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.
- 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.