Semi-OT: Drummond Being Sued for Libel

[gwhuskyfan]

Where are our Boneyard lawyers?

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nba/pistons/2015/06/09/andre-drummond-sued-tweet/28775661/

 

[CallMeBruce]

Where are our Boneyard lawyers?

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nba/pistons/2015/06/09/andre-drummond-sued-tweet/28775661/

I wouldn't be surprised if he settled, since they're asking for such a relatively small amount, but there's no way they'd be able to meet the libel standard in court. Too much he-said, she-said.

 

[nomar]

Yeah, I agree with Bruce. Plus, what he said was vague.

 

[8893]

A couple things: "seeks in excess of $25,000" is probably just a jurisdictional threshold for the court in which they filed. For example, in CT it's $15k for Superior Court. It is no indication of what the demand is.

Second, there's no question that he said what he said in an attempt to hurt the guy's business, so the plaintiff will have an easier time proving that aspect of his claim and loss. Tort law is state-specific and I don't know what the elements are in Michigan, but this almost always figures in one way or another. The threat by Drummond to ruin his business if he didn't get a refund, if true, could also be another tort.

Third, it's close, but I don't agree that "They have done things to my car that could have cost my life" is so vague as to not be able to be proven demonstrably false, especially if, as the plaintiff claims, Drummond was expressly warned that he would have to pay to have the airbags reprogrammed by a dealer after the work was done.

Finally, if you have money to pay for that custom work, you should just shut up and pay for the work. Now it's going to cost him a lot more.

 

[nomar]

I don't disagree with any of that, and I don't think there's much question that the claims would survive a motion to dismiss, but I'd be very surprised if whatever top-notch attorney Drummond retains would allow this to go to a verdict if the facts are actually on the plaintiff's side.

 

[CallMeBruce]

A couple things: "seeks in excess of $25,000" is probably just a jurisdictional threshold for the court in which they filed. For example, in CT it's $15k for Superior Court. It is no indication of what the demand is.

Second, there's no question that he said what he said in an attempt to hurt the guy's business, so the plaintiff will have an easier time proving that aspect of his claim and loss. Tort law is state-specific and I don't know what the elements are in Michigan, but this almost always figures in one way or another. The threat by Drummond to ruin his business if he didn't get a refund, if true, could also be another tort.

Third, it's close, but I don't agree that "They have done things to my car that could have cost my life" is so vague as to not be able to be proven demonstrably false, especially if, as the plaintiff claims, Drummond was expressly warned that he would have to pay to have the airbags reprogrammed by a dealer after the work was done.

Finally, if you have money to pay for that custom work, you should just shut up and pay for the work. Now it's going to cost him a lot more.

I don't disagree with you, but I doubt that Drummond agrees with their characterization of the conversations that occurred behind the scenes, and I'd be shocked if they had anything to substantiate them. I think it's just as likely that they didn't tell him about the airbags until after, and then he got angry and sent the tweet. Beyond that, even if he did, that still doesn't make what Drummond said technically untrue.

All of this is moot, as Drummond has enough money to cut the guy a check to get him to shut up, and that's almost certainly what he's going to do.

 

[TasteofUConn]

In my state, you have to prove damages - not easy to do. If their sales took a 50% cut after the tweet, that would be good evidence.
Of course, the best defense to a defamation claim is that the thing that was said/written is true.
Did they do things to his car that could have cost him his life?
IF they disabled the airbags when they did the seats and did not re-enable them, THEN his statement is true.
The burden of proof is the customizers. If I'm on the jury, and it's shown that they disabled the airbags (which should be simple), then the only way I find for the plaintiff is if they have something in writing that makes it clear that Drummond was told the air bags would be disabled after the job and that it was his responsibility to go to the dealer to get them re-enabled. In any event, it's unclear to me that the customizer should even be doing work that involved shutting of safety systems. Whether or not Drummond said he wanted a refund and threatened them has limited value - if you threaten somebody with revealing the truth, it doesn't morph into defamation.

Of course, in the big picture of life, this guy is making millions and this customizer is catering to high end consumers - why on earth would the customizer not simply include a quick drive to Mercedes in the price, and simply go get the thing re-enabled?

 

[UCweCONN]

A real precedent for the new age of communication. Be careful what you say. Be sure when you call someone a on this board that they really are one, or at least a jackass.....The $25k this guy will win won't replace the lost business.

 

[8893]

IIRC in CT you usually have to demand retraction and have them fail to retract in order to claim general damages beyond the actual provable economic loss (special damages); but I believe under certain circumstances (e.g., damage to business reputation) you can recover general damages beyond your proven special damages. You can also get punitive damages if you prove malice.

I'm not saying we know the truth from this, but the guy's claim sounds sufficient to withstand dispositive motions in CT and Drummond would be a fool to let this get to a jury imo, unless the plaintiff is a total sleaze and can be shown as one.

