Lawsuit

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sued AmeriDebt, Inc., DebtWorks, Inc., and Andris Pukke for misrepresentations and deceptive omissions under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), 15 U.S.C. § 41-58. It has also sued AmeriDebt for violations of the disclosure requirements under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6801(a) et seq. The FTC alleges that Defendants, operating in common as a non-profit credit counseling service, defrauded consumers with debt problems by offering to fashion debt repayment plans for them, then deducting for their own benefit payments the consumers made under the plans without disclosing those deductions to the consumers. The FTC has also sued Pamela Pukke as Relief Defendant to recover such proceeds of these transactions as have been received by her husband, Andris Pukke, and transferred to her.   The FTC has filed a motion pursuant to Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), requesting that the Court enter a preliminary injunction appointing a receiver, freezing the assets of Andris Pukke and DebtWorks, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), *561 561requiring an accounting from them, and directing that Andris Pukke repatriate assets he has transferred offshore. 1The Court held oral argument on the motion and took it under advisement. On April 20, 2005 the Court entered an Order granting the Motion. This Opinion sets forth the reasons for the Court’s decision.   II.   The background of this litigation is set forth in FTC. v. AmeriDebt, 343 F.Supp.2d 451 (D.Md.2004). In brief, the FTC alleges that Defendants (except for Pamela Pukke) operated as a common enterprise to deceive consumers into paying for high-cost debt management plans in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). After extensive discovery, the FTC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment Against DebtWorks and Andris Pukke, requesting that they be found liable, and that they be permanently enjoined and ordered to make restitution of some $172 million to injured consumers. That motion is currently pending. Meanwhile, the FTC alleges that since 2002, when Defendants became aware of the investigation that led to this lawsuit, Andris Pukke in particular has been actively dissipating Defendants’ assets by making transfers to close friends and relatives, to trusts (both domestic and offshore), and by living a lavish lifestyle. 2 For example, since 2003 Pukke and DebtWorks have transferred over $2.8 million to individuals who never worked for DebtWorks, including Pukke’s father in Latvia, his girlfriend Angela Chittenden, and his wife Pamela, as well as at least $1.6 million to a company controlled by Pukke, Infinity Resources Group. In addition, less than two months after the FTC served AmeriDebt and DebtWorks with Civil Investigative Demands in May and August 2002, Pukke attempted to establish domestic and offshore trusts which the FTC asserts were part of an effort to put his assets out of reach of the FTC and other creditors. 3 Pukke, however, appears to retain substantial control over three primary trusts: The Pukke 2002 Family Irrevocable Trust (located in Delaware with estimated assets *562 562of over $8.8 million), The P Family Trust (established under the laws of the Caribbean island of Nevis with estimated assets of $9 million), and The P II Family Trust (established under the laws of the Cook Islands with estimated assets of $1.3 million). Lastly, the FTC catalogs numerous expenditures Pukke has made out of DebtWorks’ funds to maintain personal residences, yachts and vacations unrelated to DebtWorks’ business. The FTC asserts that if this behavior is allowed to continue, there is a substantial risk that it will not be able to satisfy any final order granting equitable monetary relief that may be entered in this case.   III.   Defendants oppose the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on the grounds that: (a) the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested relief; (b) the FTC has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits; (c) the FTC has failed to show that the balance of equities favors the entry of a preliminary injunction; and (d) any order granting the requested relief would violate the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, and improperly interfere with the priority of federal tax liens. 4   A. Jurisdiction   Pursuant to Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, “in proper cases the Commission may seek, and after proper proof, the court may issue a permanent injunction.” 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). The authority to grant such relief includes the power to grant any ancillary relief necessary to accomplish complete justice, including ordering equitable relief for consumer redress through the repayment of money, restitution, rescission, or disgorgement of unjust enrichment. FTC v. Febre, 128 F.3d 530, 534 (7th Cir.1997). To insure that any final relief is complete and meaningful, the court may also order any necessary temporary or preliminary relief, such as an asset freeze. FTC v. Gem Merch. Corp., 87 F.3d 466, 469 (11th Cir.1996). Exercise of this broad equitable authority, which is vested in the court’s sound discretion, is particularly appropriate where the public interest is at stake. Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 398, 66 S.Ct. 1086, 90 L.Ed. 1332 (1946) (citing Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329, 64 S.Ct. 587, 88 L.Ed. 754(1944)).   