Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Wild Mark Sanchez story

flycy said:
I live in my house because of my company's dime, If you go after me for something that happens on my property, I guess you should go after them too. After all, they have more money than me.
Click to expand...
A business law professor of mine back in the day gave the class some unsolicited advice/strategy one day.

He said in a civil suit, a lawyer will recommend adding any plaintiff you possible can at the outset. A judge or you can remove plaintiffs later on depending on how the case is going, but you want to maximize the amount of money you can get by maximizing plaintiffs.

Not that I, personally, agree with that, but that’s how it works. I’m surprised the facility isn’t included in the lawsuit too.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: isufbcurt and CRCy17
CRCy17 said:
I'm no lawyer, but trying to remember back about 20 years to BMack's (RIP) JLMC 460 Communications Law class where it was mentioned that in a civil suit, you always go for the "deepest pockets" to include anyone and everyone on the suit, especially those with the most money (companies etc). This way you anchor your case high, and it can always come down, but much harder to try to go the other direction
Click to expand...
beat me to it by 2 minutes. Although it wasn’t Barbara Mack who told me, it was another professor.
 
flycy said:
I live in my house because of my company's dime, If you go after me for something that happens on my property, I guess you should go after them too. After all, they have more money than me.
Click to expand...
I'm no attorney but even I know that when you sue someone you sue everyone you possibly can even if their involvement and legal responsibility is questionable at best. There are many reasons for that (deep pockets for one) but also if one entity rolls over just to avoid bad pub or risk of a big loss (Fox could very well pay to distance themselves), it is a really bad look for your primary target. "Even their co-defendant knows they are responsible."

I have also been in pre-litigation mediation where two defendants were strong arming the third defendant to settle so you have two of your three adversaries working for you against the third. Also in a court of law co-defendants can also eat their young and point fingers at each other helping you to make your case.

I doubt that they will be able to stick anything on Fox, but they could try to leverage the flight, hotel, meals and ground transportation being on Fox's dime as him being in an employee capacity when this all went down - especially if he got drunk on a Fox credit card or even if they have reimbursed him for drinks before with the assumption that he would have been able to do the same on this trip.
 
SolterraCyclone said:
beat me to it by 2 minutes. Although it wasn’t Barbara Mack who told me, it was another professor.
Click to expand...
That is where I wasn't 100% on the source, but believe that was the only class I took that had "law" in there, but could have been mentioned by anyone there or also doing my Master's at tOSU. But agree fully with your post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SolterraCyclone
VeloClone said:
I'm no attorney but even I know that when you sue someone you sue everyone you possibly can even if their involvement and legal responsibility is questionable at best. There are many reasons for that (deep pockets for one) but also if one entity rolls over just to avoid bad pub or risk of a big loss (Fox could very well pay to distance themselves), it is a really bad look for your primary target. "Even their co-defendant knows they are responsible."

I doubt that they will be able to stick anything on Fox, but they could try to leverage the flight, hotel, meals and ground transportation being on Fox's dime as him being in an employee capacity when this all went down.
Click to expand...
Everyone knows lawyers only go after whoever has the money, that's not the point. It's not justice, it's just greed.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Cyclonepride
Fox will not want the discovery phase for marks actions over the years. They will settle and mark will claim he was drugged at the bar.
 
CRCy17 said:
I'm no lawyer, but trying to remember back about 20 years to BMack's (RIP) JLMC 460 Communications Law class where it was mentioned that in a civil suit, you always go for the "deepest pockets" to include anyone and everyone on the suit, especially those with the most money (companies etc). This way you anchor your case high, and it can always come down, but much harder to try to go the other direction
Click to expand...
She was a helluva professor. I think she lived on the DSM southside.
Used to talk about her horses a lot in classes I had.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: SolterraCyclone and CRCy17
KnappShack said:
That facial gash is worth a few hundy

Pain, suffering, disfigurement, loss of consortium

An old, frail man viciously attacked by a professional athlete when he's working a late night shift just trying to make ends meet.

This rich, entitled Hollywood celebrity just attacks him? The shame....now pay the man.
Click to expand...

Due to the state of the economy, a 69-year-old man has to work the late shift hauling used cooking oil, and then gets attacked by a high-inebriated millionaire? Yeah, he's getting paid, and he should be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VeloClone
flycy said:
Everyone knows lawyers only go after whoever has the money, that's not the point. It's not justice, it's just greed.
Click to expand...
However if he has had problems before when drunk and they looked the other way and even reimbursed him for drinks at dinner they have some responsibility since they are enabling his bad behavior. Sanchez is likely not there if he wasn't still employed by Fox.
 
From a defense attorney I know.

Plaintiff will argue Sanchez was on a work-related trip, so Fox is liable for his acts. However, Fox will argue Sanchez was not working (not within the course and scope of his employment) when the assault occurred so will seek a dismissal.
 
Fox could have some liability if some of the Fox crew members were having a group dinner/drinks and he was overserved.
 
It's threads like these that remind me why I ALWAYS come to CF for my legal and financial advise. :prohm:
 
Its hard to know without seeing video evidence, but the order of events that have been reported seem to be:

1. Sanchez approached/confronted truck driver
2. In some order, but its unclear on the exact timeline:
-initial physical contact where Sanchez tried to enter the cab of the truck
-truck driver pepper sprayed Sanchez
-Sanchez pushes truck driver to a dumpster and pallets in the alley
-truck driver stabs Sanchez multiple times (it seems with truck driver's knife)
-Sanchez slashes face of truck drive (unclear with what knife/object)
3. Sanchez runs away

You could show me a version, that wouldn't surprise me, of everything that happened between 1 and 3 where Sanchez is the aggressor throughout and the truck driver is only acting out of self defense the entire time and feels a very reasonable threat to his life. But you could also show me an unsurprising version where Sanchez is being a drunken idiot, but at some point the truck driver became the aggressor and introduced a deadly weapon to the situation. As an example if truck driver could have left after pepper spraying Sanchez, but instead pulls a knife and starts stabbing him and while being stabbed Sanchez throws the truck driver off of himself which causes the truck driver to hit his face on pallets or the dumpster causing the gash to the face. That is a quite a bit different version of events than what is being assumed. The order of everything under #2 and the ability of each party to leave during the entire situation will make a huge difference on both the criminal and civil side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flycy and Cyburbbalz
flycy said:
Fox being in the lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous though. Lawyers. ##@! It sounds like Sanchez instigated the whole thing, did both have knives, or was this one knife they fought over? Just a terrible story, throw him in the clink.
Click to expand...

If you are traveling for work, say visiting a client in Indianapolis, you go out for dinner and drinks, get in a car accident with your rental car and kill someone then you better believe both you and the company you work for will be liable and sued.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VeloClone
BoxsterCy said:
Counting down till he commits himself to a luxury rich person rehab in an effort to rehab his image before any trail. 90% this will not be tried and will be a plea bargain down to some misdemeanor and probation. Oh, and we can't forget the ubiquitous community service of 100 hours or some other ********.
Click to expand...
I knew a girl from Des Moines(she actually passed away last year) that was in one of those places with Johnny Manziel. I think she said it was in Minnesota.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom