Thought there might be a few here interested:

(06-08-2019 09:39 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The day after the 2016 election, which Donald Trump won and is still your president, protests began to happen. 3 students from Oberlin college decided they would shoplift Gibsons donuts. They were caught by the owners, but Oberlin college decided to brand the Gibson family as "racists" for catching their students shoplifting.

Yesterday, a jury levied an $11million judgement for the Gibsons against Oberlin college. And thats only the damages phase. The punitive damages phase starts this week, and that total could (and by the sounds of it, likely will) balloon to $33million.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/ve...n-college/

Glad to see a jury taking a stand against this kind of BS, even if the powers that be have their heads up their backsides.

Seems like this should go straight to the Quad.

(06-08-2019 01:29 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Seems like this should go straight to the Quad.

Probably so.

With respect to the story itself, I can only say good deal. I hope they get the max punitives.

(06-08-2019 01:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-08-2019 01:29 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Seems like this should go straight to the Quad.

Probably so.

With respect to the story itself, I can only say good deal. I hope they get the max punitives.

Agree on all points.

And the jury awards $33M in additional punitive damages. Anyone surprised?

(06-13-2019 05:39 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  And the jury awards $33M in additional punitive damages. Anyone surprised?

Actually the jury awarded 22 million in punis stacked on the 11 million of actual for a *total* of 33 million. Attorneys fees were awarded as well, but that is still another hearing.

(06-13-2019 05:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 05:39 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  And the jury awards $33M in additional punitive damages. Anyone surprised?

Actually the jury awarded 22 million in punis stacked on the 11 million of actual for a *total* of 33 million. Attorneys fees were awarded as well, but that is still another hearing.

AP article says it was 33 + 11???

“A jury in Lorain County awarded David Gibson, son Allyn Gibson and Gibson’s Bakery, of Oberlin, $33 million in punitive damages Thursday. That comes on top of an award a day earlier of $11 million in compensatory damages.”

https://www.apnews.com/a9b095a4bf9040ed86b814fc9f889c0f

In any event, it’s a large chunk of change. What’s the likelihood the plaintiff gets anything close to that amount? Serious question.

(06-13-2019 06:19 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 05:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 05:39 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  And the jury awards $33M in additional punitive damages. Anyone surprised?

Actually the jury awarded 22 million in punis stacked on the 11 million of actual for a *total* of 33 million. Attorneys fees were awarded as well, but that is still another hearing.

AP article says it was 33 + 11???

“A jury in Lorain County awarded David Gibson, son Allyn Gibson and Gibson’s Bakery, of Oberlin, $33 million in punitive damages Thursday. That comes on top of an award a day earlier of $11 million in compensatory damages.”

https://www.apnews.com/a9b095a4bf9040ed86b814fc9f889c0f

In any event, it’s a large chunk of change. What’s the likelihood the plaintiff gets anything close to that amount? Serious question.

Well.... they gave Oberlin about 33 million reasons to fight like there is no tomorrow. Not even figuring the attys fees....

But one advantage of a *really* big award like this is that the supersedeas bond for 33 million will be a real bear to obtain.

If Oberlin cant post the bond -- it could be really soon.

(06-13-2019 09:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 06:19 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 05:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 05:39 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  And the jury awards $33M in additional punitive damages. Anyone surprised?

Actually the jury awarded 22 million in punis stacked on the 11 million of actual for a *total* of 33 million. Attorneys fees were awarded as well, but that is still another hearing.

AP article says it was 33 + 11???

“A jury in Lorain County awarded David Gibson, son Allyn Gibson and Gibson’s Bakery, of Oberlin, $33 million in punitive damages Thursday. That comes on top of an award a day earlier of $11 million in compensatory damages.”

https://www.apnews.com/a9b095a4bf9040ed86b814fc9f889c0f

In any event, it’s a large chunk of change. What’s the likelihood the plaintiff gets anything close to that amount? Serious question.

Well.... they gave Oberlin about 33 million reasons to fight like there is no tomorrow. Not even figuring the attys fees....

But one advantage of a *really* big award like this is that the supersedeas bond for 33 million will be a real bear to obtain.

If Oberlin cant post the bond -- it could be really soon.

My understanding is that the punitives are $33 million, but a state statute that caps punitives at no more than twice compensatory damages may limit the award.

Let Oberlin fight; that will cost them in attorneys fees for every minute (or 6 minutes) that they do so, and my guess is that if the bakery has waited this long, they can wait a little longer to get the award the jury has given.

