Daily Mail Has a Weird Exclusive About A Lawsuit Against Tom Girardi

RHOBH Erika Chanel lock


Disclaimer: This post will test the limits of my Imaginary Internet Law Degree.  So my long ranty version will probably be full of misstatements.  So before I even start I need to state this is my opinon, based on a minimal grasp of a handful of legal terms and should not be taken as fact.

Abstract: Daily Mail has published an exclusive on an alleged lawsuit where some member of a class action lawsuit against Lockheed (Full disclosure, I’m a Lockheed brat)  brought by Thomas Girardi that resulted in a $130 million dollar win for the plaintiff.  The man suing Girardi and his firm is alleging that Girardi misappropriated millions from the settlement.  On the surface, this is the dumbest case I have ever seen. It’s all some bullshit.

The Weird Shit:

    • There was only one page of the actual motion posted on the site.  Even stranger, the name of the attorney was cut off the portion shown. It appears the attorney is Peter R. Dion-Kindem of Dion-Kindem & Crockett. Why didn’t they include that? A bit of Googling shows it is a small firm in Woodland Hills.  The reason I bother to figure out who he was is because his motion is bizarre. At least to me.
    • It’s civil case, but the first thing that stuck out was two complaints of “Civil RICO” charges.  Mr. Dion-Kindem  even refers to the Federal Code that he claims Girardi has violated.  The thing is, he has listed both the “enterprise” and the “individuals as the defendants. In a civil RICO case, only individual defendants other than the enterprise are proper defendants. In other words you can’t sue the business and the individuals only the individuals.


Gif: By T.Kyle at RealityTVGIFS

Gif: By T.Kyle at RealityTVGIFS

  • How is “accounting” a charge? Or “Money Had and Received? Wouldn’t “accounting fraud cover all that?”
  • The dude cites a California penal code that covers larceny under his complaints. Penal codes cover criminal charges not civil complaints.
  • Also if the Girardi has committed all of the federal crimes, shouldn’t the civil complaint come after the criminal charges are resolved. Or at least after he has been charged?
  • “The suit is demanding the cut of the Lockheed settlement that was paid to Girardi and his firm for representing them be disgorged, compensatory and general damages, restitution and punitive damages in the amount of $50 million.”  This is one guy suing. Not the entire class of initial plaintiff in the Lockheed case.  He wants all the attorneys fees, damages, and $50 million?
  • If the Girardi got a 40% cut of the $130 million, isn’t that $52 million? So all of those piddling things they claim he paid were well below the 52 million mark so that was part of his fee?
  • Survivor is starting and I don’t care about this anymore.
  • The big (deceiving) headline is that he “swindled clients out of $130 million dollars. Yet in the case they say he took 40% of the gross when he said he would take 33% on some parts of the judgment.
  • I think this lawyer is in over his head.
  • I predict some sort of clarification or retraction to this story very soon.

Like I said, maybe it is just me, or maybe it is the writer of the article who doesn’t have an imaginary internet law degree, but this doesn’t make any sense to me.

I’m going to eat something and watch Survivor and try to gear up to recap Catfish at ten.


Filed under Entertainment News, Erika Jayne, Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, RHOBH, Thomas V. Girardi

21 responses to “Daily Mail Has a Weird Exclusive About A Lawsuit Against Tom Girardi

  1. therealdeb

    It seems very strange to me as well, not even going to pretend I am an internet lawyer. My attorney in my accident case took less than a quarter of my settlement for his fee because we ahve been friends for years, but he said the usual is a third plus fees. Wondering if that is how that got to 40%. Seems like Girardi has been a lawyer so long he wouldn’t screw something like this up.

  2. Housewivedout

    If your regal instincts are right as usual Girardi will eat them alive. Let’s stay tuned though…

  3. Lisaj

    That disclaimer was hilarious. I have a bit of knowledge on RICO both on a state and federal manner but was unaware there was civil RICO unless they are inventing new categories.
    I do know there’s a no statue of limitations in a federal RICO on charges that would normally run their course within state timelines other than murder which never expires. Sadly I learned this through a real attorney and not Internet law.

