So, we saw Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice. Oh, boy. What a mess! Aren’t superhero movies supposed to be, well, fun? All we can say is that we really, really miss Christopher Reeve. Above, you can find the cover of Superman/Batman #14, published not so long ago in 2005, but long enough ago as to where we knew not of Man of Steel or this new Dawn of Justice film. Alas.

Our own Nick Farr was recently linked at Overlawyered, which saw fit to quote his piece on the recent Starbucks “fill to the brim” litigation. See here.

Rest in peace, Garry Shandling. In fact, our tweet of the week is from our editor, Jim Dedman, who offered this memory upon learning of Shandling’s death.

While studying screenwriting at @UTAustin in the 1990’s, my first spec script was an episode of “The Larry Sanders Show.” #GarryShandling

— Jim Dedman (@JimDedman) March 24, 2016

As you know, we here at Abnormal Use oftentimes link to other outlets who have published our bloggers (or attorneys at our firm who may not be bloggers at Abnormal Use). Recently, our own John Cuttino – the current president-elect of DRI – saw the publication of his article, “Change Is Here, And More Is Coming” in March 2016 edition of For The Defense. Here’s the first few paragraphs of the piece:

“We are shaping the world faster than we can change ourselves, and we are applying to the present the habits of the past,” Winston Churchill.

Those wise words are particularly appropriate in 2016. Our profession is undeniably in the midst of great change. Some of those changes have happened, some are in process, and some have not yet begun. Some are very visible to us, and others are presently out of our sight. Humans that we are, it is likely that each of us is engaged in some form of denial of the changes in our profession. I’m betting some of us are like the cigarette smoker who, despite the evidence, believes (hopes) that the laws of nature will be suspended and that he or she will have no adverse health effects from smoking. Perhaps we think the changes won’t affect us because we live in a smaller city or state, or we have loyal clients, or it’ll be a while longer before the change impacts us directly, or we’ll be retired before major change affects our practice. Or maybe we know it’s coming, but we are just too busy to think much about it right now.

Regardless of what we think, change is here. And more is coming. I’m no soothsayer about this profession, but I’ve made it a point to read and learn everything I can about the near term future of the practice of law. As a result, I’d like to share with you some observations and predictions about changes you will see in your working lifetime.

To read the full article, which addresses everything from alternate legal service providers, virtual law practice, and law school education,, see here.

As you know, we here at Abnormal Use are fans of popular culture, legally themed films in particularly. Twenty five years on this month, on March 15, 1991, the film Class Action saw its release. You may remember it. As we noted a few years back, the film “chronicles a products liability suit involving an allegedly defective station wagon, which when struck from the rear when the left turn signal is operating, bursts into flames.” The gimmick is that a Big Law defense lawyer, played by Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, finds herself on the opposite side of the case as her father, a plaintiff’s attorney played by Gene Hackman. It is a fun, but dated, film.

Five years ago this month, back in 2010, we published an interview with producer Robert W. Cort and writer-producers Carolyn Shelby and Christopher Ames. In light of the film’s 25th anniversary, we wanted to direct your attention back to that interview, which you can find by clicking here.

Our favorite scoop from the interview was this bit of Hollywood gossip:

DEDMAN: How did Gene Hackman and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio become involved with the project?

CORT: . . . Gene was always kind of in our mind. We wanted a very powerful character who played against the Henry Fonda of that character . . . We wanted someone who had been toughened and was tough because that’s who those people are; they’re not saints. They’re rough people even if their passions will have been shaded over into obsessiveness. And if you look at a lot of Hackman’s roles, going back to Popeye [Doyle] and The Conversation, you see a character in pursuit of what he believes is right [who] will go to any length and ignore everything else, including, in this particular case, his daughter.