I like Andre, but this guy's story certainly sounds believable to me. I find it hard to believe that someone would do this level of work without warning about the airbags, and I find it pretty believable that a guy like Andre could have shrugged it off or not really paid attention at the time because he really wanted the seats done this way. I mean, what was in it for the guy to omit this fact? It's not like he's the one trying to get extra money to reprogram the air bags. He just wanted to be paid for the work he did, and which was requested of him.

And I don't think ordinary people like it when celebrities play the "Do-you-know-who-I-am, I-will-ruin-you" card.

 

[Brochacho]

What's the scoop, Chief?

 

[Kitaman]

In any event Drunmond will learn from this. Chalk it up to being young. Not knowing details he may want to settle (starting and hopefully ending with an apology and/or retraction), to eliminate distractions. God knows I'm an expert of 'a best lesson is a brought lesson'.

Unfortunately for his generation (and younger), the use of social media does not come with warnings.

 

[TasteofUConn]

And I don't think ordinary people like it when celebrities play the "Do-you-know-who-I-am, I-will-ruin-you" card.

Yeah, they don't like the "I'm going to sue this rich famous person to chisel some money out of them" card either.

I like Andre, but this guy's story certainly sounds believable to me.

If you're right, then that means that Andre is an extortionist scumbag. Why would you believe that? He's always been a great guy, and has never done anything remotely negative or objectionable.

I find it hard to believe that someone would do this level of work without warning about the airbags, and I find it pretty believable that a guy like Andre could have shrugged it off or not really paid attention at the time because he really wanted the seats done this way.

Okay. Let's say this is the case. We'll take that as a truth - guy told Andre that the redo would screw up the airbags. Why would Andre then demand a full refund? I mean, the implication is that Andre is such a scumbag that he would extort the guy for the full cost of the job (figure 5 grand or more) for a few hundred bucks in Mercedes mechanic time. You're pretty much saying that you believe that the likeliest story is that Andre is a scumbag.

I mean, what was in it for the guy to omit this fact? It's not like he's the one trying to get extra money to reprogram the air bags. He just wanted to be paid for the work he did, and which was requested of him.

Maybe the guy did not tell Andre. Maybe it was the 2015 model and he didn't realize that unplugging the modules would force a reset. Mabye his associated neglected to tell Andre. If any of those things are true, maybe Andre went to pick up his car and the air bag light was on and he came in and said, "WTF is that? And the guy said, "Oh yeah Andre, no biggie, just drive across town in your less-safe vehicle and get that fixed at the dealership," to which Andre responded, "no, and I'm not paying you because you didn't reveal this to me." Maybe Andre was not told and the light came on when he was driving home and scared the hell out of him, he called, and the guy said, "oh yeah . . . about that . . . "
But all we have from Andre right now is a tweet or two. I find it fascinating and frightening that you, presumably a lawyer, have already settled on the likeliest scenario being Andre is a and an extortionist w/out even hearing his response to the complaint.
My experience has been this - 100% of plaintiff clients will lie to you when they tell you what happened. You'll never get the whole truth. 100% of filed complaints have distortions, half truths, and outright lies in them.
I have faith in Andre, who always struck me as a good human being, and a happy go lucky guy. I'm going to wait to hear his response before I conclude what's most likely, but as a starting point, based on what I know about Andre, it seems more likely than not to me that the customizer is the sleazebag, Andre called him out on it, it hurt his business, and he found a scum attention whore attorney to file a suit. You know already the attorney is scum because he said that Drummond said that his client "almost killed him." That is a scum lawyer distortion - Drummond tweeted that they did things that "could have cost" his life. Only a scum lawyer would publicly utter such a despicable distortion.

 

[White Dwarf]

Doosh move by Andre

 

[TasteofUConn]

Doosh move by Andre

Again, wow, WTF? How does any UConn fan post this trash without even waiting to hear what Andre says in reply?
Very disappointed here.

 

[White Dwarf]

Be disappointed all you want. Airing your dirty laundry on twitter is a dooshie.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Only a scum lawyer would publicly utter such a despicable distortion.

You seem a bit out of your mind. The lawyer was a bit flowery with his words to the press, I suppose, but it's a bit odd that you're taking someone else to task for speculating and at the same time you're overheating about how "despicable" some "scum" lawyer is based on a couple words in a press release that, frankly, don't really raise any eyebrows.

But I guess that's why I don't do plaintiff's work.

 

[8893]

Yeah, they don't like the "I'm going to sue this rich famous person to chisel some money out of them" card either.

If you're right, then that means that Andre is an extortionist scumbag. Why would you believe that? He's always been a great guy, and has never done anything remotely negative or objectionable.

Okay. Let's say this is the case. We'll take that as a truth - guy told Andre that the redo would screw up the airbags. Why would Andre then demand a full refund? I mean, the implication is that Andre is such a scumbag that he would extort the guy for the full cost of the job (figure 5 grand or more) for a few hundred bucks in Mercedes mechanic time. You're pretty much saying that you believe that the likeliest story is that Andre is a scumbag.

