Joint and Several Liability

[peculiarwheel]

Arizona

In a property damage case where:

A. There are four defendants...two couples...one couple married (Couple A), the other engaged and live together (Couple B).

B. The bulk of the injuries were done by the men, however the women assisted from time to time.

C. lawsuit filed against all four.

D. Punitive damages are a possibility

E. Assume judgment against all four will occur if it goes to trail, and that some degree of punitive damages awarded.

F. Male of couple A is a Vexatious Litigator (seriously, he is) and has asset protection in place and feels he is judgement proof. Assume he is.

G. Male in Couple B does not have asset protection.

H. The evidence supports that they were all in concert in committing the injuries.

Given these parameters, the likelihood is that Couple B would want to settle. If continuing the suit against Couple A would probably end up in not recovering judgement...would it be better to not settle and force Couple B to pay the whole amount (as opposed to a negotiated settlement), forcing couple B to go after Couple A for their share of the judgement?

My thinking is that if Couple B wanted to settle for half the prayer request...I might consider it, if I felt I could get the rest from Couple A...but if I won't get it from Couple A...I should go for the full amount at trail and get Couple B to pay the higher judgement amount.

is this logic sound?

Would the pragmatic line of reasoning be to settle with Couple B for an amount that I would assume is all I'll ever get?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Zigner]

I think you've got bigger problems than worrying about if they will settle.

 

[quincy]

Arizona

In a property damage case where:

A. There are four defendants...two couples...one couple married (Couple A), the other engaged and live together (Couple B).

B. The bulk of the injuries were done by the men, however the women assisted from time to time.

C. lawsuit filed against all four.

D. Punitive damages are a possibility

E. Assume judgment against all four will occur if it goes to trail, and that some degree of punitive damages awarded.

F. Male of couple A is a Vexatious Litigator (seriously, he is) and has asset protection in place and feels he is judgement proof. Assume he is.

G. Male in Couple B does not have asset protection.

H. The evidence supports that they were all in concert in committing the injuries.

Given these parameters, the likelihood is that Couple B would want to settle. If continuing the suit against Couple A would probably end up in not recovering judgement...would it be better to not settle and force Couple B to pay the whole amount (as opposed to a negotiated settlement), forcing couple B to go after Couple A for their share of the judgement?

My thinking is that if Couple B wanted to settle for half the prayer request...I might consider it, if I felt I could get the rest from Couple A...but if I won't get it from Couple A...I should go for the full amount at trail and get Couple B to pay the higher judgement amount.

is this logic sound?

Would the pragmatic line of reasoning be to settle with Couple B for an amount that I would assume is all I'll ever get?

Thanks in advance.

Before answering any of your questions in this thread, peculiarwheel, I am interested in knowing why you deleted your other thread that had 3 pages worth of responses from the volunteers on this site (although, granted, a few responses contained erroneous information provided by a now-banned member)?

The thread, if anyone is interested, is preserved in Google cache, title "Filing civil suit pro se - need answers to several questions."

 

[peculiarwheel]

Before answering any of your questions in this thread, peculiarwheel, I am interested in knowing why you deleted your other thread that had 3 pages worth of responses from the volunteers on this site (although, granted, a few responses contained erroneous information provided by a now-banned member)?

The thread, if anyone is interested, is preserved in Google cache, title "Filing civil suit pro se - need answers to several questions."

I did not delete them....administration deleted them. Are you with the site's administration? If not..then rest assured the site administration are administrating the site. If you are part of administration...I'm unclear as to why you are confused.

 

[peculiarwheel]

I think you've got bigger problems than worrying about if they will settle.

Why do you say that?

 

[quincy]

I did not delete them....administration deleted them. Are you with the site's administration? If not..then rest assured the site administration are administrating the site. If you are part of administration...I'm unclear as to why you are confused.

The administrators of this site removed posts by a banned member only, and the remaining posts were left intact. They did not delete the thread(s) that you started. That means that only you could have deleted the threads. No one else is able to.

It seems sort of pointless for any of the volunteers on this site to reanswer all of the questions previously answered, especially since there is no guarantee you won't delete this thread as well.

 

[Mark Maroon]

Arizona

In a property damage case where:
<snipped>
Given these parameters, the likelihood is that Couple B would want to settle. If continuing the suit against Couple A would probably end up in not recovering judgement...would it be better to not settle and force Couple B to pay the whole amount (as opposed to a negotiated settlement), forcing couple B to go after Couple A for their share of the judgement?

My thinking is that if Couple B wanted to settle for half the prayer request...I might consider it, if I felt I could get the rest from Couple A...but if I won't get it from Couple A...I should go for the full amount at trail and get Couple B to pay the higher judgement amount.

is this logic sound?

Would the pragmatic line of reasoning be to settle with Couple B for an amount that I would assume is all I'll ever get?

Thanks in advance.

If you can't guess what either party will do or how hard it will be to collect from either party, etcetera, how in the world could we possibly guess those things?

I would say that ALL other things being equal, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. But if the birds in the bush are tied to branches of the bush with string, then maybe it's best to go for the two in the bush. Or if the bird in the hand is the size of a hummingbird and the ones in the bush are ostriches, and you are starving, then maybe you want the ones in the bush. Yadda Yadda Yadda

File against appropriate defendants if you have a good case against them, and then see where it goes. Don't try to count your settlement chickens before they've hatched.