. . . I had seen Mystic Pizza, and there was an enormous amount of heat about this young actress and it was, of course, Julia Roberts. We had given it to a few other major actresses and we’d been passed on . . . The character had a lot of gravitas and huge intelligence and a fair piece of alienation even though she was working very much within the system. . . . Michael Apted and I and Scott and Chris and Carolyn met with Julia, kind of saw what she was like, and she desperately wanted to do the movie. And we really believed in her. I was friendly with the people at Disney and knew that they had not released Pretty Woman yet, but that they were through the roof on the movie. They thought that she was going to be the biggest movie star around and she desperately wanted to do it, we wanted her, Joe Roth, who was the head of Fox, just didn’t believe in her, and he just kept fighting us and fighting us and he said “Well, all right maybe.” And we thought, “Oh my God, we’re going to get her.” And then he called me one day, and he said, “Forget Julia Roberts.” He said, “I have just seen the biggest movie star of her generation.” And he had just come from a screening of James Cameron’s The Abyss, in which Mary Elizabeth starred. Mary Elizabeth had been in, at that time, The Color of Money, in which she was great. She’s a terrific actress, absolutely a terrific actress. We couldn’t see the movie because Cameron wouldn’t show us. We never got to see it. Joe was sure it was going to be titanic. Obviously, it turned out not to be titanic. He said, “You’ve got to go to her, and if she doesn’t do it, all right you can use Julia Roberts.” So, we made the offer, she was represented by a man named Sam Cohn, who is a legendary agent in New York, and he gave it to her, and she delayed, and she hadn’t read it. I kept calling, and I said, “Sam, we need an answer ,”and he said, “Yeah, I’ll get you an answer.” I called Roth, and I said, “Look, we’re just getting jerked around, let us go with Julia.” He said, “All right, I’m calling Sam. If she doesn’t commit to it by noon on Friday, noon L.A. time, 3:00 in the afternoon in New York, go with Julia Roberts.” I absolutely kid you not, at 11:55, the phone rang in my office in L.A. and it was Sam Cohn saying “All right, Mary Elizabeth will do the movie.” So, by five minutes, we missed the part being played by Julia Roberts. And I think that it wasn’t just, in my opinion, the fact that Julia Roberts became this enormous star, and we would have been following Pretty Woman, [adding] incalculable value to that. But I think that Mary Elizabeth is a very dramatic actress, and she always went for the very dramatic and the very hard. And Julia, by nature of who she was and what she brought to it, always had that vulnerable, softer quality. And I think it would have been, opposite Hackman . . . it would have taken the movie, perhaps from a commercial standpoint, to another dimension. And the great story was that she got so mad that she went to see Joe Roth and said, “You didn’t believe in me,” and she and Joe Roth became unbelievably good friends. Basically, I didn’t talk to her again until she did Runaway Bride for us.

How about that?

In conjunction with our interview, we also ran a full review of Class Action, which you can find by clicking here.

As our South Carolina attorney readers know, the Supreme Court of South Carolina has been slowly unveiling a state court electronic filing pilot program in counties throughout the state. In a March 10 order, the Supreme Court expanded the program to Greenville County.

The order is effective as to Greenville County as of yesterday, March 22, 2016.

You can read the full order here.

On the heels of the announcement that Subway settled its 11-inch footlong sub suit, a new class action has been filed alleging that a national chain’s products don’t quite measure up. This time, it is Starbucks in the cross-hairs. According to a report from Top Class Actions, Plaintiffs Siera Strumlauf and Benjamin Robles have filed suit against the coffee giant in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Starbucks intentionally underfills its lattes by 25 percent. Starbucks’ baristas are allegedly instructed to make lattes by filling a pitcher with steamed milk up to a “fill to” line, pour shots of espresso into a serving cup, pour the steamed milk into the serving cup, top the latte with milk foam and leave 1/4 inch of free space at the top. The plaintiffs, however, allege that the “fill to” lines don’t correspond to the 12, 16, and 20 ounce cup sizes – an allegedly conscious decision made by Starbucks to save on the cost of milk.

