.
In a case like this, the failure to get written agreement is in itself highly suspicious. It's not as if they are an amateur legal firm. Given the case, I can't imagine this being an 'oversight' by any credible professional organisation.
I can't even signup for a library card without signing for it, let alone take out a high profile legal case against a large corporation. You don't start issuing press statements that your taking on Apple Computer over a case involving iPod's after looking up the details of some guy on the internet and getting his verbal agreement over the phone.
I think it's far more likely the legal firm knew exactly what they were doing and were counting on the pliability of the plaintiff, and that the approach appears to have backfired (free publicity notwithstanding).
Parent
Re:next up (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:next up (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, fortunately for everyone whether you believe him or not is irrelevant. I am pretty sure that every state requires that attorneys obtain an agreement in writing with a client. I know for a fact that California requires it. Either they have a written agreement or not. There is no middle ground. His intentions are completely irrelevant. The signed agreement is the only relevant issue of fact. If they cannot provide proof of one, then there is no dispute of fact.
The sad point here is that they are just trying to bleed him of financial resources using legal tactics. I think they are playing a dangerous game here for two reasons. First, a judge is very likely to sanction them really heavily and make them pay all costs if he can get it that far. Second, the California Bar will very likely discipline some of these attorneys if he files a complaint.
IAAL
Parent
Re:next up (Score:4, Interesting)
All the lawyers have to do is present the signed agreement and his case is dismissed. If they don't allow anyone to look for such an agreement, or they refuse to produce one, it makes his case harder to dismiss. It sounds like they want to prevent his team from looking for such an agreement, which they likely would do if it didn't exist.
Parent
Sing Sing? (Score:3, Funny)
Steve Berman... (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's say that the following is completely speculative and happens in fantasy-land. (I don't wan't to get sued!)
One day in autumn 2005, Bill Gates is playing golf with his lawyer friend Steve Berman.
-Steve: Did you see the new iPod nano?
-Bill: Yeah yeah I did...nice little player but you know my position about iPods... We had big plans with the RIAA to impose WMA as the audio standard, by this year we were supposed to drop Red-Book audio from all CD sold in the US, replacing the content with DRMed WMA. You can imagine how the iPod and iTMS screws up our plans badly.
-Steve: I guess many big-players are pissed-off by the iPod success.
-Bill: Yes they are, but the iPod seems unstoppable... Even with dozens of our ghost-writers publishing negative articles about the iPod, it keeps dominating the market.
-Steve: I've read that the iPod nano scratches very easily, and that some of the early batches had screens that spontaneously break.
-Bill: I know about it, our ghost-writers are already trying to spread the word... but we need something bigger, we don't have a choice.
-Steve: There's a guy that built a website to complain about his iPod nano screen problems and he's very vocal about it.
-Bill: What if your law firm gave him a hand to help him build a class-action suit against Apple?
-Steve: Yeah we could do that, but what if he doesn't want to be part of the lawsuit?
-Bill: I'm %100 sure your great firm will be able to "convince" him... And by the way, you owe me that, remember that "thing" I sent you last month?
-Steve: Oh right, that "thing" was very enjoyable... I guess I owe you that one...Let me see what I can do!
We have a word for this: (Score:5, Funny)
This poor guy. I hope things turn out okay for him. Conversely, I hope the lawyers are eaten alive by a cauldron full of insane, demonic, snow-weasels. Or another group of lawyers. Whichever is more painful.
Re:We have a word for this: (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:We have a word for this: (Score:5, Funny)
Why bring Canadian lawyers into it?
KFG
Parent
What I do not understand... (Score:4, Interesting)
If indeed he did not file the case that would seem the best revenge, but them out of the loop (and the winnings).
I would say the lack of any signed document stating the case is truly in his behalf almost certainly indicates his story is the correct one, for what lawyer would even pick up a pad of paper without a full and binding contract signed in triplicate?
