Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Kennythetiger said:

I understand that, I was just pointing out that the petition filed is going to invoke a lot of emotion, as it’s a one-sided persuasive-writing piece, with usually very few facts or details. 

Actually, a petition should be filled with provable facts and details.  A civil plaintiff's principle advantage in litigation is to marshal its facts and legal theories long before filing the petition.  Sometimes that is harder to do than other times because of the availability of public facts, but you should do your damnedest.  Some attorneys, usually bad ones, don't bother with any of this.

That said, it is also going to be written or spun in the most positive way for the plaintiff.  Sometimes that's done a bit beyond what the facts will bear.

But, legal reporting is so bad, I would wait to actually read the petition before attempting to conclude anything.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
4 hours ago, Nicole44 said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15278569/Camp-Mystic-lawsuits-neglect-floods.html
 

the lawsuit filed on behalf of dead campers/counselors included a lot of details I hadn’t heard of before now. 
 

rage inducing. 💯 preventable when it comes to the loss of life at Mystic. Rage inducing. 
 

“The lawsuit goes on to note that Dick Eastman and multiple campers' bodies were found the next day in a Chevrolet Tahoe that had been swept away. Counselors had claimed all of the occupants of the Bubble Inn were inside the vehicle.”

 

This isn’t new news (kids being evacuated in Tahoe). This was widely reported/known within the first few days/week.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Both solid plaintiff's lawyers.  I've known Sean for a LONG time.  Good lawyer, good guy.  And Lanier is smart as HELL.  

The move towards putting a photo of the deceased in the Petition itself is a new trend, and a strong one.  It's powerful, even though the Petition isn't an "action" document that a jury will ever see - gives a flavor of how the case would look.

And seems there are several defendants where venue is proper in Travis County, so seems likely that the cases will stay in Travis County.

As defendants....other than defenses of "I didn't have anything to do with it, I just own shares of an entity" or similar defenses.....yeah, I don't know where and how you even begin to defend this case.  It's as bad as it gets for a negligence case.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:

Both solid plaintiff's lawyers.  I've known Sean for a LONG time.  Good lawyer, good guy.  And Lanier is smart as HELL.  

The move towards putting a photo of the deceased in the Petition itself is a new trend, and a strong one.  It's powerful, even though the Petition isn't an "action" document that a jury will ever see - gives a flavor of how the case would look.

And seems there are several defendants where venue is proper in Travis County, so seems likely that the cases will stay in Travis County.

As defendants....other than defenses of "I didn't have anything to do with it, I just own shares of an entity" or similar defenses.....yeah, I don't know where and how you even begin to defend this case.  It's as bad as it gets for a negligence case.

Was gonna say thought Breen was a jebbie, but memory clouds.

Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Was gonna say thought Breen was a jebbie, but memory clouds.

I don't think so.  He did have one of the best "case cites" I've ever heard in an argument.  District Court here in TC, and it was a fight over whether a certain type of witness needed to be deposed or whatnot, and the other side had taken a similar position (and gotten favorable treatment on the matter from the judge).  Judge asked Sean if he had any authority for his position, and he said "well your honor, I'd cite the case of Goose vs. Gander."  He paused and grinned, judge smiled and nodded, and it won the day.  Pretty smooth move.

Was also working a multi-party case with him when the bonfire collapse happened; his brother was there, and was killed.  Was a solid example of professional courtesy as the other 9 lawyers on the case said "we're going to stay all activities and proceedings until Sean tells us he's ready to step back into the case."  And we did.  Just froze things for a couple of months, then Sean said "ok, I appreciate the courtesy, let's get going again."

  • Like 1
Posted

Lanier is the best trial lawyer in the country. Yetter Coleman is one of the best boutique law firms in the country. Along with Breen, that’s about as good a group as you could get. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Rudiger said:

Lanier is the best trial lawyer in the country. Yetter Coleman is one of the best boutique law firms in the country. Along with Breen, that’s about as good a group as you could get. 

Where'd Yetter Coleman show up?  Missed them on the sig blocks.

