3 ms·

I wonder if theres any danger of walmart being declared a vexatious litigant, since this amount is clearly nonsense. If their concern is damage from public opin

I wonder if theres any danger of walmart being declared a vexatious litigant, since this amount is clearly nonsense. If their concern is damage from public opinion, aren't they required to quantify the damages? I don't think the court appreciates being used only as a tool for public opinion. As is probably obvious to those with any legal knowledge, IANAL

egdod 7y ago
That's not what a vexatious litigant is. Hundreds of thousands of dollars is a real loss.
- kryogen1c 7y ago
  Is it? Wal-Mart's revenue is 500billion. 500 thosand is .0001%. If you make 200k, thats like suing someone over 20 bucks
  - egdod 7y ago
    Totally, like why does Wal-Mart even bother selling items that cost less than a million dollars?
    - kryogen1c 7y ago
      This lawsuit could drag on for years and cost a significant portion of the amount being sued over because the value is so small. Hardly an equivalence.
      - function_seven 7y ago
        The alternative is that Wal-Mart establishes a policy of allowing vendors to damage them for 6-figure amounts with little consequence. That’s probably not the right strategy. Kind of like Newegg spending more defending patent lawsuits than settling with the trolls. (Do they still do that?)
      - egdod 7y ago
        Tons of lawsuits are brought for under 100k. This argument applies to all of them. The fact that Wal-Mart is a big company doesn't change anything.
        MertsA 7y ago
        Especially Walmart, which routinely prosecutes shoplifters even over trivial amounts to curb theft.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    $20 bucks, and the fact that he sold you something as safe, that can burn down your business and kill people...
  - vageli 7y ago
    > Is it? Wal-Mart's revenue is 500billion. 500 thosand is .0001%. If you make 200k, thats like suing someone over 20 bucks So we just accept violations of the law because of some arbitrary scale you made up? Can you cite any laws that grant amnesty for thefts _under_ a certain dollar amount?
porknubbins 7y ago
I don’t know what the standards are for that but pretty much zero chance. First their shit burned up on your roof, thats a pretty solid prima facie reason to sue IMO, even if you later lose. Second 100k+ is not nothing, federal jurisdiction only requires 75k and to my knowledge there isn’t any kind of test of the money of the plaintiff as to whether the amount matters to them.
coldtea 7y ago
>I wonder if theres any danger of walmart being declared a vexatious litigant, since this amount is clearly nonsense. What amount sounds like nonsense? I'd sue someone if they stole $100 from me, or sold me $100 of bad goods and wont do anything about it, even if I make 200K! And what part of "fires at stores" (regardless of amount) sounds comforting, legal, and acceptable?

egdod 7y ago

That's not what a vexatious litigant is. Hundreds of thousands of dollars is a real loss.

kryogen1c 7y ago
Is it? Wal-Mart's revenue is 500billion. 500 thosand is .0001%. If you make 200k, thats like suing someone over 20 bucks
- egdod 7y ago
  Totally, like why does Wal-Mart even bother selling items that cost less than a million dollars?
  - kryogen1c 7y ago
    This lawsuit could drag on for years and cost a significant portion of the amount being sued over because the value is so small. Hardly an equivalence.
    - function_seven 7y ago
      The alternative is that Wal-Mart establishes a policy of allowing vendors to damage them for 6-figure amounts with little consequence. That’s probably not the right strategy. Kind of like Newegg spending more defending patent lawsuits than settling with the trolls. (Do they still do that?)
    - egdod 7y ago
      Tons of lawsuits are brought for under 100k. This argument applies to all of them. The fact that Wal-Mart is a big company doesn't change anything.
      - MertsA 7y ago
        Especially Walmart, which routinely prosecutes shoplifters even over trivial amounts to curb theft.
- coldtea 7y ago
  $20 bucks, and the fact that he sold you something as safe, that can burn down your business and kill people...
- vageli 7y ago
  > Is it? Wal-Mart's revenue is 500billion. 500 thosand is .0001%. If you make 200k, thats like suing someone over 20 bucks So we just accept violations of the law because of some arbitrary scale you made up? Can you cite any laws that grant amnesty for thefts _under_ a certain dollar amount?

porknubbins 7y ago

I don’t know what the standards are for that but pretty much zero chance. First their shit burned up on your roof, thats a pretty solid prima facie reason to sue IMO, even if you later lose. Second 100k+ is not nothing, federal jurisdiction only requires 75k and to my knowledge there isn’t any kind of test of the money of the plaintiff as to whether the amount matters to them.

coldtea 7y ago

>I wonder if theres any danger of walmart being declared a vexatious litigant, since this amount is clearly nonsense. What amount sounds like nonsense? I'd sue someone if they stole $100 from me, or sold me $100 of bad goods and wont do anything about it, even if I make 200K! And what part of "fires at stores" (regardless of amount) sounds comforting, legal, and acceptable?