Defendants contend that the Court’s jurisdiction to order the relief requested by the FTC is limited to “proper cases,” which they contend are only those in which the FTC seeks “to halt a straightforward violation of section 5 that require[s] no application of the FTC’s expertise to a novel regulatory issue,” citing FTC v. World Travel Vacation Brokers, Inc., 861 F.2d 1020, 1028 (7th Cir.1988). Defendants argue that since the FTC admitted in a press conference in November 2003 that this case involves “novel and difficult legal issues” rather than those involved in a routine fraud case, jurisdiction does not lie.   The FTC responds that a “proper case” under Section 13(b) is simply one that involves a violation “of any provision of law enforced by the Commission.”Gem Merch.,

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sued AmeriDebt, Inc., DebtWorks, Inc., and Andris Pukke for misrepresentations and deceptive omissions under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58. It has also sued AmeriDebt for violations of the disclosure requirements under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6801(a) et seq. The FTC alleges that Defendants, operating in common as a non-profit credit counseling service, defrauded consumers with debt problems by offering to fashion debt repayment plans for them, then deducting for their own benefit payments the consumers made under the plans without disclosing those deductions to the consumers. The FTC has also sued Pamela Pukke as Relief Defendant to recover such proceeds of these transactions as have been received by her husband, Andris Pukke, and transferred to her.   The FTC has filed a motion pursuant to Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), requesting that the Court enter a preliminary injunction appointing a receiver, freezing the assets of Andris Pukke and DebtWorks, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), *561 561requiring an accounting from them, and directing that Andris Pukke repatriate assets he has transferred offshore. 1The Court held oral argument on the motion and took it under advisement. On April 20, 2005 the Court entered an Order granting the Motion. This Opinion sets forth the reasons for the Court’s decision.   II.   The background of this litigation is set forth in FTC. v. AmeriDebt, 343 F.Supp.2d 451 (D.Md.2004). In brief, the FTC alleges that Defendants (except for Pamela Pukke) operated as a common enterprise to deceive consumers into paying for high-cost debt management plans in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). After extensive discovery, the FTC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment Against DebtWorks and Andris Pukke, requesting that they be found liable, and that they be permanently enjoined and ordered to make restitution of some $172 million to injured consumers. That motion is currently pending. Meanwhile, the FTC alleges that since 2002, when Defendants became aware of the investigation that led to this lawsuit, Andris Pukke in particular has been actively dissipating Defendants’ assets by making transfers to close friends and relatives, to trusts (both domestic and offshore), and by living a lavish lifestyle. 2 For example, since 2003 Pukke and DebtWorks have transferred over $2.8 million to individuals who never worked for DebtWorks, including Pukke’s father in Latvia, his girlfriend Angela Chittenden, and his wife Pamela, as well as at least $1.6 million to a company controlled by Pukke, Infinity Resources Group. In addition, less than two months after the FTC served AmeriDebt and DebtWorks with Civil Investigative Demands in May and August 2002, Pukke attempted to establish domestic and offshore trusts which the FTC asserts were part of an effort to put his assets out of reach of the FTC and other creditors. 3 Pukke, however, appears to retain substantial control over three primary trusts: The Pukke 2002 Family Irrevocable Trust (located in Delaware with estimated assets *562 562of over $8.8 million), The P Family Trust (established under the laws of the Caribbean island of Nevis with estimated assets of $9 million), and The P II Family Trust (established under the laws of the Cook Islands with estimated assets of $1.3 million). Lastly, the FTC catalogs numerous expenditures Pukke has made out of DebtWorks’ funds to maintain personal residences, yachts and vacations unrelated to DebtWorks’ business. The FTC asserts that if this behavior is allowed to continue, there is a substantial risk that it will not be able to satisfy any final order granting equitable monetary relief that may be entered in this case.     III.   Defendants oppose the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on the grounds that: (a) the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested relief; (b) the FTC has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits; (c) the FTC has failed to show that the balance of equities favors the entry of a preliminary injunction; and (d) any order granting the requested relief would violate the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, and improperly interfere with the priority of federal tax liens. 4   A. Jurisdiction   Pursuant to Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, “in proper cases the Commission may seek, and after proper proof, the court may issue a permanent injunction.” 