They've got some smart folks for sure, but had an appellate matter involving them where their approach was maybe too smart by half.  They missed the common-sense mark.  But that was more a "reading the room/bench" issue than it was a quality of work intel issue.  Agreed that it's an outstanding bunch over there.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Where'd Yetter Coleman show up?  Missed them on the sig blocks.

They've got some smart folks for sure, but had an appellate matter involving them where their approach was maybe too smart by half.  They missed the common-sense mark.  But that was more a "reading the room/bench" issue than it was a quality of work intel issue.  Agreed that it's an outstanding bunch over there.

There is apparently a third suit, couldn't find it.

Mikal Watts is not too shabby last time I checked.

Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have never seen these "emergency instructions" and I had not known that the Camp was busy securing equipment and property instead of evacuating children. How did they find all that out before filing the lawsuit?

Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There is apparently a third suit, couldn't find it.

Mikal Watts is not too shabby last time I checked.

Watts is not shabby.

But goddamn, this case is a defense nightmare.

Shit, I represented a hospital back in the day (complex civil matters, NOT their medmal matters).  I remember having a drink with the CEO one evening, discussing the various legal goings on, and he related that they'd just settled a med mal case.  "It was a dead baby case.  Those are the absolute worst.  Doesn't matter what happened, what you did or didn't do....there's a dead baby.  You settle those cases.  Always."

Well, here....there's 27 dead little girls.  I don't know what outcome the plaintiffs want.  But whatever it is, they'll likely get something close to it.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Watts is not shabby.

But goddamn, this case is a defense nightmare.

Shit, I represented a hospital back in the day (complex civil matters, NOT their medmal matters).  I remember having a drink with the CEO one evening, discussing the various legal goings on, and he related that they'd just settled a med mal case.  "It was a dead baby case.  Those are the absolute worst.  Doesn't matter what happened, what you did or didn't do....there's a dead baby.  You settle those cases.  Always."

Well, here....there's 27 dead little girls.  I don't know what outcome the plaintiffs want.  But whatever it is, they'll likely get something close to it.

I think they're going to say that it floods all the time but nothing as bad or as fast developing as this. I can't imagine anyone being sympathetic to that excuse, but it's probably the truth, that they didn't set out to imperil little girls. Much like a buzzed driver doesn't set out to kill an innocent pedestrian.

Posted
20 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I have never seen these "emergency instructions" and I had not known that the Camp was busy securing equipment and property instead of evacuating children. How did they find all that out before filing the lawsuit?

Investigators, interviewing people.  One of those benefits of being the plaintiff, you can beat the bushes for facts before everyone is completely lawyered up and woodshedded.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Where'd Yetter Coleman show up?  Missed them on the sig blocks.

They've got some smart folks for sure, but had an appellate matter involving them where their approach was maybe too smart by half.  They missed the common-sense mark.  But that was more a "reading the room/bench" issue than it was a quality of work intel issue.  Agreed that it's an outstanding bunch over there.

Yetter Coleman is counsel on their own petition for several families.

They might be too smart on some matters, but that’s why Lanier is such a good counterpart. 

Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Investigators, interviewing people.  One of those benefits of being the plaintiff, you can beat the bushes for facts before everyone is completely lawyered up and woodshedded.

The camps would be stupid not to have been preparing their anuses since July 5.

Posted
6 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The camps would be stupid not to have been preparing their anuses since July 5.

True, but there are a myriad of people, campers, employees, locals, that could be tapped for information before being "captured."

One of the more interesting inclusions in one of the petitions seems to be a surveillance camera photo of girls wading through water toward a two-story building.

Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

True, but there are a myriad of people, campers, employees, locals, that could be tapped for information before being "captured."

One of the more interesting inclusions in one of the petitions seems to be a surveillance camera photo of girls wading through water toward a two-story building.

Survivors, I hope

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Outside of insurance coverage I’m not sure I see a quality defendant with pockets deep enough for these lawsuits. In fact I’m surprised they haven’t already gone caput. I guess the land itself is vulnerable, but other than that all I see is bankruptcy or receivership with little to show for it. But admittedly I haven’t spent a minute looking into it. If the big game hunters are on it, it’s either more publicity for future cases or they see a real route to recovery. 

