The Santa Barbara Bee reports that the State of California’s Attorney General John Van de Kamp has sent a letter to attorneys representing the plaintiff in the Vi Palo Alto lawsuit stating that the plaintiff is guilty of filing a fraudulent claim for compensation for loss and suffering. As we know, the case was ruled in favor of the defendant. So now this could be decided in favor of either one, the plaintiff or the defendant.
Vito Palo Alto Lawsuit
Well, let me tell you something about John Van de Kamp and this whole episode. He is part of the Neuberger School of Law at UCLA. And he has represented the Insurance companies and Insurance providers who were sued by Vi Palo Alto for fraud. If anyone knows about fraud, it is Van de Kamp.
Now let us see what the attorney general has to say about the complaint filed by Ms. Nguyen.
According to the Bee, Mr. Van de Kamp stated in his letter that the complaint “is not well-built on any legal theories or rationale, fails to relate to the record in this case, and is legally inconsistent with the applicable law.” Wow, just what a bold lawyer says. I guess that means that both sides of this lawsuit have a point, and maybe the plaintiff has some valid points as well. This is good.
But the defendant’s lawyer in the lawsuit, Robert A. Katz, states in his response, “The complaint is legally insufficient under the law.”
He goes on to say that the complaint “does not allege any facts sufficient to establish liability on the part of the defendants.” Hmm, that is a rather interesting comment by a lawyer. It means that either one of them has a point, and the other’s argument is simply irrelevant. So let’s talk.
Now then, one might think that if the complaint was so lacking in any factual support, why would anybody hire a lawyer to file it.
The answer is that these are highly technical issues and often settled amongst the parties involved in the mediation process, without ever going to court. This is not to say that mediation itself is not a courtroom situation, because it is. But what I am saying is that most of the time, in this type of case, the parties involved entering into a settlement agreement after the mediation is complete. Therefore, even if a lawyer files a motion to dismiss, it is probably going to be denied.
Some may argue that the plaintiff has no standing to sue the defendants, as the complaint was filed before the mediation took place.
And while that may be true in some situations, let’s look at the plaintiff’s contention in this case: that defendants were indifferent to the harm caused by their actions. Those elements are all based on what an “indifferent” party has to do, in the absence of adverse circumstances. In this case, the injury was caused by defendants’ indifference to the harm they caused. Therefore, plaintiffs have a legitimate claim to sue the defendants for damages.