Tweet
Originally posted by chaincrusher
View Post
Heatmeister, of course the plaintiff's attorney does not want his client portrayed as a gold digger. Whether her claims are true or false, the attorney would have the same reaction. The opinion that his client is a gold digger would potentially be harmful to the case if that view found its way to the jury.
And yes, settlement offers get rejected all the time as being unsatisfactory in some way to the rejecting party. If it was rejected, I do think it was because plaintiff's counsel advised the plaintiff that she could probably get more in a later offer.
The plaintiff's case is seeking money damages. There seems to be some confusion about that point on this forum, but there is none in my legally trained view since the OP was good enough to post a link to the complaint.
If you look at post #112, the part in red is what the plaintiff is seeking from Araiza. Special damages are economic damages such medical expenses or lost wages, for example. General damages are noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering damages. Obviously, special damages are more easily determined than general damages as there is no formula for general damages. But at the end of the day they are both categories of money damages.
Moreover, punitive damages, which are also being sought (very reasonably so if the allegations are true), are money damages awarded to a plaintiff for the purpose of punishing the conduct of the defendant for knowingly acting with malice, oppression, and/or in conscious disregard of the rights of another. In Araiza's case, the theory is that Araiza wanted to get his rocks off and did not care at all about what harm might come to the young lady that he allegedly raped when he raped her and even apparently did so while having an STD.
The notion that a civil lawsuit that specifically seeks money damages is not seeking money damages is ridiculous and should cause the attorney to lose credibility, making it a questionable statement to make if that was what was actually said. Judging from the attorney's bar number only, the attorney has been practicing in California since about the late 1990s, so the attorney is experienced.
Even if the plaintiff wanted to pursue her action "for the principle of the matter", the attorney is involved in the practice of law for a living and is likely only getting paid in one of two ways--either he is charging the plaintiff hourly, not likely unless the plaintiff or her family has money to pay as they go, or he is taking the case on a contingent fee basis, which means that he only gets paid if there is a settlement or judgment in plaintiff's favor. That latter arrangement is far more likely in a case like this one involving one or more defendants that have the apparent money to pay, but the reality is that we do not know the fee arrangement with certainty.
What we do know is that most attorneys do not take on large, time consuming and costly cases without getting compensated and plaintiffs do not put themselves through the rigors of lawsuits (written discovery, depositions, physical/mental examinations in some cases depending upon the allegations, hours of preparation if the case goes to trial, et cetera) without there being something at the end of the rainbow. Otherwise, it simply is not worth it from both a financial and mental health standpoint to do so.
TG
Comment