Edited by scramblyn
Posted
5 minutes ago, scramblyn said:

Outside of insurance coverage I’m not sure I see a quality defendant with pockets deep enough for these lawsuits. In fact I’m surprised they haven’t already gone caput. I guess the land itself is vulnerable, but other than that all I see is bankruptcy or receivership with little to show for it. But admittedly I haven’t spent a minute looking into it. If the big game hunters are on it, it’s either more publicity for future cases or they see a real route to recovery. 

Natural Fountains Property owns the land, which was contemplating being sold to Lee Bass in 2005 for $8,000/acre.

Dick and Tweety made 336k in 1999.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, scramblyn said:

Outside of insurance coverage I’m not sure I see a quality defendant with pockets deep enough for these lawsuits. In fact I’m surprised they haven’t already gone caput. I guess the land itself is vulnerable, but other than that all I see is bankruptcy or receivership with little to show for it. But admittedly I haven’t spent a minute looking into it. If the big game hunters are on it, it’s either more publicity for future cases or they see a real route to recovery. 

A lot of the victims families are incredibly rich. I don't think this is about money. It's about getting justice, and they probably WANT to see the defendants in bankruptcy. I don't blame them at all.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Mikal Watts is not too shabby last time I checked.

Any idea how he's getting paid?  He made his millions on personal injury contingency matters without having to bill his time.  I can't imagine at his level whatever hourly rate he sets is going to be approved by an insurance company.  And I'm not so sure his clients have the deepest of pockets to pay Watts for 2+ years of litigation?  Does he have some ties to the camp owners and is doing this on a reduced fee/for free?  

Posted
2 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Any idea how he's getting paid?  He made his millions on personal injury contingency matters without having to bill his time.  I can't imagine at his level whatever hourly rate he sets is going to be approved by an insurance company.  And I'm not so sure his clients have the deepest of pockets to pay Watts for 2+ years of litigation?  Does he have some ties to the camp owners and is doing this on a reduced fee/for free?  

He said he was doing it pro bono. 

Posted
22 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

A lot of the victims families are incredibly rich. I don't think this is about money. It's about getting justice, and they probably WANT to see the defendants in bankruptcy. I don't blame them at all.

Well, plaintiffs lawyers have to be paid too. So that motivation doesn’t really work. So either the land and insurance is enough or the plaintiff lawyers are happy with the publicity. Probably a little bit of both. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Rudiger said:

He said he was doing it pro bono. 

Ah, missed that.  So my next question -- why?  I'm guessing his family has some connection to the Camp Mystic owners.  

Posted
1 minute ago, South Austin said:

Ah, missed that.  So my next question -- why?  I'm guessing his family has some connection to the Camp Mystic owners.  

Watts is a prominent Democrat party donor. My guess (and he has already making public statements to such) is he is going to go hard against state and county authorities for their failures. With a Travis County jury, might be a good strategy. But his “why” seems to be he can disparage Abbott and the Kerr County authorities for blame.

Posted
2 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Ah, missed that.  So my next question -- why?  I'm guessing his family has some connection to the Camp Mystic owners.  

I know Mikal pretty well—well enough that he and I were texting last night—but his motivations can be a mystery. 

My working theory has been he knew the Eastlands either because he lives on a ranch in Mountain Home and/or from church. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Lamar said:

Watts is a prominent Democrat party donor. My guess (and he has already making public statements to such) is he is going to go hard against state and county authorities for their failures. With a Travis County jury, might be a good strategy. But his “why” seems to be he can disparage Abbott and the Kerr County authorities for blame.

Almost every plaintiffs lawyer is a "Democrat party" 🙄 donor.  Because Democrats by and large aren't in the thrall of big business and anxious to help them socialize their losses with bullshit like tort reform.

And the powers that be in Austin and Kerr County, who have run this state without opposition for 30 years, and given it away to corporate interests, need to be disparaged.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
4 minutes ago, Lamar said:

Watts is a prominent Democrat party donor. My guess (and he has already making public statements to such) is he is going to go hard against state and county authorities for their failures. With a Travis County jury, might be a good strategy. But his “why” seems to be he can disparage Abbott and the Kerr County authorities for blame.

