Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I fought Equifax's lawyers in court and won: Part 2

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 73 posts

Re: I fought Equifax's lawyers in court and won: Part 2

#11

Post by Meekro »

plorkyeran wrote: post #6
Meekro wrote: post #5

I'm as glad as anyone else to see Equifax getting what's due to them, but is anyone else bothered by the surreal quality to this story? It sounds like the rules and procedures being applied were vastly different than what Equifax's highly paid lawyer expected. Is their $1000-an-hour lawyer just incompetent, or is the pro tem judge here allowed to make up the rules as she goes along?

Hiring a $1000/hour lawyer for your small claims case is like hiring an airplane mechanic to work on your car. There's a pretty good chance that this is the first time Equifax's lawyer had ever been involved in a small claims case.

Any lawyer worth his salt would know that each court has its own particular rules of procedure. If your highly-paid lawyer comes into bankruptcy court and starts trying to invoke procedural rules from juvenile court, that would be pretty convincing evidence of incompetence.

So did this lawyer take on a small claims case without realizing that they should probably read up on small claims rules? Or maybe the judge didn't know the rules either, and just sided with the sympathetic plaintiff?

Re: I fought Equifax's lawyers in court and won: Part 2

#12

Post by anarazel »

danielvf wrote: post #4
iloveluce wrote: post #3

Here is the HN discussion to Part 1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16217241 Pretty surprised how much Equifax spent trying to win this case. I'm sure they're doing it to dissuade others from suing them as well but after reading this I really want to sue myself. I wonder if they'll appeal the verdict again.

The second judgement is final. No appeal.

IANAL.

It's not inconceivable they could make further trouble nevertheless: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/1...

The relevant part appears to be:

"The Eloby court's dictum suggests that section 117.12 was designed to preclude only appeal, motions for new trial, and motions to vacate judgment. The court's initial issuance of the alternative writ further suggests that section 117.12 was not read as curtailing the ability of appellate courts to review important issues arising in small claim actions.

Following the lead of the Eloby court, we read section 117.12 as not foreclosing appellate court review by extraordinary writ. Since statewide precedents can only be created by appellate courts, jurisdiction to decide appropriate small claims court issues must be retained by appellate courts in order to secure uniformity in the operations of the small claims courts and uniform interpretation of the statutes governing them. We do not believe that the Legislature intended to make all actions of the superior courts in such cases totally unreviewable or reviewable only on certification. (Code Civ.Proc., s 911; Cal.Rules of Court, rule 61(b).) "

This seems a bit weird.

Re: I fought Equifax's lawyers in court and won: Part 2

#13

Post by anarazel »

Meekro wrote: post #5

I'm as glad as anyone else to see Equifax getting what's due to them, but is anyone else bothered by the surreal quality to this story? It sounds like the rules and procedures being applied were vastly different than what Equifax's highly paid lawyer expected. Is their $1000-an-hour lawyer just incompetent, or is the pro tem judge here allowed to make up the rules as she goes along?

> It sounds like the rules and procedures being applied were vastly different than what Equifax's highly paid lawyer expected. Is their $1000-an-hour lawyer just incompetent, or is the pro tem judge here allowed to make up the rules as she goes along?

It might also just be an attempt at psychological warfare. For an amateur to be confronted with stuff like this got to be very stressful. Therefore reducing likelihood of the plaintiff making a good case.

But it might just end up pissing off the judge.

Re: I fought Equifax's lawyers in court and won: Part 2

#16

Post by moonka »

helipad wrote: post #7
Meekro wrote: post #5

I'm as glad as anyone else to see Equifax getting what's due to them, but is anyone else bothered by the surreal quality to this story? It sounds like the rules and procedures being applied were vastly different than what Equifax's highly paid lawyer expected. Is their $1000-an-hour lawyer just incompetent, or is the pro tem judge here allowed to make up the rules as she goes along?

Is it possible the pro-tem judge wouldn't have known the intricacies of small claims court? Perhaps the attorney thought they could befuddle both the author and the judge.

>Equifax’s attorney made sure the judge pro tem knew that she wasn’t wanted there.

>“You’ll follow the rules and procedures, right?” he demanded, before signing the stipulation.

>The judge, a lady with all white hair, nodded mildly. “Yes, I follow all the rules of evidence.”

Yea, my guess is that the attorney figured he could bully through and scare either the author or the judge.

Re: I fought Equifax's lawyers in court and won: Part 2

#19

Post by onli »

Meekro wrote: post #11
plorkyeran wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hiring a $1000/hour lawyer for your small claims case is like hiring an airplane mechanic to work on your car. There's a pretty good chance that this is the first time Equifax's lawyer had ever been involved in a small claims case.

Any lawyer worth his salt would know that each court has its own particular rules of procedure. If your highly-paid lawyer comes into bankruptcy court and starts trying to invoke procedural rules from juvenile court, that would be pretty convincing evidence of incompetence. So did this lawyer take on a small claims case without realizing that they should probably read up on small claims rules? Or maybe the judge didn…

Since the lawyer did not seem to be aware of basic procedures (wanting to have things stricken from the record despite there not being a record) you can assume he just did not read up on the rules.
Post reply on HN