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). The authority to grant such relief includes the power to grant any ancillary relief necessary to accomplish complete justice, including ordering equitable relief for consumer redress through the repayment of money, restitution, rescission, or disgorgement of unjust enrichment. FTC v. Febre, 128 F.3d 530, 534 (7th Cir.1997). To insure that any final relief is complete and meaningful, the court may also order any necessary temporary or preliminary relief, such as an asset freeze. FTC v. Gem Merch. Corp., 87 F.3d 466, 469 (11th Cir.1996). Exercise of this broad equitable authority, which is vested in the court’s sound discretion, is particularly appropriate where the public interest is at stake. Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 398, 66 S.Ct. 1086, 90 L.Ed. 1332 (1946) (citing Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329, 64 S.Ct. 587, 88 L.Ed. 754(1944)).   Defendants contend that the Court’s jurisdiction to order the relief requested by the FTC is limited to “proper cases,” which they contend are only those in which the FTC seeks “to halt a straightforward violation of section 5 that require[s] no application of the FTC’s expertise to a novel regulatory issue,” citing FTC v. World Travel Vacation Brokers, Inc., 861 F.2d 1020, 1028 (7th Cir.1988). Defendants argue that since the FTC admitted in a press conference in November 2003 that this case involves “novel and difficult legal issues” rather than those involved in a routine fraud case, jurisdiction does not lie.   The FTC responds that a “proper case” under Section 13(b) is simply one that involves a violation “of any provision of law enforced by the Commission.”Gem

ZOKAITES v. PITTSBURGH IRISH PUBS LLC Frank R. ZOKAITES, Appellant v. PITTSBURGH IRISH PUBS, LLC and Colm McWilliams, Appellees. Argued Sept. 24, 2008. — December 11, 2008   BEFORE: KLEIN, POPOVICH and FITZGERALD, JJ.* Jeffrey A. Hulton, Pittsburgh, for appellant.Kurt L. Sundberg, Erie, for appellees.   1 Appellant Frank R. Zokaites appeals the order denying his Motion to Compel Member Interest to Sheriff as Trustee for Sale to Satisfy Judgment (Motion to Compel), which judgment was entered against Appellees Pittsburgh Irish Pubs, LLC and Colm McWilliams.1 We affirm.     2 A review of the record establishes the following undisputed facts; to-wit:   On November 21, 2005 [Appellant] obtained a judgment against [Appellees].[n. 1] On April 2, 2007, [Appellant] filed a writ of execution and unsuccessfully attempted to collect his judgment. Thereafter, on September 4, 2007 [Appellee] Pittsburgh Irish Pubs, LLC filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11.   In an attempt to collect the outstanding judgment from [Appellee] Colm McWilliams, on September 24, 2007 [Appellant] presented to th[e trial c]ourt a Motion to Compel [․]. The Motion sought to compel [Appellee] Colm McWilliams to transfer his 20.5% outstanding member interests in [Appellee] Pittsburgh Irish Pubs, LLC and Molly Brannigans, LLC to the Allegheny County Sheriff for levy and sale. On September 24, 2007, th[e trial c]ourt granted the Motion to Compel and ordered [Appellee] McWilliams to transfer his member interests in [Appellee] Pittsburgh Irish Pubs, LLC and Molly Brannigans, LLC to the Sheriff.[n. 2]]] The Order noted that no one for [Appellees] appeared to contest the motion.   On October 3, 2007, [Appellee] McWilliams filed a Motion for Reconsideration of th[e trial c]ourt’s September 24, 2007 Order. Subsequently, th[e trial c]ourt granted the Motion for Reconsideration and vacated the order of September 24, 2007. Oral argument on the underlying Motion to Compel was held for October 4, 2007. At argument, bankruptcy attorney for [Appellee] Pittsburgh Irish Pubs informed th[e trial c]ourt of his intention to file a motion for extension of the automatic stay to [Appellee] Colm McWilliams in Bankruptcy Court. Based upon the representation of bankruptcy counsel for [Appellee] Pittsburgh Irish Pubs that the Motion to Extend the Stay would be immediately filed with the Bankruptcy Court, th[e trial c]ourt deferred a decision on the merits regarding the underlying Motion to Compel pending a decision by the Bankruptcy Court regarding the stay.   On November 27, 2007, Jeffrey A. Deller, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, entered an order denying [Appellee] Pittsburgh Irish Pubs’ Motion to Extend the Automatic Stay to [Appellee] McWilliams. Th[e trial c]ourt then scheduled re-argument on the Motion to Compel for February 11, 2008.[n. 3]   After argument on February 11, 2008 and consideration of the briefs filed by the parties, th[e trial c]ourt entered an order denying the motions to compel member interest on February 12, 2008.[n. 4].   _     Trial court opinion, 4/28/08, at 1-4, n. 1-4. Thereafter, on February 13, 2008, the order denying Appellant’s Motion to Compel was entered upon the docket pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 301(a) (Requisites for an Appealable Order-Entry upon docket below). On March 5, 2008, Appellant filed a notice of appeal, which was followed by a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement on March 18, 2008, raising the question: “Whether the [trial c]ourt erred in holding that Pennsylvania law does not permit the [trial] court to compel the transfer of the member interest of a member of a limited liability company to the Sheriff for sale to satisfy a judgment against the member of the limited liability company?” Appellant’s brief, at 2.   