Why attorneys should be kept out of strip clubs.

Mark S. Gold

v.

Turntable Entertainment and Production Co. dba Gold Rush

4/22/2011 11-12307CA13

 

Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The defendant, a strip club, served the plaintiff, a lawyer, so much alcohol that he became "temporarily unconscious, and further to the extent that he had a complete loss of judgment, rational thought, or the ability to enter into lawful contracts or agreements." Then the defendant charged his credit card $18,930 for "goods and services."

 

 

This nonsense was filed by none other than Mark S. Gold the founder of the Ticket Clinic. The complaint makes for a good chuckle.

 

Damm, 19K spent in a strip club, you know he had a blast!

He claims that he passed out and doesn't remember anything. For $18k he better remember something!!

That guy came to one of the first airport runs IIRC. He had a red 575 maranallo I believe. He spun it and messed up one of the rims pretty good.

That guy came to one of the first airport runs IIRC. He had a red 575 maranallo I believe. He spun it and messed up one of the rims pretty good.

...And broke a runway light.

...And broke a runway light.

 

 

DOH!

...And broke a runway light.

 

And sued everyone in a 100 mile radius.

This nonsense was filed by none other than Mark S. Gold the founder of the Ticket Clinic. The complaint makes for a good chuckle.

 

 

Seems reasonable. Maybe I'm mistaken, but can't bars be held liable to some degree some serving people too much alcohol? I think people should be held responsible for their own actions, but you have to place some blame on the enablers who obviously see what's happening.

Seems reasonable. Maybe I'm mistaken, but can't bars be held liable to some degree some serving people too much alcohol? I think people should be held responsible for their own actions, but you have to place some blame on the enablers who obviously see what's happening.

 

 

And a gun shop owner should be responsible for the murders!

 

 

And a gun shop owner should be responsible for the murders!

 

That's a pretty retarded analogy.

 

I take it you've never heard of negligence?

Seems reasonable. Maybe I'm mistaken, but can't bars be held liable to some degree some serving people too much alcohol? I think people should be held responsible for their own actions, but you have to place some blame on the enablers who obviously see what's happening.

 

 

never fails.

Seems reasonable. Maybe I'm mistaken, but can't bars be held liable to some degree some serving people too much alcohol? I think people should be held responsible for their own actions, but you have to place some blame on the enablers who obviously see what's happening.

 

 

Why should it be ok to take advantage of someone in such a way? If your customer comes in and doesn't know what he's doing, do you just sell him everything under the moon to make as much money off him as possible? That's pretty predatory. Where are the ethics?

 

If he really did just get way too drunk and they let him spend insane amounts of money for no reason when he clearly had no idea what he was doing, then I think that should fall under some consumer protection law.

 

If you woke up with an $19K charge on your credit card, wouldn't you go back in there and say WTF? I don't think he should get $15K awarded on top of the returned charges, but I don't think an adjustment should be made.

Seems reasonable. Maybe I'm mistaken, but can't bars be held liable to some degree some serving people too much alcohol? I think people should be held responsible for their own actions, but you have to place some blame on the enablers who obviously see what's happening.

 

Bars over here have the right to refuse, I imagine it is the same in the States. However your logic should mean that the lawyer should go after the credit card company has they enabled him to spend that money. Also the booze companies for getting him into that state, their products enabled him to get into that state.

His shoe company, they let him get to the venue.

 

That's a pretty retarded analogy.

 

I take it you've never heard of negligence?

 

But the analogy works with your principle above. I want to shot something, the gun shop enables me to purchase something to do it. Enablers huh...

 

Why should it be ok to take advantage of someone in such a way? If your customer comes in and doesn't know what he's doing, do you just sell him everything under the moon to make as much money off him as possible? That's pretty predatory. Where are the ethics?

 

If he really did just get way too drunk and they let him spend insane amounts of money for no reason when he clearly had no idea what he was doing, then I think that should fall under some consumer protection law.

 

If you woke up with an $19K charge on your credit card, wouldn't you go back in there and say WTF? I don't think he should get $15K awarded on top of the returned charges, but I don't think an adjustment should be made.

 

The predatory aspect would be "oh you want to buy some beers and a chaser, well you will need to buy these bottles of champagne first". Do you know that happened?

 

 

Bars over here have the right to refuse, I imagine it is the same in the States. However your logic should mean that the lawyer should go after the credit card company has they enabled him to spend that money. Also the booze companies for getting him into that state, their products enabled him to get into that state.

His shoe company, they let him get to the venue.

 

But the analogy works with your principle above. I want to shot something, the gun shop enables me to purchase something to do it. Enablers huh...

 

The predatory aspect would be "oh you want to buy some beers and a chaser, well you will need to buy these bottles of champagne first". Do you know that happened?

 

Yes, and have banks not paid fined for predatory lending lately? They didn't lie, but they took advantage of people not knowing what they were getting themselves into.

 

The difference between selling a gun is that there is no reason for the gun seller to believe you are up to no good. Maybe Romandad can comment on this, but I'm pretty sure the gun store owner would be in some hot water if he sells a gun to someone who says he's going to murder someone. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure the legal line can be drawn at the point when they feel someone is willingly acting in a way that no normal person would act. That's what it means to be negligent, right? Any responsible person would not sell a gun to a guy covered in blood talking about killing people, and as such I think you'd be held responsible to some extent if you did. It's not illegal to lack common sense, but it's not a get outta jail free card either. Poor judgement can get you in hot water.

 

The lawsuit doesn't provide enough details, but a $20K bar isn't exactly normal. We can only guess as to what happened, but how do you know he didn't ask for a shot of whiskey and they brought him a $100 shot of some really old expensive stuff instead of a regular one?