Regardless of the merits of the short-pouring allegations, one particular allegation in the suit gave us pause. The plaintiffs allege that “Starbucks refuses to fill any hot beverage to the brim of the cup. Thus, under no circumstances will Starbucks ever serve a Grande Latte that actually meets the fluid ounces represented on the menu.” If we read that correctly, it sounds like the plaintiffs are actually suggesting that hot coffee should be filled to the brim of the cup to ensure that they are getting the full bang for their buck. We are guessing that had Starbucks done so, there would be a whole other class of plaintiffs clamoring for some massive hot coffee burn litigation. Maybe the plaintiffs should demand Starbucks use bigger cups and let the not filling to the brim policy stand for those who value safety.

It is too early to tell whether this suit will follow in the footsteps of the Subway litigation. Regardless of the size of any potential monetary settlement, we doubt it will be too life changing for any of the plaintiffs. If approved, the class will be open to all persons in the United States who have purchased a Starbucks latte. In other words, all 318 million U.S. citizens can be class members and should expect a free cup of coffee.

Bad news: They are making another Indiana Jones film. With Harrison Ford. To be released in 2019. Sigh. What an awful, awful idea (proven, of course, by the tone and tenor of 2008’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). Because we’re feeling a bit nostalgic, we direct your attention above to the cover of Indiana Jones #1, published way, way back in 1984. Those were the days, weren’t they?

So, we now have a SCOTUS nominee, Merrick Garland, to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. You may have read that somewhere.

Rest in peace, Larry Drake, the great character actor from “L.A. Law.”

Core rule of trial advocacy: the jury never thinks you are as funny as you think you are.

— Popehat (@Popehat) March 17, 2016

Back in 2014, actress Lindsay Lohan filed suit against Take Two Interactive, the makers of the popular Grand Theft Auto V video game, alleging that the game improperly used her likeness. As a refresher, Grand Theft Auto features a character named “Lacey Jones” who Lohan alleges is her doppelganger in more ways than one. In the game, the character eludes paparazzi, references the Lohan movie Mean Girls, mentions the West Hollywood hotel where Lohan once lived, and allegedly looks like Lohan. Such similarities Lohan alleges are a violation of her rights under New York civil rights laws. Take-Two moved to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim, calling the suit “legally meritless” and requesting sanctions due to the obvious publicity grab.

So would this matter turn out just like the actress’s prior unsuccessful lawsuits against Pitbull and E-Trade? Well, no. Not yet, anyway. Last week, New York Supreme Court judge Joan Kennedy denied Take-Two’s motion to dismiss and ordered the company to file an answer to the complaint. Now, we get to look forward to TMZ reports on the discovery process some two years after the suit was filed.

We would like to congratulate Ms. Lohan and her legal team for making it past the treacherous pleading stage, click this link https://www.iwantcheats.net to learn about the entire case. But, before Hollywood makes too big a deal out of this, let’s take notice of what this order means. Construing the allegations as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to her, Lohan sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for violation of the civil rights law. The Court has not issued a finding that any of the allegations have merit, only that the matter is deserving of being further litigated. With Lohan’s legal track record, we suppose that may be reason to celebrate.

If this case was the publicity ploy Take-Two suggested, it doesn’t appear to be too successful. We have played Grand Theft Auto many times over the last couple years, but we completely forgot about the lawsuit. We have also come across Lacey Jones plenty of times during the course of our gaming and, surprisingly, not once did we think about Lohan. Jones is way too entertaining.

Recently, the Michigan Uber driver accused of murdering six people during a shooting rampage filed a lawsuit against Uber alleging that the transportation company is responsible for his incarceration. Was the headline “Accused Murderer Files Two-Page, Handwritten Lawsuit Alleging that Uber Ruined His Life”? For some media outlets, yes, for others, no. Various media outlets reported the story under headlines such as “Michigan driver charged with murder files $10 million lawsuit against Uber.” When Erin Andrews’ lawyers filed an amended complaint specifying that Andrews sought $75 million in damages, some media outlets reported the story under headlines such as “DWTS’ Erin Andrews files 75 Million Dollar Nashville lawsuit.” Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker has been similarly reported as the “$100 million Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker lawsuit.” In our opinion, the goal is to suggest that these cases will ultimately be worth this much money in order to illicit eye rolls and comments regarding jackpot justice. The end result is that negative stereotypes regarding lawyers and the legal system are unfairly reinforced. We would ask our readers to ignore these misleading headlines and to see them for what they really are.