3 In the process of unraveling the rights and obligations of Appellees against those of their creditors, we are guided by the principles set forth in the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1501-1991. See Hoffa v. Bimes, 954 A.2d 1241, 1244 (Pa.Super.2008); McCance v. McCance, 908 A.2d 905, 908 (Pa.Super.2006). Further, inasmuch as the present case involves Appellee McWilliams’ interest in various limited liability companies, the provisions of Pennsylvania’s Limited Liability Company Law2 will be examined to resolve the matter at hand. See Goldberg v. Winogradow, 2006 WL 3041979, *2, 2006 Conn.Super. Lexis 3067, *5 (filed October 12, 2006) (In assessing plaintiffs’ claim “seeking to satisfy their judgment through an order charging the defendant’s L[imited] L[iability] C[ompany] interests, analysis of the plaintiffs’ claims must be made not only in the context of [Connecticut] General Statutes § 52-356b, but also based on the limitations and guidelines set forth in the act.”). Lastly, in uncovering the intent of the General Assembly in enacting Chapter 89 (Limited Liability Companies), we may look to the Committee Comments to Chapter 89, which are intended to form the legislative history and be citable as such pursuant to 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1939. See 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 8901 (Committee Comment-1994).   4 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 8924(a) defines “interest” of a member in a limited liability company as the “personal estate of the member and may be transferred or assigned as provided in writing in the operating agreement.” At first glance, it would appear that a member has carte blanche to transfer or assign his “interest” in a limited liability company. But the subsection cautions, “Unless otherwise provided in writing in the operating agreement, if all of the other members of the company other than the member proposing to dispose of his interest do not approve of the proposed transfer or assignment by unanimous vote or written consent, which approval may be unreasonably withheld by any of the other members, the transferee of the interest of the member shall have no right to participate in the management of the business and affairs of the company or to become a member. The transferee shall only be entitled to receive the distributions and the return of contributions to which that member would otherwise be entitled.” 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 8924(a). In the Comment immediately following Section 8924, we are further advised:   Unlike the Prototype Limited Liability Company Act, Chapter

291 B.R. 538 (Bkrtcy.D.Colo. 2003) In re Ashley ALBRIGHT, Debtor. No. 01-11367 ABC. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado. April 4, 2003   James H. Hahn, Greenwood Village, CO, for debtor. Sally Zeman, Denver, CO, Chapter 13 Trustee. Charles F. McVay, Denver, CO, for trustee.     OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO ALLOW TRUSTEE TO TAKE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS TO LIQUIDATE PROPERTY OWNED BY WESTERN BLUE SKY LLC BRUCE A. CAMPBELL, Bankruptcy Judge.   THIS MATTER is before the Court on the (1) Motion to Allow Trustee to Take Any and All Necessary Actions to Liquidate Property Owned by Western Blue Sky LLC (“Motion to Liquidate”); (2) Motion to Appoint and Compensate Bob Karls as Real Estate Broker to the Trustee; and (3) Debtor’s Response to Trustee’s Motion to Retain Realtor and Liquidate LLC Property. Following a hearing on February 4, 2003, the parties agreed to submit the matter on briefs.   Ashley Albright, the debtor in this Chapter 7 case (“Debtor”), is the sole member and manager of a Colorado limited liability company named Western Blue Sky LLC. [1] The LLC owns certain real property located in Saguache County, Colorado (the “Real Property”). The LLC is not a debtor in bankruptcy.   The Chapter 7 Trustee contends that because the Debtor was the sole member and manager of the LLC at the time she filed bankruptcy, he now controls the LLC and he may cause the LLC to sell the Real Property and distribute the net sales proceeds to his bankruptcy estate. [2] The Debtor maintains that, at best, the Trustee is entitled to a charging order [3] and cannot assume management of the LLC or cause the LLC to sell the Real Property.   Pursuant to the Colorado limited liability company statute, the Debtor’s membership interest constitutes the personal property of the member. Upon the Debtor’s bankruptcy filing, she effectively transferred her membership interest to the estate. See 11 U.S.C. § 541(a). [4] Because there are no other members in the LLC, the entire membership interest passed to the bankruptcy estate, and the Trustee has become a “substituted member.” [5]   Section 7-80-702 of the Limited Liability Company Act requires the unanimous consent of “other members” in order to allow a transferee to participate in the management of the LLC. [6] Because there are no other members in the LLC, no written unanimous approval of the transfer was necessary. Consequently, the Debtor’s bankruptcy filing effectively assigned her entire membership interest in the LLC to the bankruptcy estate, and the Trustee obtained all her rights, including the right to control the management of the LLC. [7]     The Debtor argues that the Trustee acts merely for her creditors and is