Exotic Motors Midwest Lawsuit

Cost-Of-Plaintiffing in Exotic Cars Cases

It’s no secret that Exotic Motors has been a leader in the lawsuit industry. We have covered many of the highlights in the past. However, this one is worth highlighting just for its sheer audacity. The plaintiff’s attorneys in the case were apparently trying to use the word “foul” in their witness statements in hopes of getting a default judgment against the corporation. This would allow them to take over the company and force a sale of the company and its assets, all based on lies. It is truly unfortunate if this is the type of tactic that these attorneys will use to win a case.

Exotic Motors Midwest Lawsuit

Midwest litigation law firm decided to stand up to this harassment. Instead of being bought like a horse, they filed a lawsuit of their own. Unfortunately for them, it was too late to do anything by then. They lost, but not before having their reputation destroyed in the process. So what happened?

Apparently, there was another law firm in the state that saw the legal issues and decided to make a preemptive strike. Their attorney decided to ask an irrelevant question at a pretrial hearing which was promptly passed off as an irrelevant question. Of course, it was just a slip of the tongue and there were no underlying facts to support the inquiry. What was the result of this whole process?

The judge ordered a mistrial. What happened?

The jury couldn’t find anything to charge the defendant with. Why was this? Apparently, the attorneys had misled the court and the judge and this allowed them to continue the charade.

The law firm tried and again they lost. This time they brought in an expert who specialized in environmental law and he came back with what turned out to be the winning claim: the Environmental Protection Agency was guilty of selective enforcement and they were guilty of double standard. How incredible!

One must ask who thought of this? Apparently it was Jerry Brown, who is the Governor of California. Who else thought of this? None other than attorneys for Enron and other utility companies. Why? Because Enron is on their side, as are many lawyers who work in the Midwest.

So, when a law firm is defending a corporation or government entity, they make sure to set up a “debating team”.

This debating team consists of environmentalists, attorneys, trial lawyers, and all those who do not have a direct conflict of interest in the case. When they are asked if they will stand up for the defendant, many say, “Of course I will”. Except, that is not really the issue. The issue is whether the defendant is being given a fair trial or not. The fact that a certain party is defending the defendant and is on the same side as the lawyers who have a conflict of interest, does not make sense.

Now then, back to the original question, “What is an Enron verdict”? An Enron verdict is nothing more than a finding of fact by a jury in a civil or criminal court. Which court or jury determines the factual findings of fact is called “fact-finding”. In essence, what an Enron verdict says is, “80 percent of this corporation’s debt was built up by management and should not be repaid”. And, it’s a finding of fact, so it cannot be appealed.

What is more, an Enron judgment is only a finding of fact, not a fact of law.

Therefore, it cannot be appealed. This would clearly open a loophole in the law allowing a plaintiff to sue and receive a “contingency fee” (whereby the party receiving the fee does not have to pay anything if there is a judgment). However, since most of these lawsuits are over five years old, most of the courts have pretty much ignored the law and ruled in favor of the defendant. Therefore, an Enron judgment is basically worthless to the plaintiff.

So, it is my contention that the whole concept of a “contingency fee” for exotic car manufacturers is nothing more than a fraudulent lawsuit loan, which is then used to sue car manufacturers.

(I say “uses”, because the reality is that if the manufacturer does not satisfy the terms of the contract, then the plaintiff can file a suit.) It is my contention that the “cost-of-livigation” clause contained within the agreements of car manufacturers should be changed to require the payment of an “asset-based recovery”, as described above.

Please consider all this and think on it. If you are a plaintiff in a Michigan car manufacturing case, I believe you need an expert to determine whether or not an exotic car manufacturer has committed any acts of fraud within the purview of their contract. You may want to join another case similar to the one I just mentioned, in order to learn how “cost-of-plaintiffing” suits are evaluated by the courts. There are many books available on this topic. Perhaps you can add this one to your reading list.