Georgia Supreme Court and seebs

[wildernesse]

Haha.

Anywho. Got an email this week telling me that the Georgia Supreme Court has agreed to hold court at the courtroom in the law school in a couple of weeks--which is pretty interesting in its own right. So they sent out summaries so that you could decide which case you wanted to sit in on--and one of them is Carnett's Inc. v. Harmon--which is a fax spam case!

So, I thought--hey, a fax spam case! This is what seebs is dealing with! And signed myself up. (Really the issue is over class action certification and not so much about fax spam.)

Carnett’s, Inc. v. Michelle Hammond
Hammond was the recipient of an unsolicited fax advertising Carnett’s, Inc., a company which operates car washes in Atlanta. In September 2002, she filed a law suit in Gwinnett County Superior Court against Carnett’s, alleging that it had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. She sought class certification for the 73,500 persons in the Atlanta area who received the unsolicited advertisement on their facsimile machines. After the trial court denied class certification, Hammond appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. Carnett’s, Inc., then applied for certiorari to the Supreme Court. On June 29, 2004, this court granted certiorari in order to determine if the Court of Appeals erred when it reversed the trial court’s denial of class certification.

Attorneys for Petitioner: Michael B. Terry, Frank M. Lowrey, IV, Mark W. Wortham, Richard C. Foster
Attorneys for Respondent: Marc B. Hershovitz, Roy E. Barnes, Ned Blumenthal, Michael K. Jablonski



At the time I signed up, I thought, "Wow, lots of people want to go to this one. Hmmm. Guess some class is requiring it." Later on, I re-read the case summary and, well, Roy Barnes is one of the attorneys for the case. Just our last governor. Which might account for why there were 3x as many people signed up for that case than the other two (one of which is a criminal case and the other is a negligence asbestos case).

Which made me think of what was going on with you seebs--are you still pursuing those cases?

[seebs]

Oooh, interesting.

Yup, still pursuing these. Just got a hilariously low offer of $375 from a local company, so we get to file discovery on them.

[beyelzu]

Oooh, interesting.

Yup, still pursuing these. Just got a hilariously low offer of $375 from a local company, so we get to file discovery on them.
want to tell me about the suit?

[seebs]

Hmm. I've written about this some on my blog (http://www.seebs.net/log/).

Basically, the TCPA gives you $500/ad in statutory damages for junk faxes. So, you can sue. You can generally settle for a little more, especially if you live in Minnesota, where a state law gives you attorney's fees. The federal law also allows for treble damages for "willful and knowing" violations. That does not mean "they knew they were breaking the law"; it means "they knew they were sending faxes without prior express permission". If you accidentally send a fax to the wrong person, you're on the hook for $500. If you send it to the wrong person, you're on the hook for up to $1,500. That's whether or not you know about the law.

I've gotten probably close to $30,000 in settlements this year. The breakdown is that I've got about $1,500 in legal costs, 35% goes to the attorney, another 15-20% goes to taxes, and the rest goes to people who need money more than I do. That pool has been gradually shrinking, because I'm out of work, and I am currently somewhat regretting my declaration that I was going to give away my junk fax money.

[viscousmemories]

Wow. Cool deal. I hate junk faxers. Junk mail is bad enough, but making you supply the paper and ink is just vile. Good on you for stickin' it to them!

[beyelzu]

Hmm. I've written about this some on my blog (http://www.seebs.net/log/).

Basically, the TCPA gives you $500/ad in statutory damages for junk faxes. So, you can sue. You can generally settle for a little more, especially if you live in Minnesota, where a state law gives you attorney's fees. The federal law also allows for treble damages for "willful and knowing" violations. That does not mean "they knew they were breaking the law"; it means "they knew they were sending faxes without prior express permission". If you accidentally send a fax to the wrong person, you're on the hook for $500. If you send it to the wrong person, you're on the hook for up to $1,500. That's whether or not you know about the law.

I've gotten probably close to $30,000 in settlements this year. The breakdown is that I've got about $1,500 in legal costs, 35% goes to the attorney, another 15-20% goes to taxes, and the rest goes to people who need money more than I do. That pool has been gradually shrinking, because I'm out of work, and I am currently somewhat regretting my declaration that I was going to give away my junk fax money.


sweet, I hate junk faxes. It misses me off more than any other unsolicited bs because faxes cost money.