I am happy for the plaintiffs who will be compensated for the unreasonable suffering they had to bear. And, as a bonus, this mean-spirited stuff by educational institutions has to stop; let this be the first brick in the memorial wall to fight the intolerance by colleges and universities today.

(06-14-2019 07:04 AM)owlsfan Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 09:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 06:19 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 05:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 05:39 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  And the jury awards $33M in additional punitive damages. Anyone surprised?

Actually the jury awarded 22 million in punis stacked on the 11 million of actual for a *total* of 33 million. Attorneys fees were awarded as well, but that is still another hearing.

AP article says it was 33 + 11???

“A jury in Lorain County awarded David Gibson, son Allyn Gibson and Gibson’s Bakery, of Oberlin, $33 million in punitive damages Thursday. That comes on top of an award a day earlier of $11 million in compensatory damages.”

https://www.apnews.com/a9b095a4bf9040ed86b814fc9f889c0f

In any event, it’s a large chunk of change. What’s the likelihood the plaintiff gets anything close to that amount? Serious question.

Well.... they gave Oberlin about 33 million reasons to fight like there is no tomorrow. Not even figuring the attys fees....

But one advantage of a *really* big award like this is that the supersedeas bond for 33 million will be a real bear to obtain.

If Oberlin cant post the bond -- it could be really soon.

My understanding is that the punitives are $33 million, but a state statute that caps punitives at no more than twice compensatory damages may limit the award.

Let Oberlin fight; that will cost them in attorneys fees for every minute (or 6 minutes) that they do so, and my guess is that if the bakery has waited this long, they can wait a little longer to get the award the jury has given.

I am happy for the plaintiffs who will be compensated for the unreasonable suffering they had to bear. And, as a bonus, this mean-spirited stuff by educational institutions has to stop; let this be the first brick in the memorial wall to fight the intolerance by colleges and universities today.

Here is a classic piece of advice for Gibson's bakery (from elsewhere):

Collect every red cent of the direct damages and punis, and every red cent of the attorney's fees. Then, set up a table right outside the front gate to Oberlin and sell donuts.

Check out this confusing article on AP:
https://www.apnews.com/a9b095a4bf9040ed86b814fc9f889c0f

- It refers to the store as a "market", which is a strange use of the term.
- It describes the town of Oberlin as "a famously liberal town", which is not true: from what I've read, the town of Oberlin is rathe typical Rust-Belt Democrat.
- It quotes the college's attorney in a way that, in isolation, almost sounds supportive of the verdict -- and that's the only direct quotation in the article.
- It uses "Oberlin" sometimes for the college and sometimes for the town, with no effort to distinguish.

(06-14-2019 12:02 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Check out this confusing article on AP:
https://www.apnews.com/a9b095a4bf9040ed86b814fc9f889c0f

- It refers to the store as a "market", which is a strange use of the term.
- It describes the town of Oberlin as "a famously liberal town", which is not true: from what I've read, the town of Oberlin is rathe typical Rust-Belt Democrat.
- It quotes the college's attorney in a way that, in isolation, almost sounds supportive of the verdict -- and that's the only direct quotation in the article.
- It uses "Oberlin" sometimes for the college and sometimes for the town, with no effort to distinguish.

Tons of awful and weird nuggets in that article that I had not seen before.

I finally see more connections to the university's actions: "The lawsuit said college tour guides informed prospective students that Gibson’s is racist."

Turns out the school actually brought the business back on campus after initially folding to student demands: "The school initially stopped doing business with Gibson’s, later resumed the relationship and ended it again when the Gibsons filed their lawsuit."

I better stop eating sushi: "More recently, news articles quoted students decrying the school dining hall’s sushi and Vietnamese banh mi sandwiches as cultural appropriation."

(06-14-2019 12:02 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Check out this confusing article on AP:
https://www.apnews.com/a9b095a4bf9040ed86b814fc9f889c0f

- It refers to the store as a "market", which is a strange use of the term.

This controversy started with students attempting to steal wine. Seems Gibson's has a disparate enough inventory to justify calling it a market (a term that I have seen used in other articles).

Here's the complaint. Oberlin deserves what's coming to them.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/06/09...awsuit.pdf

(06-14-2019 12:31 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 12:02 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Check out this confusing article on AP:
https://www.apnews.com/a9b095a4bf9040ed86b814fc9f889c0f

- It refers to the store as a "market", which is a strange use of the term.

This controversy started with students attempting to steal wine. Seems Gibson's has a disparate enough inventory to justify calling it a market (a term that I have seen used in other articles).