 

Just now, Rudiger said:

I know Mikal pretty well—well enough that he and I were texting last night—but his motivations can be a mystery. 

My working theory has been he knew the Eastlands either because he lives on a ranch in Mountain Home and/or from church. 

Makes sense.  And if I made millions and never really had to work another day in my life, I guess I'd work on a high-profile case for free if it also meant scoring some political points.  

I find it odd that the Federalist Society lists him as a speaker or author on its website.  https://fedsoc.org/bio/mikal-watts#:~:text=https://fedsoc.org/bio,During that time%2C Mr.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Almost every plaintiffs lawyer is a "Democrat party" 🙄 donor.  Because Democrats by and large aren't in the thrall of big business and anxious to help them socialize their losses with bullshit like tort reform.

And the powers that be in Austin and Kerr County, who have run this state without opposition for 30 years, and given it away to corporate interests, need to be disparaged.

Is this the first paragraph of your Wikipedia page too?

Mikal Watts (born July 17, 1967 in Corpus Christi) is an American attorney from San Antonio, Texas and a prolific donor to the Texas and national Democratic Party, and candidates running for office as Democrats. He formed an exploratory committee to run for Senator of Texas against incumbent John Cornyn in the 2008 U.S. Senate elections,[1] but announced on October 23, 2007 his decision not to run

 

Posted
12 minutes ago, South Austin said:

 

Makes sense.  And if I made millions and never really had to work another day in my life, I guess I'd work on a high-profile case for free if it also meant scoring some political points.  

I find it odd that the Federalist Society lists him as a speaker or author on its website.  https://fedsoc.org/bio/mikal-watts#:~:text=https://fedsoc.org/bio,During that time%2C Mr.

Mikal’s definitely a Democrat (although his wife is not).

I wouldn’t be surprised he’s spoken at a FedSoc event. Sometimes they invite a speaker to take the liberal position, or the pro-tort-plaintiff position. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

True, but there are a myriad of people, campers, employees, locals, that could be tapped for information before being "captured."

One of the more interesting inclusions in one of the petitions seems to be a surveillance camera photo of girls wading through water toward a two-story building.

I envision a bunch of out of town lawyers pestering the shit out of people while rescue efforts were still ongoing.

Posted
1 hour ago, scramblyn said:

plaintiffs lawyers have to be paid too

That's true. But as you said the publicity is great and the cause is noble. I think the lawyers will be just fine, I only wanted to say that the victims families probably have made peace with the fact that there are so many victimized families that the camp can't possibly have enough money to pay judgments to each of them. 

Posted
2 hours ago, South Austin said:

Any idea how he's getting paid?  He made his millions on personal injury contingency matters without having to bill his time.  I can't imagine at his level whatever hourly rate he sets is going to be approved by an insurance company.  And I'm not so sure his clients have the deepest of pockets to pay Watts for 2+ years of litigation?  Does he have some ties to the camp owners and is doing this on a reduced fee/for free?  

Jeff Ray is defending it at an insurance defense shop.  He is a very very very solid lawyer.  He will do as good a job as can be done.  Mikal will be there at his side and, together, they will put up a virtuous defense.  

Posted
1 hour ago, Rudiger said:

I know Mikal pretty well—well enough that he and I were texting last night—but his motivations can be a mystery. 

My working theory has been he knew the Eastlands either because he lives on a ranch in Mountain Home and/or from church. 

He know the Eastland family exactly as you describe it.  "Neighbors" - which also means church.  

Posted
1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

That's true. But as you said the publicity is great and the cause is noble. I think the lawyers will be just fine, I only wanted to say that the victims families probably have made peace with the fact that there are so many victimized families that the camp can't possibly have enough money to pay judgments to each of them. 

Oh I’m not worried about them just wondering out loud about the underlying dynamics. 

Posted
3 hours ago, Lamar said:

Is this the first paragraph of your Wikipedia page too?

