Man Falls Asleep At MLB Game, Sues MLB For $10 Million For Noticing
from the napping-for-fun-and-profit dept
Defamation laws can be a tricky thing. Public figures, for instance, can sometimes have a tough time navigating when the law doesn't apply, while the more crazy but less famous folks of the world seem to occasionally forget that truth is a defense against defamation. Add to them the times when entire organizations forget that parody exists and is protected speech and suddenly you begin wondering whether anyone ever gets a defamation suit right.
Well, if they do, it sure ain't Andrew Robert Rector, part-time baseball fan and full-time misguided-lawsuit-filer. See, Andrew fell asleep at a Yankees/Red Sox game, and ESPN's cameras caught him snoozing. Now Andrew is suing roughly everyone for ten million dollars. Confused? You're not the only one. The at times hard to understand filing appears to be relatively unconcerned with facts, you see.
Rector claims he was filmed, and defamed, at the April 13 game between the Yankees and Red Sox, at Yankee Stadium.
"In the course of watching the game plaintiff napped and this opened unending verbal crusade against the napping plaintiff," the complaint states. ESPN focused its cameras on him, Rector says, and then "Announcers like Dan Shulman and John Kruck unleashed avalanche of disparaging words against the person of and concerning the plaintiff. These words, include but not limited to 'stupor, fatty, unintelligent, stupid' knowing and intending the same to be heard and listened to by millions of people all over the world ..."
John Kruck [sic] in his verbal attack insinuated that the plaintiff is individual that know neither history nor understood the beauty or rivalry between Boston Red Sox and New York Yankee [sic].And:
Plaintiff alleges that MLB.com, juxtapositions of photos and text of two men kissing each other and caption "sleeping Yankee's Fan cares not for your rivalry talk" falsely implied that plaintiff engaged in that type of conduct described or portrayed by the picture. In light of all the surrounding circumstances.Now, that particular passage had me monumentally confused, until I read Deadspin's post about this whole situation. They're postulating that Andrew and/or his lawyers appear to be mistaking a third party for ESPN, which is about as shocking as the sun rising in the east.
That completely nonsensical paragraph seems to be referring to this blog post on NotSportsCenter.com, which has nothing to do with MLB or ESPN. But anyway, Andrew Rector wants everyone to know that he's totally not gay, bro. Stupid, maybe, but totally not gay.Whoo-boy. In other words, in sum total, it's difficult to imagine how Andrew Rector and whatever crackerjack legal team he has hired could have screwed this up any worse. Probably best at this point to drop the whole thing and go away, particularly considering how the lawsuit has now streisanded this story and far more people are witnessing the plaintiff's actions than ever would have otherwise.
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
Filed Under: andrew rector, andrew robert rector, defamation, mlb, sleeping
Companies: mlb
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Also, I think I saw Ms Streisand waving in the footage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If it was, lawyers would line schoolyards and playgrounds waiting for clients.
All this idiot is doing is creating another classic example of the "Streisand Effect".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cough cough
You probably mean "who needs remedial English classes", and "border on being incomprehensible" or "border on the incomprehensible".
Of course, it is the irony of grammar flames that they will contain several errors themselves. I have little doubt that my comment will prove no exception to this rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cough cough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cough cough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cough cough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cough cough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cough cough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cough cough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cough cough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cough cough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cough cough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would expect the lawsuit to go the other way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I would expect the lawsuit to go the other way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He goes to event, sleeps.
In his rage over people noticing him in a public place where he agreed to be on camera (read your ticket dummy), he decided that everyone who said anything about him had to be the people with the deep pockets who could undo his impotent rage.
He lies about facts in the complaint, and even a casual observer can find that the really bad statements are not coming from the talking heads on tv.
One wonders if in his zeal to "defend" himself, he made that genius mistep of answering people on YouTube and the like and, to use a happy phrase, 'stuck his dick in a hornet's nest and was shocked to learn he got stung'.
He should have to pay the legal fees of anyone who bothers to show up to answer this idiocy, the lawyer should be sanctioned for bringing a meritless case as well as lying to the court. Oh and for giggles, they should ban him from attending these events in the future to avoid him getting his feelings hurt in the future.
You thought the public mocking was bad before?
Lets see how much the Streisand Effect can multiply your tears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he probably filed pro se.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not pro se
The article also notes (in a very generous understatement:
(Now watch as he sues Courthouse News Service for pointing that out.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not pro se
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not pro se
Here, I'll do it for you: )
"(An unmatched left parenthesis creates an unresolved tension that will stay with you all day. " - xkcd
...
)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not pro se
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
made me think of this:
Fred Sanford Dummy Reel
After it is over, the guy filing the lawsuit should be legally required by the court to change his name to Lamont Sanford, as a warning to others that a "Big Dummy" is in there presence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really, that should be the standard response anytime someone sues a business. Most businesses tend to have a 'We reserve the right to refuse service to-' clause, and while refusing service to some groups could get you in hot water, 'We refuse to serve him/her because we don't feel like getting sued again' seems like something that a judge would accept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Jackass isn't a protected class, so he is fair game :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For certain, this Andrew character doesn't know. Crap he was asleep at the time, which might account for his wildly inaccurate accusations.
Evidently Andrew has plenty of money so I'll lend him some free advice.
Anyone that has money to burn can easily find someone to tend the fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Portion of the Ad profits
I don't like it but I can see that there might be a money grab somewhere in this complaint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Portion of the Ad profits
Even if it's not on the ticket terms (which it often is), he's paid to go to an event that he knew was being filmed. That would come under fair use, I believe.
And then, since he's made a news story out of it, the image of him sleeping can now be used under fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Portion of the Ad profits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Portion of the Ad profits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Portion of the Ad profits
Yeah, I'm not really seeing much PR value there , unless it's for an energy drink company I suppose.
'... so make sure to pick up our awesome energy drink at the concessions stand so you can make it through the game!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forrest Gump: My mama says that stupid is as stupid does.
Take the moron, the moron lawyer and the biggest moron of all the drooler judge and deport them to saudi arabia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forrest Gump: My mama says that stupid is as stupid does.
You aren't being fair here. The judge doesn't have anything to do with this: lawsuits are filed with the clerk of the court, and it's quite possible a judge hasn't even been ASSIGNED yet; certainly the judge cannot dismiss the case until it comes into court.
Also it's not fair to Saudi Arabia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A confused time sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://m.mlb.com/video/v32071463/bosnyy-fan-sleeps-in-stands-during-game-vs-red-sox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]