I assume that, since there was wine in Italy before it was made in California, the students stealing of wine was merely their brave attempt to end that bit of cultural appropriation.

(06-14-2019 02:26 PM)owlsfan Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 12:31 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 12:02 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Check out this confusing article on AP:
https://www.apnews.com/a9b095a4bf9040ed86b814fc9f889c0f

- It refers to the store as a "market", which is a strange use of the term.

This controversy started with students attempting to steal wine. Seems Gibson's has a disparate enough inventory to justify calling it a market (a term that I have seen used in other articles).

I assume that, since there was wine in Italy before it was made in California, the students stealing of wine was merely their brave attempt to end that bit of cultural appropriation.

What a plan. Steal wine and whine about getting caught due to racism.

(06-14-2019 02:26 PM)Hou_Lawyer Wrote:  Here's the complaint. Oberlin deserves what's coming to them.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/06/09...awsuit.pdf

If there's any truth to items 60-72, Oberlin's conduct borders on racketeering.

(06-14-2019 02:52 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:26 PM)Hou_Lawyer Wrote:  Here's the complaint. Oberlin deserves what's coming to them.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/06/09...awsuit.pdf

If there's any truth to items 60-72, Oberlin's conduct borders on racketeering.

Reading through the complaint, I found that section to stick out like a sore thumb - the administrators talking to Gibson were idiots!

Some of the other portions of the complaint didn't seem to hold much water (like the accusation that Oberlin told people to park in a specific parking lot) and other portions were written in such a way that it's clear that either the Gibsons' or the lawyers have a bone to pick with more than just Oberlin. But that portion of the complaint - that is a doozy!

I also find items 78 and 81 (if true) to be another shocker (as I mentioned above).

(06-14-2019 03:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:52 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:26 PM)Hou_Lawyer Wrote:  Here's the complaint. Oberlin deserves what's coming to them.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/06/09...awsuit.pdf

If there's any truth to items 60-72, Oberlin's conduct borders on racketeering.

Reading through the complaint, I found that section to stick out like a sore thumb - the administrators talking to Gibson were idiots!

Some of the other portions of the complaint didn't seem to hold much water (like the accusation that Oberlin told people to park in a specific parking lot) and other portions were written in such a way that it's clear that either the Gibsons' or the lawyers have a bone to pick with more than just Oberlin. But that portion of the complaint - that is a doozy!

I also find items 78 and 81 (if true) to be another shocker (as I mentioned above).

Okay, I will admit it is the complaint and should thus be read with a critical eye, but did 2 college administrators really create a scheme that amounts to a shoplifter's learners permit? Here is my line-in the sand: the Oberlin Board has to find out whether that is true, and if it is, those 2 people have to be fired and be gone.

We have this warm and fuzzy embrace of the different viewpoint, but the day we tolerate people openly speaking of helping students who shoplift to get away with that act is the day at all spirals downhill.

(06-14-2019 03:34 PM)owlsfan Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 03:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:52 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:26 PM)Hou_Lawyer Wrote:  Here's the complaint. Oberlin deserves what's coming to them.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/06/09...awsuit.pdf

If there's any truth to items 60-72, Oberlin's conduct borders on racketeering.

Reading through the complaint, I found that section to stick out like a sore thumb - the administrators talking to Gibson were idiots!

Some of the other portions of the complaint didn't seem to hold much water (like the accusation that Oberlin told people to park in a specific parking lot) and other portions were written in such a way that it's clear that either the Gibsons' or the lawyers have a bone to pick with more than just Oberlin. But that portion of the complaint - that is a doozy!

I also find items 78 and 81 (if true) to be another shocker (as I mentioned above).

Okay, I will admit it is the complaint and should thus be read with a critical eye, but did 2 college administrators really create a scheme that amounts to a shoplifter's learners permit? Here is my line-in the sand: the Oberlin Board has to find out whether that is true, and if it is, those 2 people have to be fired and be gone.

We have this warm and fuzzy embrace of the different viewpoint, but the day we tolerate people openly speaking of helping students who shoplift to get away with that act is the day at all spirals downhill.

The details here are so specific, that I can't imagine that the Gibson's would be making that up. It also sounds like the kind of stupid idea that someone concocts if they're living in la-la land and not the real world OR the type of thing regularly happens for people of privilege where mommy and daddy make problems go away.

I mean, understand the idea of leniency and allowing people to learn from their mistakes, but insulating shop lifters from criminal prosecution, as is being suggested, is insane!