What is are these dollar figures based on? They are based upon the “ad damnum clause” in the Plaintiff’s complaint, which in some states, is used to specify an amount of money sought by the Plaintiff. In most states, this number is meaningless. In some states, Plaintiffs must specify that the amount is greater or less than $75,000.00, because if damages exceed $75,000.00, the amount in controversy requirement is met for federal court jurisdiction (if the parties on opposite sides of the lawsuit are completely diverse). In some states, Plaintiffs are not allowed to specify an amount of damages. In states in which a specific amount may be pleaded in the complaint, Plaintiffs occasionally include an exorbitant amount in order to generate publicity for the lawsuit. The bottom line, though, is that a lawsuit is worth what a jury awards (or the judge in the case of a bench trial), not a penny more, not a penny less, and further, the proportion of the jury’s (or judge’s) award that can actually be collected.

In the Erin Andrews case, the “$75 million lawsuit” tag turned out to be misleading. The Plaintiff’s attorney did not ask the jury for a specific amount of money in closing, and the jury ultimately awarded $55 million. Of the $55 million, the hotel owner defendant was required to pay $26 million when its share of the verdict was reduced proportionate to its percentage of fault. The $28 million portion of the verdict that the jury assigned to the individual defendant (who is currently serving time in prison) might as well be forgotten, as that will never be collected. With the uncertainty of what will happen on appeal, and potentially applicable insurance policy limits that are well below the amount awarded, the case will likely settle for significantly less than the jury awarded. As to the Uber driver, there is no cause of action for ruining someone’s life by not inviting them to company parties. That lawsuit will likely be dismissed almost immediately, despite the request for $10 million on the handwritten complaint.

The takeaway: We urge our readers to look past these misleading headlines, and we urge the media to be more accurate when reporting on civil lawsuits. The reality is that Plaintiffs can ask for whatever they want, and the Plaintiff’s desired outcome is certainly something to consider in civil lawsuits. However, Defendants have the ability to hire lawyers who are able to chip away at the Plaintiff’s case during discovery, and to present the facts favorable to the Defendant at trial. And good defense lawyers can significantly reduce the amount actually awarded or otherwise paid, occasionally to zero.

Let’s not describe lawsuits by their ad damnum clauses.

Five years ago today, on March 15, 2011, we here at Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A. opened our office in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was our second office counting our headquarters in Greenville, South Carolina, where our firm has exisited for sixty years. Now, all these years later, we have four offices in two states (having opened a third office in Columbia, South Carolina and an office in Charleston, South Carolina).  The Charlotte office began in a temporary space with a single lawyer and paralegal, and now, a five years later, it hosts eight lawyers. How about that?

Above, you’ll find a photograph from a past birthday party celebrating the Charlotte office.

We wish a happy birthday to our Charlotte office and congratulate them on all of their hard work over the past year.

(You can read our original 2011 press release on the Charlotte office here).

When you are most vulnerable is when you need to feel the most safe. The bathroom is no exception, I assume, it’s the reason that the doors lock. A person will spend, on average, 14 days a year in the bathroom, according to this ABC News article from 2001. (Seems a little high, but whatever). So imagine the trauma Angela Wright felt when the toilet in her home, on which she was sitting, exploded in November of 2014. Apparently, the sewer lines in her neighborhood were being cleaned with high pressure hoses when the explosion occurred. Not only was Ms. Wright sent flying into the air, covered in whatever, but she has an estimated $14,000 in damage to her bathroom, which apparently hasn’t been repaired. Ms. Wright has since filed a lawsuit against the Baltimore mayor, two city council members, and two city contractors.

I can only imagine that whenever she sits on a toilet, probably for the rest of her life, she has to wonder if it will explode when she flushes. I will say that from the photograph, it does not appear that anyone was sitting on the toilet or that she would have been violently ejected since the mess doesn’t seem to hit the toilet seat lid, but it’s disgusting regardless.