But you should see the photos
Remember the old joke about the grandmother proudly wheeling her infant grandchild in the carriage? She stops in front of a friend to show the child off, and when the friend offers the requisite oohs and ahhs on how adorable the kid is, the grandma answers, “That’s nothing—you should see the pictures!”
Well, that story’s nothing compared to this lawsuit:
…[O]ne groom, disappointed with his wedding photos, decided to sue. The photographers had missed the last dance and the bouquet toss, the groom, Todd J. Remis of Manhattan, said.
But what is striking, said the studio that took the pictures, is that Mr. Remis’s wedding took place in 2003 and he waited six years to sue. And not only has Mr. Remis demanded to be repaid the $4,100 cost of the photography, he also wants $48,000 to recreate the entire wedding and fly the principals to New York so the celebration can be re-shot by another photographer.
Re-enacting the wedding may pose a particular challenge, the studio pointed out, because the couple divorced and the bride is believed to have moved back to her native Latvia.
Got that, folks? Gives new meaning to the term “frivolous lawsuit.”
There doesn’t seem to be any chance Remis will be awarded the money for the re-enactment. The judge, however, is allowing “the case to proceed to determine whether there was indeed a breach of contract.” He may get a smallish sum, but IMHO it will be a great deal more than he deserves.
Perhaps he should be seen in court. Have plenty of photographers there; have the judge kick him (literally) out of the courtroom; and put the story on every news show in the land.
Four years is the statute of limitations on a breach of contract in California and Texas. It might help New York to revise it SOL on written breach of contract.
The suit is not frivolous as the to cause of action. The prayer for damages other than the cost of the service is doubtful, but even then, has some basis in the equitable remedy of “specific performance,” which asserts when the lawful remedy of money damages is not adequate, then the Plaintiff should get what he contracted for.
The word “deserves” here must be applied as judiciously as any other word. Mr. Remis, presumably, filed a proper claim asserting all the elements necessary to allege a breach of contract. It’s fairly apparent, even at this state, to anticipate some liability against the photographer from the allegations that several important moments of the wedding were not photographed.
Some civil actions (class actions, especially) are “bifurcated” into two phases: first phase is the proof of liability; second phase is the calculation of damages. Mr. Remis has a good case on liability and damages. His case is not frivolous in the legal sense. His request for the equitable remedy is not even frivolous because there is common law to support it and the facts, until determined by the bench or a jury, are disputed.
What prevents most of these cases from consuming the court is that no attorney would spend much time seeking damages he knows a court will not award.
This made me think of the Cheers episode when Cliff and Norm were hired to video an event and Cliff forgot to put film in the camera.
All i can say is “wow”. That’s all I can say. 🙂
You know where it looks the real crime is here: Charging $50,000 for a defense that hasn’t even got to trial yet. $50,000 for what: An answer that was probably a demurrer which challenged the stupid causes of action like “emotional stress;” defending at a deposition; some other discovery work; I’d say an honest attorney would charge $10,000 for about at most 30 hours of work. Easy money too because it’s all straightforward stuff.
Realistically, the guy may have a real claim that is worth a couple of thousand, but how much suffering is he actually enduring compared to how much he caused. What a shmuck. It’s not like he doesn’t have any pictures. Further, it could be possible he demanded the $48,000 to get the case out of small claims where he could use an attorney and do exactly what has occurred. Punish through litigation.
Kangaroo…