Full proof that I don’t think all pro se representation is a bad thing: Following up our previous discussion of the GTA class action settlement and my objection: This morning, Friday, June 6, I filed this brief (which unlike the previous brief, I wrote myself), in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motions for court approval of the settlement and attorneys’ fees, in the Southern District of New York and served it upon counsel. With luck, I didn’t file the wrong brief.
Argument is June 25, 10:30 am, in New York City, and I intend to be in court to argue as an objector. If, like me, you’re willing to take a day off of work to be in a Manhattan courtroom to see justice done, feel free to watch and say hi.
For more on the Grand Theft Auto class action, see our series of posts on the issue over the last three years.
16 Comments
I’ve got to wonder that with all the fuss over the Hot Coffee hack for GTA, where’s the wild masses screaming for blood about the no-clothes hack that came out for World of Porncr—err—Warcraft recently?
Was there a class action on that one I missed?
Or have I just given some idjot a bright idea with my question?
I keep wondering why more people haven’t objected to the class settlement.
My personal example suggests why more people haven’t objected. I’ve been a class member for dozens, perhaps hundreds, of settlements, and this is the first time that I’ve taken time out to object. This has required several hundred dollars of personal expense, and about 20-30 hours of my free time, plus I’m taking a vacation day to be in court–and the only reason it’s taken this little time is because I’d been following the GTA class action since it was filed and because I’m writing about class action settlements. If my motion is successful, I am at the court’s mercy whether my expenses will be reimbursed.
Little wonder so few object.
@Hikaru Katayamma
very few people know bout that hack which is why (ironically there are alot of games that make gta series look mild) the next closest came with “oblivion” had a nude mod but the developers proved that they had nothing to do with that mod so they dodged the bullet (but the game i believe was rerated because of it)
Wonderful brief, with wit, good authority, and not dry. (Not being sarcastic.) I would like to see Ted act more on the law.
Ted, Ted, Ted. Filing a brief that contains the words “Jizzy,” “half-and-half,” and “purple dildo.” Someday, I truly hope to buy you a drink. If I do, I’ll tell you about the time I was a court-appointed expert witness and showed a conservative Texas jury some hard-core gay pornography.
We rarely see eye-to-eye, but you’re completely right that this settlement is bogus, and I strongly admire your willingness to spend the time & money to fight it.
Justinian
P.S. I’m no good at the drive-by’s, either.
Ted, that’s an awesome objection and reveals this litigation for the sham it really is.
Perhaps you should consider setting up a PayPal micro-donation mechanism so people can help offset your costs resisting this dumb litigation. I’d donate.
I’d buy that for a dollar!
You are my hero… for the moment at least. Good luck.
if i may just say one thing about the brief. you claim that no one plays old games thats not true, the difference is that these old games are usually rare to find and no sequels ever were released(i know this has no basis in your brief and as a matter of law its useless)but i just thought you might like to know
If people wanted to play GTA:SA, Ebay sellers would be able to sell copies for $1.99. They aren’t.
well like i said gta was so widely availible when it came out try looking up games like persona 3 (not fes) or earthbound, the rare gems (to be honest gta isnt considered that great of a series, i know its sells pretty well but there are better games out there than gta 4) to each his own though
[…] http://overlawyered.com/2008/06/grand-theft-auto-class-action-the-frank-brief/ […]
[…] they brought a meritless lawsuit that had no business being brought to court at all.? Frank is seeking to quash the […]
[…] All of these were raised in my brief. […]
[…] The court decertified the class (via NY Times Bits Blog and a phone-call from Jonathan Glater) based on the Second Circuit precedent of McLaughlin v. American Tobacco Company, which was decided after the settlement in November. As I suggested last month, I think McLaughlin would certainly preclude a litigation class of the GTA claims, but the court’s decision may be an aggressive use of the precedent by the court to decertify the settlement class, where the certification standards are looser because there is no need to demonstrate that a class would be superior to individual litigation. Take Two spent millions negotiating and administering a settlement because the court refused to rule on its decertification motion last year; that wasted effort demonstrates why it is important for courts to resolve certification questions early in the case. But with no certified class, there can be no class settlement, and the court does not need to directly reach the issues in my brief. […]