The judge's name is MacDonald. She and the plaintiff's lawyers are about to relearn everything they learned in law school about the First Amendment but have since forgotten. Public Citizen, a public interest group, has taken up the cause.

The plot thickens.

Although [the guy with the injunction against him] is an attorney , the Facebook page made clear that he was not seeking to represent class members himself, but rather that he had retained a different lawyer, Mr. Miller, to object on behalf of members of the class who agreed with his views. Plaintiff accused [the guy with the injunction against him] of grandstanding to make himself look like a hero in his community...

#3 | Posted by Diablo

Swooosh...

People who admire civil awards that are punitive...

A demonstration of ignorance? There are two aspects of the award in that case, 1) compensatory, e.g. medical care, etc. and 2) an award of punitive damages. Two legally separate awards.

Perhaps you should be SLAPPed.

#25 | Posted by Diablo
My post made the distinction clear...

Which part, what I quoted or the part you did not write?

Punitive damages are not "unrestrained." There are severe limitations on punitive damages. First of which the defendant must have engaged egregious, usually intentional, conduct.

Reasonable legal fees, actual damages and compensation for measurable losses are all an award should contain.

Glad to see you are on board with the plaintiff recovering reasonable legal fees. I am not aware of any jurisdiction that permits such recovery in tort cases.

Millions for vague claims of pain and suffering or emotional distress are ridiculous.

Claims for such non-pecuniary damages are in fact subjective but well grounded in law. It is up to the jury of your peers to weigh that subjectivity. The law provides for taking away, as it often does, extravagant jury awards.

Finally, the topic of the thread.

Nor do I like SLAPP lawsuits. These abuses are made possible by lawmakers whose cronies profit from them.

Many consider them an abuse; however, they are sometimes appropriate. SLAPPs are not made available by "lawmakers whose cronies" profit. The suits are almost always based on common law theories. Lawmakers can, and have in many states, restrain SLAPPs.

#28 | Posted by RRichy

'...kill all the lawyers...'

You're next. Good luck without one.

#30 | Posted by Diablo

I have no knowledge of the details that are important. It is my general understanding that the coffee was knowingly super heated for monetary reasons; see providing a safe and generally accepted product in the marketplace. The "millions" for punitive damages awarded by the jury of her peers was later reduced according to law.