Whole Foods countersues pastor who claimed he was offended by slur (2 Viewers)

[mb504]

I would do that.

Is this yours?

 

[LOONEY]

Whole Foods denies it made anti-gay cake - CNN.com

When I first heard the story that "***" (gay slur in case SR edits) was written on a pastor's cake, I figured it was some right wing pastor. I did not really pay attention, but I just assumed he probably wrote it himself and was enjoying being outraged. But when I saw the story that Whole Foods countersued (I suspect I might be using the term incorrectly), I decided to read it. Turns out the pastor himself is gay. Whole Foods says the employee who decorated the cake is gay too.

While we have to see how this one unfolds, this sort of reminds me of that crazy girl who branded herself on her face with iron and alleged it was Obama supporters.

And why would you assume it was a right wing pastor?

 

[Devildog]

1. Buy cake from Whole Foods
2. Write fake message on top
3. <strike>??????????</strike> File lawsuit
4. Profit

<strike>Underpants</strike> Gay cake gnomes

 

[Dre]

And why would you assume it was a right wing pastor?

I actually started to respond, but that part of my post was so inconsequential, it's not worth starting an argument over. It would have taken like 500 words, and I'm on my phone. So just pretend I didn't say it, please.

 

[TheDeparted]

Question, does being a pastor give him more or less credibility?

Considering he founded the church he runs? I'm betting he's got cash-flow issues.

 

[TheDeparted]

And why would you assume it was a right wing pastor?

It's funny, but my assumption would have been left-wing. Isn't that where a disproportionately large number of false accusations surrounding discrimination comes from? If not, that's certainly the perception I get. Or maybe false claims from the right-wing are just too easy to laugh off.

 

[mb504]

The lawyer is going to wish he spent the weekend playing through Portal instead.

 

[JimEverett]

I am curious about the charge against the lawyer.

For it to have any merit whatsoever, there needs to be evidence that the lawyer knew that the claim of his client was false.

Or is there some sort of charge of "negligent investigation" or something in the Rules of Ethics?

 

[mb504]

I am curious about the charge against the lawyer.

For it to have any merit whatsoever, there needs to be evidence that the lawyer knew that the claim of his client was false.

Or is there some sort of charge of "negligent investigation" or something in the Rules of Ethics?

I know states have different rules, but I assume Texas has something similar in place to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, whereby an attorney's signature on a pleading warrants to the court that "after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances" ... "the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery[.]"

What reasonable inquiry could have been done in the four days between when the cake was purchased and when the lawsuit was filed and a press conference was called?

Edit: From Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13: "The signatures of attorneys or parties constitute a certificate by them that they have read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry the instrument is not groundless and brought in bad faith or groundless and brought for the purpose of harassment."

 

[JimEverett]

I know states have different rules, but I assume Texas has something similar in place to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, whereby an attorney's signature on a pleading warrants to the court that "after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances" ... "the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery[.]"

What reasonable inquiry could have been done in the four days between when the cake was purchased and when the lawsuit was filed and a press conference was called?

What more can an attorney do in such a situation? Interviewing a person directly involved, his client, is about the extent of it, for the most part.

If the attorney goes to Whole Foods and tries to interview the person that allegedly wrote the slur then the attorney risks violating the ethical rules against speaking with a represented person (how is the attorney to know at that point if the employee is management, and thus considered represented?)

 

[mb504]

What more can an attorney do in such a situation? Interviewing a person directly involved, his client, is about the extent of it, for the most part.

He could informally request surveillance video from Whole Foods? He could have waited for a reasonable period for any response at all from Whole Foods? He could look at the cake which based on photographs looks to be pretty clearly fake?

Filing a lawsuit one business day after learning of the potential claim and 361 days prior to any claims being barred speaks for itself IMO.

 

[tomwaits]

I would guess that they are not suing the lawyer over a procedural concern, but that he called a press conference which adds to defamation.

 

[JimEverett]

He could informally request surveillance video from Whole Foods? He could have waited for a reasonable period for any response at all from Whole Foods? He could look at the cake which based on photographs looks to be pretty clearly fake?

Filing a lawsuit one business day after learning of the potential claim and 361 days prior to any claims being barred speaks for itself IMO.

It may, and I emphasize may, be bad lawyering - but it does not strike me as being close to sanctionable conduct.
There is no requirement that an attorney, or pro se plaintiff, inform a potential defendant of a pending lawsuit. There can be strategic reasons not to do so, just as there can be strategic reasons to do so.

the attorney had a client who said this happened, presumably had a receipt and a cake - unless there was something he in fact knew that contradicted what his client told him then I just don't see where he did anything unethical.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I would do that.

***

 

[Brock Meaux]

The lawyer is going to wish he spent the weekend playing through Portal instead.

The importance of this post cannot be overstated.