Maybe the guy did not tell Andre. Maybe it was the 2015 model and he didn't realize that unplugging the modules would force a reset. Mabye his associated neglected to tell Andre. If any of those things are true, maybe Andre went to pick up his car and the air bag light was on and he came in and said, "WTF is that? And the guy said, "Oh yeah Andre, no biggie, just drive across town in your less-safe vehicle and get that fixed at the dealership," to which Andre responded, "no, and I'm not paying you because you didn't reveal this to me." Maybe Andre was not told and the light came on when he was driving home and scared the hell out of him, he called, and the guy said, "oh yeah . . . about that . . . "
But all we have from Andre right now is a tweet or two. I find it fascinating and frightening that you, presumably a lawyer, have already settled on the likeliest scenario being Andre is a and an extortionist w/out even hearing his response to the complaint.
My experience has been this - 100% of plaintiff clients will lie to you when they tell you what happened. You'll never get the whole truth. 100% of filed complaints have distortions, half truths, and outright lies in them.
I have faith in Andre, who always struck me as a good human being, and a happy go lucky guy. I'm going to wait to hear his response before I conclude what's most likely, but as a starting point, based on what I know about Andre, it seems more likely than not to me that the customizer is the sleazebag, Andre called him out on it, it hurt his business, and he found a scum attention whore attorney to file a suit. You know already the attorney is scum because he said that Drummond said that his client "almost killed him." That is a scum lawyer distortion - Drummond tweeted that they did things that "could have cost" his life. Only a scum lawyer would publicly utter such a despicable distortion.

Okay, you've got lawyer issues. You're in good company. No worries, I get it.

I never said I settled on anything. I'm saying that the guy presents a claim that doesn't get dismissed in Connecticut. It is not implausible. I'm not judging.

Maybe Andre never sent that tweet at all. And/or maybe he was never told this about the airbag issue. I'm just saying that I don't see the profit motive for the guy to withhold that information.

And Andre doesn't need to be a or an extortionist in order to lose his temper and react emotionally, and then think better of it, if that's what he did. That would just make him human.

I agree with you on one thing: You'll never get the whole truth. About anything. From anyone. Perception is reality.

 

[UCONNfan1]

the whole thing seems a little bit crazy, but if nothing else, I bet Andre learns to not post every thought on Twitter.

 

[UConniki]

I own a couple of mobil electronics stores. Any time you unplug almost anything in a newer car your going to trip any number of diagnostic indicaters on the dash, check engine light, air bag ect. the air bags are still functional( there fine). Any shop doing this kind of work usually has a code reader(diagnostic scanner/meter) which is used to reset the light. Auto Zone will loan one to anyone with a deposit. They cost a couple of hundred dollars, either you buy one or you have to pay a car dealer up to a couple of hundred dollars for each occurrence ( MAJOR RIPOFF)!! A Benz dealer probably more.

 

[David 76]

Maybe we don't know enough to come any verdict yet.
I did find UConniki's post informative.

 

[SouthBayHusky]

As a California attorney (and a devoted boneyard junkie) I'll throw in my two cents. This case looks weak. I don't practice in this area of the law, but if my memory serves me correct there's a few things to be considered. First, whatever statements were exchanged between Andre and the shop (including statements that might provide greater context to the subsequent Andre tweet) are not defamatory, since they were not communicated to anyone else, or what law calls "published" to a 3rd party. Therefore, you're left with only a vague tweet expressing Andre's opinion that the shop sucks, and that this guy could've killed him. That statement taken alone (without the context provided by the shop in the news article) could be viewed more likely hyperbole, exaggeration, or opinion which does not usually constitute defamation. Now, if Andre added the facts about the shop not putting in the airbags and concealing this from him and therefore making his car dangerous (assuming that's even true), then there might be defamation, unless of course Andre can prove his statements were factually true since truth is always a defense to defamation. We're only hearing one side of the story being told by the shop and not Andre's version. Therefore, it's quite possible that even if the tweet were held to be defamatory, Andre can still prove his statement was truthful in that the shop failed to notify him of the need to reinstall the airbags, therefore exposing him to danger/death. Also, given the nominal $25,000 damage claim, it usually (although not always) reflects some acknowledgment of the weaknesses in the case, and that the person suing may be looking for a quick hit, since the cost of defense would far exceed the damages sought. In practical terms, this guy has arguably "defamed" himself by even bringing the case and drawing more unfavorable attention to himself. I would not have advised bringing a lawsuit. I might shoot back tweet stating my side and leaving it there. Anyway, that's just my two cent opinion, based on the limited information I can glean. Of course, proper disclosure compels me to state that I may be a little biased.

 

[SouthBayHusky]

Correction: someone pointed out it said in excess of $25,000. And if that's true the poster is correct that's usually stated to meet the jurisdictional limits of the court where they're filing the complaint. So that would change my opinion very slightly.

 

[61cygni]

I wonder what's worse for a business that has professional athletes as customers, one negative tweet from a professional athlete, or suing that person.

 

[8893]

Tortious Interference was the other tort I was referencing above. I see it is the second count:

 

[8893]

Plaintiff's lawyer has had some issues with the truth in the past:

http://www.adbmich.org/coveo/opinions/2010-02-12-08o-52.pdf