only entitled to a charging order against distributions made on account of her LLC member interest. [8] However, the charging order, as set forth in Section 703 of the Colorado Limited Liability Company Act, exists to protect other members of an LLC from having involuntarily to share governance responsibilities with someone they did not choose, or from having to accept a creditor of another member as a co-manager. A charging order protects the autonomy of the original members, and their ability to manage their own enterprise. In a single-member entity, there are no non-debtor members to protect. The charging order limitation serves no purpose in a single member limited liability company, because there are no other parties’ interests affected. [9]     The Colorado limited liability company statute provides that the members, including the sole member of a single member limited liability company, have the power to elect and change managers. [10] Because the Trustee became the sole member of Western Blue Sky LLC upon the Debtor’s bankruptcy filing, the Trustee now controls, directly or indirectly, all governance of that entity, including decisions regarding liquidation of the entity’s assets.     Because of the Court’s ruling herein, the Debtor may be entitled to a claim for her contributions made to preserve an asset of this bankruptcy estate based on post-petition mortgage payments on the Real Property. The parties were asked to brief the issue, but the Debtor has not formally asserted such a claim. Therefore, the Court does not rule on the issue at this time. Based on the foregoing, it is hereby:     ORDERED that the Trustee, as sole member, controls the Western Blue Sky LLC and may cause the LLC to sell its property and distribute net proceeds to his estate. Alternatively, the Trustee may elect to distribute the LLC’s property to the bankruptcy estate, and, in turn, liquidate that property himself; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Trustee’s Motion to appoint Bob Karls as real estate broker for the Trustee is hereby granted; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Debtor may file a claim, subject to objection in the regular course of this case, for her expenditures made to preserve an asset of this estate based on post-petition mortgage or other payments made by the Debtor.   ——— Notes:   [1] The Debtor initiated this case on February 9, 2001, under Chapter 13. It was converted to Chapter 7 by the Debtor on July 19, 2001.   [2] If the Trustee is entitled to control of the LLC, he could, presumably, as an alternative, dissolve the LLC, distribute its property to his bankruptcy estate, and then sell the property himself. The Trustee has not asserted any alter ego theory and has not attempted to pierce the veil of the LLC.   [3] The Debtor further asserts that because the LLC is “non-profit” pursuant to its operating agreement, no distribution of “profit” will ever be made and thus the value of this interest is zero. This argument erroneously assumes that a member of a Colorado limited liability company’s distribution rights are limited only to “profits.” They are not. Colo.Rev.Stat. § 7-80-102(10)(“Membership interest means a member’s share of the profits and losses of a limited liability company and the right

Plaintiff Goldin Auctions seeks a declaratory judgment that it has the legal right to sell at auction sports memorabilia of Kobe Bryant which was consigned to it by Pamela Bryant, Kobe Bryant’s mother.     Plaintiff: GOLDIN AUCTIONS, LLC Defendant: KOBE BRYANT Case Number: 1:2013cv02816 Filed: May 2, 2013 Court: New Jersey District Court Office: Camden Office County: Camden Presiding Judge: Renee Marie Bumb Referring Judge: Joel Schneider Nature of Suit: Contract – Other Contract Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief Jurisdiction: Diversity Jury Demanded By: None   Docket Report   Date Filed # Document Text May 2, 2013 5 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WITH TEMPORARY RESTRAINTS, Enjoining Deft. from interfering with the June, 2013 auction, etc.; Show Cause Hearing set for 5/14/2013 @11:00 AM before Judge Renee Marie Bumb. Show Cause Response due by 5/8/2013. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 5/2/13. (js) May 2, 2013 4 INDIVIDUAL RULES AND PROCEDURES JUDGE RENE MARIE BUMB (bdk, ) May 2, 2013 3 Corporate Disclosure Statement by GOLDIN AUCTIONS, LLC. (bdk, ) May 2, 2013 2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to KOBE BRYANT Attached is the official court Summons, please fill out Defendant and Plaintiffs attorney information and serve. Issued By *Brian D. Kemner* (bdk, ) May 2, 2013 1 COMPLAINT against KOBE BRYANT ( Filing and Admin fee $ 400 receipt number CAM002955), filed by GOLDIN AUCTIONS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Cover letter, # 3 Order to Show Cause, # 4 Memorandum of Law, # 5 Declaration) (bdk, ).   Access additional case information on PACER   Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court’s PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.   Access this case on the New Jersey District Court’s Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System  