 

We can only guess, but a $20K tab assuming he was by himself, is pretty suspect. Does it happen? Yes. Often? No. If you ran a bar, would you let someone charge $20K and not be at all concerned about whether it was fraudlent?

Yes, and have banks not paid fined for predatory lending lately? They didn't lie, but they took advantage of people not knowing what they were getting themselves into.

 

The difference between selling a gun is that there is no reason for the gun seller to believe you are up to no good. Maybe Romandad can comment on this, but I'm pretty sure the gun store owner would be in some hot water if he sells a gun to someone who says he's going to murder someone. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure the legal line can be drawn at the point when they feel someone is willingly acting in a way that no normal person would act. That's what it means to be negligent, right? Any responsible person would not sell a gun to a guy covered in blood talking about killing people, and as such I think you'd be held responsible to some extent if you did. It's not illegal to lack common sense, but it's not a get outta jail free card either. Poor judgement can get you in hot water.

 

The lawsuit doesn't provide enough details, but a $20K bar isn't exactly normal. We can only guess as to what happened, but how do you know he didn't ask for a shot of whiskey and they brought him a $100 shot of some really old expensive stuff instead of a regular one?

 

We can only guess, but a $20K tab assuming he was by himself, is pretty suspect. Does it happen? Yes. Often? No. If you ran a bar, would you let someone charge $20K and not be at all concerned about whether it was fraudlent?

 

 

Your theory has gone from

 

Seems reasonable. Maybe I'm mistaken, but can't bars be held liable to some degree some serving people too much alcohol? I think people should be held responsible for their own actions, but you have to place some blame on the enablers who obviously see what's happening.

 

 

To saying the club acted in a predatory way despite not being there and admitting you do not know enough from the lawsuit?

 

 

 

Your theory has gone from

 

 

 

 

To saying the club acted in a predatory way despite not being there and admitting you do not know enough from the lawsuit?

 

If you'll re-read what I wrote (since you quoted it,) you'll see that I said it seems reasonable. That means that I think it could be a legitimate and reasonable lawsuit. I can see how a bar serving someone so much alcohol to the point that they don't know where they're doing and end up spending insane amounts of money at the bar could be a legitimate claim.

 

It's no worse than you hypothesizing about cars that aren't out yet and aren't involved with making.

If you'll re-read what I wrote (since you quoted it,) you'll see that I said it seems reasonable. That means that I think it could be a legitimate and reasonable lawsuit. I can see how a bar serving someone so much alcohol to the point that they don't know where they're doing and end up spending insane amounts of money at the bar could be a legitimate claim.

 

It's no worse than you hypothesizing about cars that aren't out yet and aren't involved with making.

But your stance has changed completely, you have taken a notion, that "enablers" should be taken to task, you have then had that notion poo-poohed and now your suspect notion has snowballed into that the club has acted in incorrectly despite having no facts and that is what you focusing on now, well apart from trying to spin it back on me...

 

...And broke a runway light.

Not to take away anything from a $20k tab, but Scores in NY has had a few occasions of six figure (or close to six figure) tabs that brought similar controversy. This just might be the first time a lawyer was involved.

 

It's hard to say what happened without being there, but strip clubs are far from angels. There's a good chance of responsibility from both parties.

 

Best guess is he racked up a legitimate $17.5k, and they tacked on the rest.

But your stance has changed completely, you have taken a notion, that "enablers" should be taken to task, you have then had that notion poo-poohed and now your suspect notion has snowballed into that the club has acted in incorrectly despite having no facts and that is what you focusing on now, well apart from trying to spin it back on me...

 

Your interpretation on enabler is too literal or my usage is misunderstood. They enabled someone to do something they normally wouldn't, were well aware of it, and aided them in making poor decision for their own gain. That is what his lawsuit is, right? They allowed someone, possibly in bad conscience, to get too drunk to know what they were doing, did nothing to stop it, and even took advantage of it. There are people in bars every night that get cut off even though they have plenty of money. There's a reason for that, and it's part for legal reasons, part for business reasons, and part simply for ethical ones.

 

My statements are based on the assumption that what he said was true. I really don't care what the other side of the story is or the outcome or if he's lying, I'm merely saying that I don't find such lawsuits ridiculous.

The laws here place some civil liability on establishments in that they can be held culpable for knowingly serving someone visibly impaired. The difference between these scenarios and the ones with banks and guns is that alcohol is involved. At some point the patron is incapable of informed consent because he is impaired. At that point some liability falls upon the establishment that continues to knowingly serve someone incapable of making autonomous decisions.

 

Can't believe I'm agreeing with Brian...

 

 

Can't believe I'm agreeing with Brian...

 

Feels good, don't it?

 

Brian, if someone racked up a big bill on your smut sites and then asked for a refund because he was an Internet porn addict and you enabled him would you refund?

 

I think the ' predatory lending' of banks to people who didn't understand math was a joke.

The laws here place some civil liability on establishments in that they can be held culpable for knowingly serving someone visibly impaired. The difference between these scenarios and the ones with banks and guns is that alcohol is involved. At some point the patron is incapable of informed consent because he is impaired. At that point some liability falls upon the establishment that continues to knowingly serve someone incapable of making autonomous decisions.

 

Can't believe I'm agreeing with Brian...

 

Same here - the core fundamentals of the licensing laws are identical.

Going back to the guns analogy, ie there is an issue should marched into a shop and say "I would like a gun to murder someone" well change the gun shop to bar and say "Barman, I would like to get royally shit face drunk please" is he going to serve you?

 

PS Wash your keyboard out.