Mikal Watts (born July 17, 1967 in Corpus Christi) is an American attorney from San Antonio, Texas and a prolific donor to the Texas and national Democratic Party, and candidates running for office as Democrats. He formed an exploratory committee to run for Senator of Texas against incumbent John Cornyn in the 2008 U.S. Senate elections,[1] but announced on October 23, 2007 his decision not to run

 

Im not a plaintiffs attorney.  My work gets fucked over on a bipartisan basis, but most recently at the hands of bigtech.

Posted
18 hours ago, chainsaw said:

I think they're going to say that it floods all the time but nothing as bad or as fast developing as this. I can't imagine anyone being sympathetic to that excuse, but it's probably the truth, that they didn't set out to imperil little girls. Much like a buzzed driver doesn't set out to kill an innocent pedestrian.

That sounds like willful/wanton conduct. This is a straight up reasonableness standard. 

Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, chainsaw said:

I think they're going to say that it floods all the time but nothing as bad or as fast developing as this.

Except in just the past few years, we have examples of massive, deadly floods at "unprecedented" levels that happened in identical geography just a few miles away (talk to folks in Wimberly).  Any reasonable person (esp. one living in/near the hill country) knows that "unprecedented" flooding doesn't mean "impossible" flooding -- it actually means "the kind of shit that is happening with increasing frequency."

And "nobody could have known this would be this dangerous or could have done anything to protect against the outcome" isn't going to sell when upstream properties literally DID anticipate the risk, monitor the risk, and take real-time action to protect life and property.  Not only could it be done, it WAS done.  Just not by Mystic.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
44 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Except in just the past few years, we have examples of massive, deadly floods at "unprecedented" levels that happened in identical geography just a few miles away (talk to folks in Wimberly).  Any reasonable person (esp. one living in/near the hill country) knows that "unprecedented" flooding doesn't mean "impossible" flooding -- it actually means "the kind of shit that is happening with increasing frequency."

And "nobody could have known this would be this dangerous or could have done anything to protect against the outcome" isn't going to sell when upstream properties literally DID anticipate the risk, monitor the risk, and take real-time action to protect life and property.  Not only could it be done, it WAS done.  Just not by Mystic.

Camp Mystic alumni Karens...

How Dare You Greta GIF

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, chainsaw said:

The camps would be stupid not to have been preparing their anuses since July 5.

 

7 hours ago, chainsaw said:

A lot of the victims families are incredibly rich. I don't think this is about money. It's about getting justice, and they probably WANT to see the defendants in bankruptcy. I don't blame them at all.

It probably wasn't going to stop the lawsuits but the optics of announcing the memorial to the drowned Mystic campers/counselors without getting the parents' blessing AND that they'd be open next summer -- albeit in the other Mystic camp area -- was just terribad.

On a personal note, Eloise/Lulu Peck's dad was one of my wife's best friends when they were at Clemson. He and I have become friends over the years. We saw them a couple of days after the tragedy and he basically said he was going to sue the shit of somebody so this does not come as a surprise.

Edited by C-Man
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

If the defense is free, there's more money to go around for the victims

Discussed this earlier with GOLL.  On the defense side, I suspect a good bit of the work and strategy is going to be to try to protect the individual defendants and their assets.  That is, a defense that focuses on the fact that the proper defendant is a corporation, and there's no good basis to "pierce the corporate veil."  The corporate defendant is fucked.  But the individual Eastlands and such may be protectable.  We'll see.

Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:

Discussed this earlier with GOLL.  On the defense side, I suspect a good bit of the work and strategy is going to be to try to protect the individual defendants and their assets.  That is, a defense that focuses on the fact that the proper defendant is a corporation, and there's no good basis to "pierce the corporate veil."  The corporate defendant is fucked.  But the individual Eastlands and such may be protectable.  We'll see.

Yeah, we'll see. I can't imagine what it would be like to be one of the victim families, but getting their day in court is likely to be a huge factor. That could explain why there's different groups with different lawsuits. Some groups have different goals than others, or different priorities that would affect the strategery

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...