About frivolous lawsuits: the difference between a frivolous lawsuit and a legitimate lawsuit. How frivolous lawsuits drive up healthcare costs. What are the sanctions to stem frivolous lawsuits? Effectiveness of countersuits.   A Frivolous Lawsuit is any legal claim that seems trivial and lacks merit. Often, an individual without legal counsel makes such a claim, and the claim is brought as a result of poor understanding of court processes and the law in general. The Prison Litigation Reform Act was enacted in 1995 to prevent inmates from filing such lawsuits. To avoid filing a Frivolous Lawsuit, Federal Law mandates an attorney to thoroughly research the legality of all claims. Failure to make such efforts can result in serious consequences for all persons involved, including the representing lawyer. These consequences will be discussed later.   Frivolous Lawsuits Arising from Medical Malpractice   A very common example of a Frivolous Lawsuit is Medical Malpractice. If you watch television long enough you will notice just how many personal injury lawyers there are, and very few of them are actually looking to help you out. In most cases, a personal injury lawyer will take thirty-fifty percent of money awarded to you as a result of a medical malpractice lawsuit. Despite this fact, the availability of these lawyers has driven up the number of Frivolous Lawsuits filed over the past year.   Frivolous Lawsuits vs Legitimate Lawsuits – What’s the Difference?   What makes a medical malpractice lawsuit frivolous”? Isn’t a patient entitled to receive compensation for damages caused by their healthcare provider? In some cases, this answer is “yes”. The difference between a “frivolous” lawsuit and legitimate lawsuit is in the context. For example, when you are admitted to a hospital there are many healthcare professionals who may assist you during your stay. These individuals can be anyone from your primary doctor, nurses required to bring you food or change your bedpan, or a physician (in the absence of your regular doctor) who wrote a note in your chart on the day you discharged.   A legitimate lawsuit might be filed against the doctor who actually performed your liposuction that left you permanently scarred. A Frivolous Lawsuit would be suing every individual who handled your chart, but had nothing at all to do with the surgery. In some cases when a doctor fills in for a colleague, they may sign a discharge note for a patient they never met. The threat of Frivolous Lawsuits is of special concern for doctors in “high risk” fields such as an OB-GYN or an anesthesiologist.   How Frivolous Lawsuits Can Drive Healthcare Costs Highers   A Frivolous Lawsuit can be devastating in cases involving medical malpractice, not only to the doctor(s) implicated but also to the general taxpayer. The overwhelming opinion on Frivolous Lawsuits is they drive up healthcare costs and make quality care harder to obtain. Once a Doctor is implicated in a malpractice lawsuit, their malpractice insurance premiums rise.   This new insurance rate can be effective for any period of time determined by the individual policies of the insurance company. Doctors worried about Frivolous Lawsuits may order more tests than they normally would to ensure they are doing everything “medically necessary” or, in these cases, “medically available” to treat a patient. These increased tests can also drive up the cost of healthcare because they require more money from hospitals and doctors to run and they take more time. In addition to running more tests, doctors may hesitate before prescribing medications like controlled substances and newer drugs fearing a Frivolous Lawsuit on rare side effects.   Sanctions Against Frivolous Lawsuits: Fines Imposed   Are there Sanctions against Frivolous Lawsuits? Yes. Frivolous Lawsuits waste valuable time and resources of courts. Cases with no legal merit delay the processing of valid lawsuits. If a court rules the lawsuit is frivolous, the court may impose a fine on the parties involved for tying up the court and creating delays.   Countersuit the Frivolous Lawsuit   There are options available if you are the one being sued as part of a Frivolous Lawsuit. If you feel the claim against you is unfounded or trivial, you have the right to hire an attorney and bring a countersuit against the Plaintiff. Most people making Frivolous Lawsuits are looking for a quick way to make money and if you threaten a countersuit, these individuals are likely to back off.   When filing your countersuit the defendant can be anyone you choose who had a part in the Frivolous Lawsuit. This includes the lawyer, the plaintiff, the lawyer’s law firm, or any “expert” witnesses who testified in favor of the Frivolous Lawsuit. When you plan on countersuing, it is important to hire legal counsel to ensure your lawsuit has merit. It may be difficult to find an attorney willing to sue another law firm.   There are many items you may receive compensation for when countersuing. You can request reimbursement for court costs and compensatory damage for time and money lost while you were in court instead of at work. You may also request money to alleviate some of the mental pain and suffering (i.e. embarrassment, loss of status or reputation) you endured after being named a defendant in a Frivolous Lawsuit.   Read more articles on Irrevocable Trusts & Asset Protection: Irrevocable Trust Getting Sued Hiding Assets How to Hide Your Assets Financial Directive – What is it? Financial Directive: Powers of Property Medical Directive for Terminal Patients: Terri Schiavo Case Terri Schiavo: terminal patient Medical Directive Saves Life Medical Malpractice DUI (Driving Under the Influence) Consequences Frivolous Lawsuits

