In this hypothetical, that the customer service reputation of the dealership is being unfairly tarnished, I submit that that they fucking well should have thought of that before authorizing the bogus legal threat strategy. There aren’t any laws against being an asshole, and there isn’t any right to use the state’s legal apparatus to silence assholes unless they’re actually slandering/libeling you. If their lawyer is remotely competent, he told them that the libel accusation was an empty threat, and they went ahead with it anyways. It’s that action that I’m saying merits whatever humiliation they receive, not their allegedly deficient service or even the underhanded attempt to weasel out of the $500 offer. IMO filing or even threatening lawsuits that have no chance of winning like this ought to come with far stiffer penalties than it currently does, because the “threaten and they’ll settle because settling is cheaper than winning” strategy is nothing but extortion.
That made me extremely happy. Turns out Mr. Corris is still practicing, too. Hopefully still commanding those modest hourly rates!
Steve: Without sounding pretentious, my current retainer for cases is a flat $100,000, with an additional charge of $1,000 per hour.
Becky: we have advised our client of your hourly rate. She is willing to pay you $1,000.00 per hour to collect this judgment provided it doesn’t take you more than four seconds.
Perhaps the best response to an attempt at intimidation from a lawyer.
You should note that the threatened party had plenty of evidence to back up their claims, which they duly published
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned so far with regard to the belligerent, condescending and aggressive tone of the letter is that it makes clear to Route 60 Hyundai and its attorneys that if they want to pursue the matter they are gonna have a real scrap on their hands. Randazza’s tone makes it clear that “If you decide to hit us, we’re gonna hit back three times as hard.”
As a layman I would think this sort of approach on the part of an attorney would be pretty much de riguer, if for no other reason than to demonstrate to the other side that they’re not dealing with an attorney that they can intimidate or take advantage of. I think Randazza’s letter does a pretty good job of that.
What did I poorly paraphrase, and what was “presented by the other side?”
Nor do I have to know. I paraphrased what was in Randazza’s letter. If you have a problem with what’s in the letter, you have a problem with Randazza, not me.
Naw, different lawyers have different styles. Some do very well with aggressive and condesending, but it isn’t by any means the only style, or the most effective.
Here, there is most likely simply no need to write at length and aggressively. Comming across as tough in a fight assumes there will be a fight. As pointed out upthread, the threat of a lawsuit is likely wholly bogus and both sets of lawyers probably know that - there never was going to be a fight. Most likely all he had to do to make the other side back off is let them know he exists.
You suggested that the damages “didn’t exist”, while at the same time referring to the allegations of double billing as a “fact”.
I was stating what the letter said. As far as I know, Route 60 Hyundai has denied nothing in the letter. This is a pretty lame attack. I find it highly unlikely that the facts are not substantially as presented in the letter.
I’m thinking also that Randazza was perhaps trying to assist his client with peripheral issues as well, though. (I should probably add that Randazza doesn’t seem to be a person I would particularly care for, so I hope it doesn’t look like I think he’s a great guy; I’m just trying to consider the various aspects involved.)
Anyway, IIRC, Route 60 Hyundai’s service manager not only refused to service Alascio’s car but said he was blacklisting Alascio so that Alascio couldn’t get service at any other Hyundai dealer either. So I’m thinking that perhaps Randazza’s beligerence and aggressiveness was an attempt to convey the message to the other attorneys that they would be well served to advise their client that they should back off from that stance and to service Alascio’s car and remove him from blacklisting on their computer system as well. The end of his letter, where he suggested they resolve the matter amicably, seemed to indicate to me that he didn’t feel Route 60 Hyundai’s simply letting the matter drop would be sufficient.
Still, I’m not wedded to this view and would appreciate your take on it as well.
Hilarious.
You’ve got nothing. I doubt you’d be willing to bet against a single word in Randazza’s letter being true yourself. This attempt to make an issue out of me paraphrasing the letter without saying “allegedly” every other word is pedantic, and lame and pointless.
As usual, you’re completely full of shit & digging even deeper. You’ve consistently doubted everything from one side of the story, while labeling everything from the other side as “fact”. On top of it, you’ve deliberately labeled all of your shit as “an accurate, factual record”, when it is anything but.
Please note that explicitly referring to a detail as a fact is not the same as omitting the word “allegedly”.
As I’ve stated, I don’t have a problem with the letter. What I have a problem with is that your paraphrase fabricates things out of whole cloth. If you had simply said “it’s sustained unknown damages from driving down a dirt road” rather than “it’s dirty from driving down the dirt road”, you’d be fine.
Alascio:
Dio:
Alascio:
Dio:
Allascio:
Dio:
All of the above was presented why?
Dio:
We’ve only seen one side of the story. No other side of the story has been presented. Nothing in Randazza’s letter has been disputed.
I think that the most likely probability is that the client really hates this dealership because he’s of the opinion (justified or not) that they treated him really shabbily and threatened to sue him for saying that they suck, and the response (and more to the point, public circulation of the response) is intended to hurt them as much as possible - which is certainly what he’s achieved.
The suggestion that they solve the matter amicably (I believe) isn’t meant seriously, it’s just another jab: to (very loosely ) paraphrase, ‘we can help you stop sucking so very badly, if only you would ask us how; then we can publish a joint statement in which you agree to be ritually sodomized in public for sucking’.
Lame. I paraphrased the letter without peppering it with a bunch of “allegedlys.” Big fucking deal. You’re grasping at straws here.
I’m going to go ahead and say the letter can be taken as factually accurate. Prove it can’t be. Show me any kind of rebuttal or contested fact from the dealership.
Yeah, that it got dirty was simply inferred, but the actual letter is consistent within itself:
“It won’t be good on our road.”
“That’s fine.”
“It wasn’t good on our road.”
“That’s fine. later Oh, you owe us $1000.”
“WTF”