Re:What I do not understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
-Rick
Re:What I do not understand... (Score:5, Informative)
Jason Tomczak is NOT the lead plantiff. He was listed as lead-plantiff when the complaint was originally filed on October 19th, 2005. ( documentation here: http://www.ifoapplestore.com/blog/nano_lawsuit.pdf [ifoapplestore.com] )
But the lawyers amended their lawsuit 6 days later (October 25th, 2005) naming James M. Wimmer as the lead-plantiff ( documentation: http://www.hbsslaw.com/files/1ST_Amd_Complaint%20( v2)1130368932535.pdf [hbsslaw.com] )
But by the time Jason was dropped, the damage was done. He is referenced all over the 'net as a sue-happy whiner.
The lawyers are NOT suing Jason to stop him from dropping out. In fact, as best I can tell from Jason's letter, he is suing them for all the problems they caused him.
BTW: Its significant to note that this is the same law firm suing Apple over hearing-loss issues related to iPods.
Parent
this is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
no wonder the USA legal system is so fucked if you can do no wrong, tell the truth, and still by charged money that is a significant part of your wages. whereas companies can provably break laws, be found guilty, and still be charged a meaningless fraction of their profit.
It's not about "right" (Score:3, Informative)
It's about who has the better lawyers.
Why you dirty commie! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Why you dirty commie! (Score:3, Funny)
It's called "sarcasm" (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:this is why... (Score:3, Interesting)
No!
I firmly believe that a guranteed loser-pays system is worse than what we have now. What we have now encourages frivilous, unfounded, and stupid lawsuits, but having a loser-pays system makes it nearly impossible to file well-founded but risky lawsuits against big companies. You think that the story in Erin Brokovitch could have happened with a loser-pays system? No way in hell. You wouldn't find someone willing to take that risk.
Re:this is why... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, that does mean the winner can lose out overall. That is what keeps the system relatively sane and provides a good incentive to BOTH sides to settle out of court.
Not fair on winners, who haven't done anything wrong and therefore shouldn't lose anything? Maybe. Is it as retarded as US "justice"? No way. Can you buy a favourable outcome if you stump up enough cash, even if you're in the wrong? Definitely not. Personally I prefer our system; it's not flawless by any means but overall I think it does a reasonable job.
Parent
Fanboy danger (Score:3, Funny)
I'm scared of many things, but raging hordes of Nano fanboys fanatics? I think not.
Seriously though, this guy played it all wrong. It sounds like if he pulls out, the case is sunk, so he should've been like "What's my cut?". If the case is won, those lawyers would made a stack, I'm pretty certain a deal could have been struck.
Re:Fanboy danger (Score:3)
In other words, he'd end up selling everything he owns and spending the rest of his life in debt if Apple wins the lawsuit.
Anyone else asked the lawyers for clarification? (Score:4, Interesting)
info@dmlaws.com
rcarey@hbsslaw.com
steve@hbsslaw.com
info@hbsslaw.com
mark@firmani.com
Unfortunately none of them has responded so I can't clarify the truth of the allegations. Perhaps some other people should email them asking for clarification as well.
URGENT - CAREFUL NOW (Score:5, Insightful)
You have every reason to want your voice heard, regarding this case. I am outraged at what appears to be happening. However - go through the proper channels to have your say. Contacting these attorneys *at home* is not appropriate.
Complaining to the attorneys through professional channels is okay, and filing a complaint with the proper legal governing bodies is even better. But if these attorneys receive harassing messages at home, this may be interpreted as a threatining action. Because of the pending lawsuit, this may come up in court and make the "little guy" look bad.
I am not taking the lawyers' side by any means. But think before you speak, so you don't add to the fella's pile of trouble.
Parent
Profit (Score:5, Funny)
2. Sue plaintiff.
3. Profit
Contact the ABA (Score:5, Informative)
Contact the STATE Bar (was Re:Contact the ABA) (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Either Or ... (Score:4, Interesting)
If this fella *is* telling the truth, he simply needs to report this incident, along with all evidence of correspondence and communication, to the Bar Assn. An egregious misuse of the law such as this could get the attorneys disbarred.
Re:Either Or ... (Score:5, Informative)
OSBA article [ohiobar.org] explaining how to file a complaint against an Ohio attorney.