Medical Malpractice defined and the processes of it. Who are the persons involved in a Medical Malpractice? Why the Medical Malpractice Lawyer should avoid frivolous lawsuits? What are the Medical Malpractice Attorney fees and the rewards to be gained from one?   To put it simply, Medical Malpractice is negligence on the part of a healthcare provider that resulted in injury. Medical Malpractice cases may result from misdiagnosis of a disease, failure to provide appropriate treatment for a known disease, or unreasonable delay in treating a condition. The parties involved in a Medical Malpractice case are the Plaintiff, the Medical Malpractice Attorney, the Defense, and Expert Witnesses.   The Plaintiff is often the patient, although an administrator or executor of the estate may also act as Plaintiff if the patient died as a result of the injury. Before a patient may file a Medical Malpractice case they must be able to prove that the physician or care provider failed to provide adequate care and this failure was the direct cause of the injury. The Plaintiff must also present proof of damages such as whether there are physical or emotional damages.   Medical Malpractice Attorney Must Avoid Filing Frivolous Lawsuits   It is the responsibility of the Malpractice Attorney to review all of the facts presented by the Plaintiff to avoid filing a frivolous lawsuit. If a judge determines that there is no legal merit to claims made by the Plaintiff then the court may impose fines for both the Malpractice Attorney and the Plaintiff for tying up the court. If the Defendant feels he/she is the victim of a frivolous lawsuit they may counter sue the Plaintiff to recuperate their court costs and may also seek punitive damages.   Defense Attorney Process in a Medical Malpractice   Usually the Defense consists of a physician, but in some instances a nurse may also be named as a defendant depending on his/her involvement with the patient. The Defense is also allowed to call expert witnesses to support their case and the Attorney is usually assigned by the hospital or facility that employs the practitioner. Both Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Defense are required to share information prior to the court date, and the parties may choose to settle out of court through negotiations.   Expert Witnesses in a Medical Malpractice Case   Expert witnesses must be carefully screened prior to trial. Usually a judge will call a hearing prior to the trial to determine if the “expert’s” testimony is reliable and relevant to the case. Some questions the judge will consider are if the theory and/or technique proposed by the witness can be tested, and if it has been tested what the rate of error was for the results. A person cannot be considered an Expert in a Medical Malpractice case just because they have a college degree. All Expert witnesses must prove they have sufficient knowledge or experience with the specific area in question before the court considers them reliable.   Awards and Feeds from Medical Malpractice and Statute of Limitations   Every state has established Medical Malpractice statutes and it is important to become familiar with these laws prior to filing a Medical Malpractice case. With respect to Florida Medical Malpractice cases, the damages awarded to the Plaintiff will be reduced depending on how much of the injury was the Plaintiff’s fault. If a Plaintiff is determined twenty-five percent responsible for their injury, than the damages awarded to them will only be seventy-five percent the original amount.   A Florida Medical Malpractice Attorney may only collect thirty percent in fees on the first $250,000 awarded to the Plaintiff and only ten percent on amounts greater than this. In contrast, a Massachusetts Medical Malpractice Attorney fees are limited to forty percent of the first $150,000 awarded and only twenty five percent of damages awarded over $500,000. There is usually a statute of limitations that requires Medical Malpractice claims to be filed within two years from the date the injury occurred, or within two years from when the injury should have been detected.   Medical Malpractice Background Checks on Physicians   Prior to committing your care to a particular physician you can check the physician’s background for prior Medical Malpractice cases. This information can be obtained from the Doctor’s office, the local hospital where the physician is employed, or an HMO the physician participates with. You can also check with the American Medical Association to verify physicians training and certification status. Some agencies will charge a fee to view their database. Depending on which state you reside in, there are statutes in place to protect your well being. For example, in Florida a physician will be unable to receive their state license if they have been implicated and found guilty in three Medical Malpractice cases.   Read more articles on Irrevocable Trusts & Asset Protection: Irrevocable Trust Getting Sued Hiding Assets How to Hide Your Assets Financial Directive – What is it? Financial Directive: Powers of Property Medical Directive for Terminal Patients: Terri Schiavo Case Terri Schiavo: terminal patient Medical Directive Saves Life DUI (Driving Under the Influence) Consequences Frivolous Lawsuits Frivolous Lawsuits – Trivial Legal Claim

