Gwyneth Paltrow Ski Trial

[RShea]

Dang, he should’ve hired Edgar.

Attachment 453804

That just means that if they settle or go to trial and get a win they take a pretty good percentage of the award. They do not take usually questionable cases either that is high speculation of a loss.

If they lose and you get nothing, then they do not get anything in fees other than maybe able to bill for a few expenses. But they also would not be paying the other sides lawyers fees which in this case would be GP's attorneys fees. That is to hopefully stop stupid frivolous law suits hopefully.

[J. Barron DeJong]

Apparently she went over and whispered something to him. Hopefully she is not letting him out of the legal fees.

I bet combined this A hole cost himself a million bucks.

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/stat...sR_NcRK2VkCfkg

[BmillsSkier]

I disagree, and cite the pages long discussion on 50+ celebrity hotties.

This thread delivered, and I won't stand here while you say otherwise..

I only hope Gwen or at least someone in her camp had a chance to read it.

Maybe much like the Upstates thread, this becomes the go-to internet authority on the subject matter.

I can see it now. US Weekly columnists checking here to try and understand what the Skier’s Code is, to find out if edge to edge carpet means “Extreme Skiing”, and how many instructors Deer Valley assigns each guest.

[Viva]

I hit it carpet to edge and rode it switch to base.

Sounds like a good porn scenario.

[Core Shot]

I’m so sad the trial is over.

This thread has been fun.


Maybe we need a goop and jade egg thread.

[Bunion 2020]

She should send him a candle as a parting gift.

[AK47bp]

I’m so sad the trial is over.

This thread has been fun.


Maybe we need a goop and jade egg thread.

The relevant and fleeting nature of these discussions is what makes them great.

However, we could always use a 50+ hotties and dumb asses on the slopes thread. Fits this demographic.

[liv2ski]

She should send him a candle as a parting gift.

Thanks, I laughed

[Danno]

The relevant and fleeting nature of these discussions is what makes them great.

as fleeting as the non-structural facade of a covered bridge.

[AK47bp]

as fleeting as the non-structural facade of a covered bridge.

If this thread was started in 1826 and we just left it up with comments turned off, maintained it, paid for server space and administration, and periodically it was hacked and destroyed and we then spent thousands of TGR dollars every few years to bring it back because it looks pretty…………then yes, I agree.

[TNKen]

Google search for the code section. Apparently the jury was given the charge to determine whether the action was brought in bad faith.

Although I struck out on my earlier prediction of everyone goes home empty handed, doubtful the attorney's fee finding will remain.

Section 825 Attorney fees -- Award where action or defense in bad faith -- Exceptions. (Effective 5/4/2022)

Effective 5/4/2022
78B-5-825. Attorney fees -- Award where action or defense in bad faith -- Exceptions.
(1) In civil actions, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing party if the court determines that the action or defense to the action was without merit and not brought or asserted in good faith, except under Subsection (2).
(2) The court, in the court's discretion, may award no fees or limited fees against a party under Subsection (1), but only if the court:
(a) finds the party has filed an affidavit of indigency under Section 78A-2-302 in the action before the court; or
(b) the court enters in the record the reason for not awarding fees under the provisions of Subsection (1).

[Core Shot]

Google search for the code section. Apparently the jury was given the charge to determine whether the action was brought in bad faith.

Although I struck out on my earlier prediction of everyone goes home empty handed, doubtful the attorney's fee finding will remain.

Section 825 Attorney fees -- Award where action or defense in bad faith -- Exceptions. (Effective 5/4/2022)

Effective 5/4/2022
78B-5-825. Attorney fees -- Award where action or defense in bad faith -- Exceptions.
(1) In civil actions, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing party if the court determines that the action or defense to the action was without merit and not brought or asserted in good faith, except under Subsection (2).
(2) The court, in the court's discretion, may award no fees or limited fees against a party under Subsection (1), but only if the court:
(a) finds the party has filed an affidavit of indigency under Section 78A-2-302 in the action before the court; or
(b) the court enters in the record the reason for not awarding fees under the provisions of Subsection (1).

Fucking lawyerly buzzkill

Who cares. The goop candle is more important.

PS. Has there ever been a goop candlelight vigil?

If not. We need to go fund one.

[fomofo]

She should send him a candle as a parting gift.

And an autographed egg. Used, natch.

Then maybe he’ll sue her for false advertising, and we can do this all over again!

[dcpnz]

If the court can’t or won’t award some/most/all of her legal expenses then it just reinforces the incentives for idiots like Sanderson to abuse the legal system and tie up resources unnecessarily on frivolous civil suits

[Danno]

If the court can’t or won’t award some/most/all of her legal expenses then it just reinforces the incentives for idiots like Sanderson to abuse the legal system and tie up resources unnecessarily on frivolous civil suits

Not necessarily. First off, we don't know if the jury/court feels like the suit was frivolous. Second, an additional check on frivolous suits is Sanderson's own legal costs. Either he paid them out of pocket, which is a negative incentive to frivolous suits, or they did it on contingency, which creates the law firm's incentive to properly vet a potential suit for its viability. While they certainly don't expect every suit to be a winner, taking on a frivolous one is pointless for them.

[SB]

Which one goes where?

And is it a hard boiled egg?

[AK47bp]

Which one goes where?

And is it a hard boiled egg?

Bend over and I’ll show ya

[Cono Este]

Not necessarily. First off, we don't know if the jury/court feels like the suit was frivolous. Second, an additional check on frivolous suits is Sanderson's own legal costs. Either he paid them out of pocket, which is a negative incentive to frivolous suits, or they did it on contingency, which creates the law firm's incentive to properly vet a potential suit for its viability. While they certainly don't expect every suit to be a winner, taking on a frivolous one is pointless for them.

Some people have the cash just to sue for fun. I’ve known many of them.

It should be a loser pays system.

I know civil and criminal court are two different things, but if you’ve ever been a victim of a crime, or known someone, this kind of shit pisses people off.

[Danno]

if someone has the cash to "sue for fun," I doubt a "loser pays" system will change their behavior significantly.

[Mustonen]

Right. It just makes court and lawsuits a tool/toy for rich people.

[oftpiste]

Can we get back to freeing Winona now?

you mean Wynona?

[old goat]

Before we forget about Gwyneth, she stole an otherwise forgettable movie--The Pallbearer. Might have been her first decent part, or one of the first. I fell in love with her then but the feeling has long since worn off.

[booner]

Wait...has Aniston been mentioned yet in the 50+ manifesto? If so, carry on. If not...meow.

[lowsparkco]

She clearly hired the better attorneys. How that dude lost while having the only eye witness is beyond me. His counsel failed him not having their own computer model. Seems like that swung the jury. And Gwyneths sweet sweet ozone ass smell.

[yeahman]

Seemed pretty obvious to me that it wasn't her fault. That fucking guy was lying his ass off.