Parent
Contact info for David P. Meyer & Associates (Score:5, Informative)
Phone numbers
866.827.6537 Toll Free
614.224.6000 Local
614.224.6066 Fax
Address
The Arena District
401 North Front Street
Suite 350
Columbus, Ohio 43215
If you wait outside their offices, you might even be able to say "Hi" to them and have a conversation about the case.
What's that? You don't know what they look like? Sure you do.
David P. Meyer, principal [dmlaws.com]
Marnie C. Lambert, Associate Attorney [dmlaws.com] Possible home address [google.ca] Possible home phone: (614) 469-1400
Patrick G. Warner, Associate Attorney [dmlaws.com]
Shelly J. Coffman, consumer claims investigator [dmlaws.com]
No he wont lose anything (Score:4, Informative)
Honestly, not everything requires a lawyer, particularly a trivially idiotic matter like this. They cannot prove he agreed to be represented by him, the matter will barely win the laugh test of the judge.
Hell, my traffic lawyer had me sign a piece of paper and cut him a nominal fee saying he was representing me, that was in regards to a minor traffic accident (his fee was all of $150).
Re:IANAL... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:IANAL... (Score:3, Funny)
NOT TRUE. If it were, lot of men would be married to lot of women.
Re:IANAL... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/contract/verbal
Re:IANAL... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:IANAL... (Score:3)
Pic of said lawyer (Score:3, Funny)
You might be right but.... (Score:3, Interesting)
The class action suite is severly diluted if the highest profile person is not party
Re:Full text of Open Letter (Score:5, Informative)
RULE 7.3 DIRECT CONTACT WITH PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS
(a) A lawyer shall not directly or through a third person solicit
professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has
no family or prior professional relationship in person or by telephone,
when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's
pecuniary gain.
(b) A lawyer shall not send a written communication to a prospective
client for the purpose of obtaining professional employment if the person
has made known to the lawyer a desire not to receive communications from
the lawyer.
RULE 1.2 SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
(f) A lawyer shall not willfully purport to act as a lawyer for
any person without the authority of that person.
(CAPCHA: 'Sexual')
Parent
Re:The only solution that makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
I certainly don't see how there'd be conflict with defending a murder suspect. It's important to force the state to prove their case, lest innocent people be wrongly accused and punished for things they didn't do.
Parent
It's not about making the case (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the deal:
They didn't care about actually getting the necessary documents signed before filing.
They need this guy to keep quiet so they can pursue the lawsuit.
They want to keep him tied up in legal proceedings until the Apple case has been resolved, and they're using a number of dirty tricks to do so.
If they win, he won;t get a dime anyway, as it will all be eaten up in "legal fees."
If they lose the suit with Apple, they'll then go after this poor guy with everything they have to either get him to cough up some obscene legal fees or declare bankruptcy. After all, if they lose, SOMEONE has to suffer for it.
It's not about proving anything about if he's really their client. It's all about delaying him so they can continue going after Apple.
Parent
Re:It's not about making the case (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know. Seems like he'd make an ideal witness for Apple. He's provably not biased toward them (the whole episode started because he had a problem with their products), yet clearly doesn't want this to procede.
To be honest, I think Apple should make peace with him by introducing him to the happy side of their legal department. Shysters against little guy? No problem. Shysters against Apple's legal unit? Not so easy. It'd be relatively cheap for Apple and great PR.
Parent
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Making hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in "legal fees" from a case that will eventually get all the people in the class 5 free songs off iTunes.
Typical class action stuff. The lawyers win, we get screwed.
Parent
IANAL (Score:4, Interesting)
I would say he possibly has a libel case on his hands, with him being the beneficiary.
Assuming he did not enter into an enforceable verbal (or written) contract, then he is potentially gonna make a buck off of those boneheads. And that's assuming they did more than merely quote him.
If he is so certain his case is so great, and the legal fees are getting him down, then he should find a firm willing to work on contengency.
Better, yet, drop the lawsuit and simply cooperate with the weasily lawyers who did this to him.
Then, at trial simply testify for Apple instead. That would get the lawyers good!
Parent