Nano Scratch Class Action Plaintiff Says He Had Nothing To Do With The Lawsuit
from the whooops dept
Last October, after the news picked up on some reports that the brand new iPod Nano devices had screens that were easily scratched, a class action lawsuit was filed, naming Jason Tomczak as the lead plaintiff. There was just one problem: Tomczak says he never wanted anything to do with the case (found via Digg). Tomczak is now working to clear his name from the suit, but is discovering that it's not at all easy. His side of the story is that he spoke to the lawyers to provide them some background information, but specifically said he did not want to be involved in the case and did not want his name used publicly. He claims one of the law firms involved admitted it made a mistake, but now the two sides appear to be suing each other over the matter. Obviously, we're only seeing one side of the situation at this point, but if it's true, it shows just how questionable some of these class action lawsuits can be. We've already seen how ridiculous some of these class action lawsuits can get these days, but potentially naming a lead plaintiff by accident (and not correcting the problem once it's been brought out) seems particularly bad.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stupid lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stupid lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The American Way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it's legit, the plaintiff is more likely to pay personally up-front. And if it's not, there is less incentive for the lawyer to rape the system.
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worthy Lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's scratched! call an attorney! class action!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue Happy Americans Drive the Price of Service UP
Let's see here, I'm sticking a stick of tobacco on fire in my mouth. Will it cause me harm, duh!
I think there are some really stupid people in this country when it comes to using products.
If you buy an IPOD you might want to by a protective cover so the screen doesn't get scratched. HELLO!!!!!
People need to work hard and quit being couch potatoes. No wonder our jobs are going over to INIDA
J
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sue Happy Americans Drive the Price of Service
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sue Happy Americans Drive the Price of Service
Who ever asks these people to think for the rest of us? America aint perfect, but the 'we need to' crowd got chucked out over 200 years ago and sent packing back to the 'united' kindgom.
I say, 'No thanks' to 'we need to' type of thinking!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dont sue, just Dont Buy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple Law Suit
Do your research before you buy and get something with user replacable batteries. A bit less cool but much smarter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawers Chasing Bucks
1) I agree with Post 10. But for those of you who bought before the word was out, all you had to do was take it back. No store would refuse to take back a product that was scratched or defective in any way ... and no store did.
A reporter in my city bought 10 Nanos from 10 different stores including BestBuy, the Apple Store, and some mom-and-pop shops; all 10 were accepted without incident.
If I'd bought a new cell phone and the screen was scratched, I'd take it back ... not mount a federal case against the manufacturer. And if it was a consistent quality problem, I'd just stay away from it .... choose another phone. The problem with Apple products is that its products are sooooo desireable, we can't seem to stay away and there's no comparable product.
So we get pissed and sue.
2) Don't miss the point of this Class Action Suit though; this had nothing to do with the lowly music lover ... this was two massive legal firms looking to get some press, build a reputation, and make some serious money off of Apple. If this dude is an unsuspecting Plaintiff, then there was no real Plaintiff. The suit was dreamed up by a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ignore 'First Post Guys'
..unless he also posts for us a swimsuit babe pic. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nice trick
2)"I like your line of thinking....and your snappy smug attitude. Truly Refreshing.... but could you please point out where on the map is INIDA? I googled it and Google laughed at me. I'm so embarrassed.... Gee should i sue Google?"
for all those who have simmilar problems i suggest buying a map instead of another little nice accesory for ipod. pathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other side of the story
Address Former iPod Prospective
Class Representative’s Charges
SEATTLE - (May 26, 2006) – Mike McCarthy of Nemecek & Cole, counsel for Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, one of the firms representing plaintiffs in proposed class-action suits against Apple over the excessive scratching of iPod Nanos – today responded to statements made by Jason Tomczak regarding the Apple iPod Nano litigation.
In a Web site posting earlier this week, Tomczak – who has also gone by the names Jason Ellenburg and Jason Swartzer prior to 2004 – claimed that his name was listed as the named plaintiff in the suit without his permission.
“We categorically deny that the firm purposely involved Mr. Tomczak in the Apple iPod Nano litigation without his consent,” said McCarthy. “Mr. Tomczak spoke directly and exclusively with the law firm of David P. Meyer & Associates, after he posted harsh criticisms about the scratching problems with his Nano on the Internet.”
According to McCarthy, after his client was notified that Mr. Tomczak did not wish to be a party to the suit after all, the firm took immediate steps to replace him as the lead plaintiff with one of the hundreds of consumers that contacted them, wanting to join the suit.
Tomczak was listed on the suit for less than a week before an amended complaint was filed, he added.
McCarthy noted that he does not know why Mr. Tomczak is making these allegations, but he finds many of Mr. Tomczak’s actions curious, including:
• On April 20, 2006, Mr. Tomczak claimed under oath that he did not know the attorneys representing consumers were planning a lawsuit when he agreed to provide his assistance, stating he thought they were authoring a report of some sort. Yet, on October 7, 2005 Mr. Tomczak sent an e-mail to an Apple Computer attorney, warning the company that the law firm was trying to “…build a class action suit against Apple…”
• Within 15 minutes of being told his name was included on the suit, Mr. Tomczak was in contact with an out-of-state attorney friend to begin a process that culminated in his pre-lawsuit demand for $750,000 to agree not to sue Hagens Berman and others. When the demand was rejected, Mr. Tomczak filed suit.
• Mr. Tomczak states in his open letter posted throughout the Internet that the attorneys brought on to defend against Mr. Tomczak’s lawsuit delved into his personal life, objecting that the questions have nothing to do with the lawsuit. The deposition transcript shows, though, that these questions focused on why Mr. Tomczak changed his name twice, and he “willing[ly]” answered over his own attorney’s objection.
• Mr. Tomczak claims that the consumer firms are threatening “that [he] be held financially responsible for their attorney’s fees and costs.” That is inaccurate. Mr. Tomczak filed suit against the consumer firms and the issue of whether a prevailing party can recover attorney’s fees and costs is simply a matter of well-established legal rules and procedures. Mr. Tomczak’s legal counsel should have informed him of this.
“We have no idea why Mr. Tomczak has acted as he has, but we believe the evidence will show that Mr. Tomczak was fully aware of the consumer suit against Apple and played a willing role in its development,” McCarthy said. “It seems as if he is attempting to reinvent reality, but we certainly hope that the issue will be resolved without having a negative effect on the hundreds of consumers that wish to be part of the suit.”
Media Contact
Mark Firmani
Firmani + Associates
(206) 443-9357
mark@firmani.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]