 

[peculiarwheel]

The administrators of this site removed posts by a banned member only, and the remaining posts were left intact. They did not delete the thread(s) that you started. That means that only you could have deleted the threads. No one else is able to.

It seems sort of pointless for any of the volunteers on this site to reanswer all of the questions previously answered, especially since there is no guarantee you won't delete this thread as well.

Quincy - I could not delete the threads...the timer for me to be able to do that had run out. I don't know who you are...as it relates to this site...but your statement here is simply inaccurate. Are you part of administration? If not...I respectfully say that you don't know what you're talking about and should drop it. If you are part of administration...you should talk to the appropriate team members and get caught up....or pm privately at the least.

 

[peculiarwheel]

I think you've got bigger problems than worrying about if they will settle.

Zigner...I'm not sure what to make of your comment here. Why do you say that? What do you see that I don't?

 

[peculiarwheel]

If you can't guess what either party will do or how hard it will be to collect from either party, etcetera, how in the world could we possibly guess those things?

I would say that ALL other things being equal, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. But if the birds in the bush are tied to branches of the bush with string, then maybe it's best to go for the two in the bush. Or if the bird in the hand is the size of a hummingbird and the ones in the bush are ostriches, and you are starving, then maybe you want the ones in the bush. Yadda Yadda Yadda

File against appropriate defendants if you have a good case against them, and then see where it goes. Don't try to count your settlement chickens before they've hatched.

Thank you Mark. I guess I was asking from a leverage perspective. I understand the concept if keeping it simple and straight forward...but I also don't want to simplify myself out of a larger settlement because I did not play my hand right.

 

[quincy]

If you can't guess what either party will do or how hard it will be to collect from either party, etcetera, how in the world could we possibly guess those things? ...

... File against appropriate defendants if you have a good case against them, and then see where it goes. Don't try to count your settlement chickens before they've hatched.

peculiarwheel, you were advised properly in your other threads before you deleted them. Please re-read Mark Maroon's post because I don't think you are understanding what he wrote.

Unless you have additional facts (and the ones you present here are certainly no different than they were in your other threads), the answers you were given before are not going to change. Don't count on a punitive award in a property damages case. You were told that fraud was not a factor. There has been no perjury.

No one can tell you what the odds are that your defendants will settle.

Seek the advice of an attorney in your area, who can advise you better on what your best course of action is after a personal review.

 

[Mark Maroon]

Thank you Mark. I guess I was asking from a leverage perspective. I understand the concept if keeping it simple and straight forward...but I also don't want to simplify myself out of a larger settlement because I did not play my hand right.

Well, OK, I will make a suggestion based on your "E" assumption:

E. Assume judgment against all four will occur if it goes to trail, and that some degree of punitive damages awarded.

I suggest that you get the judgment against all 4 of your defendants, and THEN you will have some actual "leverage" to try and force one or more of the defendants to settle. But if your "leverage" is only a threat that you will file a law suit, or that your might obtain a judgment against one or more of the defendants, then it is impossible to assess whether that "leverage" might be useful in any way.

 

[quincy]

Well, OK, I will make a suggestion based on your "E" assumption:

E. Assume judgment against all four will occur if it goes to trail, and that some degree of punitive damages awarded.

I suggest that you get the judgment against all 4 of your defendants, and THEN you will have some actual "leverage" to try and force one or more of the defendants to settle. But if your "leverage" is only a threat that you will file a law suit, or that your might obtain a judgment against one or more of the defendants, then it is impossible to assess whether that "leverage" might be useful in any way.

"E" is a BIG assumption.

 

[peculiarwheel]

Thank you everyone.

One of the defendants appears to be a vexatious litigant (on both sides of the parties) and seems assured that he is judgement proof through asset protection. He has acted believing as such..without regard for consequence. That is why there seem to be an air of confidence with my assumptions of winning the case. The other defendants followed along and assisted, foolishly, in all the various harms done over a period of time. This particular defendant in his arrogance is the one that clued me in to the perspective of lumping all the defendants together because his expectation was that one of the other defendants would end up paying it...since he was judgement proof.

I filed my lawsuit with a prayer for specific compensation from each defendant and asked for punitive damages as a whole for the group. What I am also trying to learn is if I can amend my complaint to lump the compensation portion to the group instead....or is it not permissible to modify the initial complaint where I already specified my prayer for damages? Two of the defendants has been served but have not answered, and two has avoided being served (guess which one). so I'm trying to find out if I can/should/ or when to amend the complaint to lump the group of defendants together.

Thanks

 

[peculiarwheel]

This particular defendant in his arrogance is the one that clued me in to the perspective of lumping all the defendants together because his expectation was that one of the other defendants would end up paying it...since he was judgement proof.

When the first two defendants were served...they called the arrogant defendant and informed him of the suit. The arrogant defendant than called me...threatening me...and then described his expectation that one of the co-defendants would ultimately pay for the suit.

This defendant first sent me a text asking if I was suing him...then proceeded to call me repeatedly from a restricted number until I picked up the call. It was during that call I speak of.

The defendants already had an injunction against harassment order for this same type of behavior which lead to the suit now...but the one year time period has elapsed. Is it of strategic value to inform the trial judge of this harassment and try to have the original restrictions imposed? Would this information be admissible to the jury?

Thanks again.