About DUI (Driving Under the Influence) or DWI (Driving While Influenced) and its consequences and procedures. Discuss the tests of DUI and the legal proceedings once charged with Driving Under the Influence.   A DUI/DWI (Driving Under the Influence/Driving While Influenced) is a serious driving violation which can carry hefty financial and long-lasting legal consequences. While the intent of this article is not to provide free legal advice, it will outline the general proceedings and potential consequences of receiving a DUI/DWI ticket or being involved in a DUI/DWI accident.   Legal advice will be state specific and is best sought after by consulting with a lawyer familiar with DUI/DWI cases in your state. An experienced DUI/DWI lawyer might be able to get your case dismissed completely, or get your sentence reduced if you are convicted. A lawyer can determine if your constitutional rights were violated and if the arresting Officer followed protocol.   DUI: When You Get Pulled Over By a Police Officer   If an Officer has reason to suspect there is a problem, he/she may pull you over to investigate and make sure you are not driving under the influence. In some cases, you may have swerved to avoid a pothole or maybe you took your eyes off the road for half a second to change the radio station and you weaved over the double yellow line. Regardless of the circumstance an Officer is required to pull you over and execute several tests to ensure your safety and the safety of other drivers.   Field Sobriety DUI Tests   The first sets of tests, called Field Sobriety Tests, were developed to test your coordination and balance. They are the Horizontal Eye Test, the Walk and Turn test, and the One Leg Stand. Each of these tests is designed so that a sober person will be able to pass without a problem.   While they do not provide the Officer with a specific blood alcohol level, they do allow the Officer to pass judgment on your ability to operate a motor vehicle. Some individuals, such as those with a physical handicap or the elderly, will naturally be unable to perform these tests and an Officer will then rely on the Breathalyzer to make his/her decision to arrest you.   Horizontal Eye Test by Officer for Drinking and Driving   During the Horizontal Eye Test the Officer will ask you to follow his/her finger using only your eyes and not moving your entire head. A sober person (assuming no physical or age impairments) will have no problem with this exercise, but someone who is intoxicated will display abnormal eye jerking. Based on his/her findings the Officer will shine a light into your eyes and check pupil dilation.   Walk and Turn DUI Test   The next test will be the Walk and Turn. There needs to be a flat surface for the Officer to request this test, and you must demonstrate the ability to walk at least nine heel to toe steps before turning around and returning to the Officer. Again, if the road surface is not flat and the Officer cannot draw a straight line on it for you to follow, this test should not be performed because the outcome will be skewed in favor of your arrest.   One-Leg Stand Drinking and Driving Test   The One-Leg Stand also requires a level surface. You will be asked to stand on one leg for a short period of time with both hands at your side, and then you will have to switch legs. It is important that all these tests are performed since a physical or age impairment may skew one or all of the outcomes.   Once the Officer determines you are intoxicated based on these tests you will be asked to take the Breathalyzer test. You will breathe into the Breathalyzer and it will compute your blood alcohol level. In all states you are considered legally intoxicated if your blood alcohol is 0.08 or higher, and only 0.02 if you are under the age of twenty-one. If you fail the field sobriety tests and the Breathalyzer you will be read your rights and arrested. You must remain in jail until someone posts bail and you receive a court date for sentencing.   Legal Order of Proceedings Involving DUI Tickets: Preliminary Hearing Arraignment Trial by Jury After the initial arrest, you will be given a Preliminary Hearing date so that a judge may review your case and determine if there is sufficient evidence for the case against you. Very rarely is there not sufficient evidence against you and the next court date will be for your arraignment. During the arraignment you will hear all the charges against you and be asked to enter a plea of “guilty” or “not guilty”.   Seek an Experience DUI Lawyer   It is imperative for you to have an experienced DUI lawyer to guide you through the proceedings and help clarify the severity of charges brought against you. Depending on the circumstances of your case, you can request a trial by jury if you believe you are innocent and do not accept the options offered during the arraignment.   Requesting a trial by jury can be very complicated since witnesses and experts will be called upon to testify for and against your case. If you choose to take this route your attorney should have appropriate experience in DUI cases to help reduce your sentence or have your case dismissed altogether.   Consequences of a Driving Under the Influence   There can be serious consequences for being issued a DUI ticket and these consequences will increase in severity depending on how many similar offences you have had and if your violation included a DUI accident. A DUI ticket is considered a misdemeanor and will stay on your permanent driving record forever, while a death resulting from a DUI accident is considered manslaughter and is a felony.   Punishment for driving under the