  4. BeetsWhy

    I can’t pretend to understand the legalese but I do speak Survivor–so many people have been hurt this season, it’s brutal–but go Tai and his Basketball love! Funny that Caleb and the Basketball guy can both be reduced to Tai’s “BB” loves ? I hope Caleb and the guy tonight get another shot. And Ponderosa starts tonight which I love as much as the show…they need to make it longer because it is so interesting.

    • RL

      I’m also a survivor fan, and this season is sooo good! I don’t watch big brother so I didn’t know Caleb from that show, but when they first showed the people I liked him immediately. I think the people who are taken out by medical usually get a second chance if they were charismatic enough to remember, so I hope to see him again. If I was there, I would have immediately been gunning for deb. She drives me crazy! Poor Joe being stuck with her from the beginning. TT, do you know if her being indicted for falsifying water test results is true? I read it but can’t find a reliable source. Thought you may do better

      • BeetsWhy

        Not sure about Deb and false water tests but I’m with you, I can’t stand her. I laughed hysterically when she claimed to have been a model! Would love to see those pics and I am assuming they are stills so we don’t have to listen to her.

  5. CoBe

    My guess would be that the fees charged were excessive.

    If he can prove that the fees were necessary, he is in the clear.

  6. CoBe

    (excessive fees might include things like paying oneself for use of his personal private jet)

  7. Rubbishhousewife

    I don’t know how much truth is in the story…..but any thinking person over here takes all Daily Mail stories with a pinch of salt. It’s widely known as the Daily Fail (among other things!)

  8. Z

    This lawsuit seems really off. A 40% contingency fee in a massive years-long class action is not outrageous; plus a court/judge needs to approve settlements and attorney fees before there is any payout to the plaintiffs.

    • tamaratattles

      I know. There is also the whole issue of ONE PERSON complaining about a class action suit twenty some years later. The whole thing seems ridiculous. And why not show the actual motion so we don’t have to rely on an entertainment writer to explain it to us.

      um…. said by the entertainment writer who wants to explain it to y’all.

      Something in the buttermilk ain’t clean.

  9. Roposhu

    40% fees sound right, especially when they have to litigate a case, which I’m assuming they did!

  10. Meg

    Back in 2008 a guy named Luis Gutierrez sued Girardi over this exact same issue. Gutierrez was also a plaintiff in the original Lockheed Martin suit and he too alleged that Girardi and his firm charged excessive fees and were guilty of diverting monies from the settlement fund. Gutierrez tried to join the other plaintiffs from the LM settlement and get the case certified as a class action, but a judge refused to certify the class in 2013. The judge in that case has sanctioned Girardi and his firm at least twice for failing to produce documents showing how the settlement monies were disbursed, most recently in January of 2016! (This case is in the California state court system which obviously moves at a glacial pace.)

    Now it appears that a second case has just been filed by a different guy, Paul Kranich, in federal district court. What I’m wondering is whether or not Girardi and his firm finally produced the settlement fund records in the past few weeks and some not quite proper disbursements came to light. Both cases, Gutierrez’s and Kranich’s, are being handled by the same law firm, which seems to specialize in attorney malpractice/misconduct cases.

    • tamaratattles

      Meg, that is an interesting bit of information that sheds a little light on the issues I am having with the statute of limitations. Civil Rico has a SOL of four years. HOWEVER, the four years begins when “the plaintiff discovers their injury.” So if there was some sort of documentation in January that Kranich feels shows his injury (for the first time) it may still fall under the specified SOL.

      I still find this whole thing ridiculous. I need one of my legal spies to email me a copy of the motion.

  11. Kimoe

    This ole boy just wants Girardi to pay him to go away and quit being that annoying fly buzzing around your head. This guy probably regularly slips on ‘wet’ surfaces in grocery stores.

  12. Margarett

    You are so cute, Tamara! That disclaimer is priceless!

Please Read the COMMENTING RULES before commenting.