Little Guy Wins Against Hone Depot

Page 1 of 4  
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-homedepot19feb19,1,122151.story?coll=la-news-state&ctrack=2&cset=true
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"only avaible to registered members".
Give us a summary, please?
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That's funny. I'm not registered and I was able to see it.
--
Jeff P.

A truck carrying copies of Roget's Thesaurus over-turned on the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"John T" > wrote

Credit Scam Victim Nails Home Depot
Man whose identity- theft complaints were ignored wins a $1-million judgment.
By David Haldane Times Staff Writer
February 19, 2005
Home Depot ignored Alan R. Sporn for almost two years, but a $1-million court judgment got the company's attention.
The Laguna Hills businessman had his Social Security number stolen, which ended up in a dozen requests for Home Depot credit.
The fiasco hurt Sporn's credit rating, but the home improvement giant that prides itself in customer service brushed off his concerns - until he filed a lawsuit, won and then tried to collect the money from a company bank account.
Then, Home Depot decided to act. It appealed the case, but this week an appellate court in Santa Ana sided with Sporn.
On Friday, the victor and his lawyer were celebrating with a bit of humor. The pair joked they might just show up at one of the company's Southern California stores to conduct a yard sale.
"I want to sell everything for a dollar," quipped Steve Young, Sporn's attorney. "I imagine the John Deere tractors will be the first to go."
"I feel vindicated," Sporn, 52, said of his nearly 3-year effort to get Home Depot to respond. "They're such a huge corporation and we are just little people."
In a brief written statement, the Atlanta-based company said that it was "disappointed in the decision . and respectfully disagrees with the conclusions of the court."
Sporn's problems began in early 2002 when he was turned down for a low-interest loan to refinance his Laguna Hills home. Trying to find out why, he learned that Home Depot had submitted inquiries to credit agencies regarding Sporn's creditworthiness at least a dozen times over the previous year.
Such inquiries - especially when submitted in large numbers - lower one's credit rating.
"I didn't even have a credit card with Home Depot," Sporn said in a telephone interview Friday. Except for buying "the occasional garden hose or lightbulb," he doesn't even shop there often, he said.
When he asked the company's financial department why it was pulling his credit reports, he was told that somebody in Virginia was using his Social Security number to apply for credit, Sporn said.
But Home Depot would not tell him who the culprit was. And when he sent the company a certified letter asking it to stop checking his credit rating, he got no response.
Finally, in September 2002, Sporn filed a lawsuit demanding compensation for the financial damages he says he incurred. The company continued to ignore him, he says. He told Home Depot he was seeking a default judgment. Still no response, he says.Nine months later, in July 2003, with nary a word from Home Depot, a Santa Ana judge awarded Sporn about $930,000 in damages.
The judge ruled that Sporn suffered losses when he was forced to pay a higher interest rate on his home loan and because his damaged credit rating hurt his business reputation.
The court also ruled that Sporn was entitled to a 10% annual interest rate and other collection expenses if Home Depot continued to delay payment. Sporn and his attorney estimate the current amount at $1.15 million.
Home Depot didn't show up for the court hearings, they say.
"After we got the judgment," said Young, the attorney, "we waited another seven months expecting that they would do something. Frankly, we just wanted their attention so they would clean this up."
So last February, Sporn and Young contacted the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, which sent deputies to the bank that handles Home Depot's payroll accounts - a Wells Fargo branch in Los Angeles - with a court order.
They didn't get any money, but they did get Home Depot's attention. "They started a paper flurry that you wouldn't believe," Young said.
In its appeal, the company accused Sporn of being underhanded. Home Depot said in its filings that Sporn "obtained by stealth" the "excessive" default judgment, which the company discovered only when Sporn "began enforcement efforts after laying in the weeds for many months."
In its ruling - published Wednesday - the 4th District Court of Appeal disagreed.
The court scolded the company for seeking "to escape the results of its own carelessness."
"An obvious gap appears in the evidence," acting presiding judge William F. Rylaarsdam wrote.
"There is no statement that the [court papers sent to Home Depot] were lost, stolen, forwarded to the wrong person, or eaten by the dog."
Richard S. Ruben, an Orange County-based attorney for Home Depot, declined to comment on the case, saying that he had not had a chance to read the appellate court's ruling.
The company said it was reviewing its options to appeal the decision.
But Sporn and Young said they were overjoyed.
"A corporation," Young said, "doesn't have skin and blood - the only way you get their attention is with the sting of the dollar."
*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Times staff writer Dan Weikel contributed to this report.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...yeah, and that amount of $ for HD is a nickel in a bucket of them, just about nothing. Thanks for pasting it.
--
Alex
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Let's sock it to the big nasty corporation, they have deep pockets! Don't blame or sue any individuals just because they are at fault, they don't have enough money. Sue the big box. Just remember, if the big box loses, the judgement will become a business expense.
A business expense! Selling prices = expenses + profits. When expenses go up, prices go up. (prices will go up to maintain profits/stock value) Who pays for higher prices. Bingo! The consumer. All the customers at Home Depot pay the price. The offended customer gets relief and the plaintiff's lawyers build another seven-figure income.
As an occasional Home Depot customer, my wallet should be grateful this didn't turn into a class action lawsuit.
And when the legal dust and smoke clears, what happens to the Home Depot employees at fault? Those that didn't do anything to resolve the plaintiff's credit problem?
Sue the %$&#*s, we can afford it. Can't we?
Jack -- If we can't teach our children the 3 Rs, how can we teach them economics?

you
about
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The judgment is too high, IMO, but HD should not have ignored the guy. There should be a penalty.

Perhaps if it did they would mend their ways.

They should be fired. Take their annual salary and that is what the plaintiff should be awarded.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
How did the plaintiff's SSN get stolen? Where else did it end up? Did he get an annual credit report, and dispute the "funny" entries?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I might agree with you, but i don't have enough information to make that judgement... do you?
The article posted here did not indicate what actual damages were incurred. Not to mention all the time hassle of dealing with it.
--
be safe.
flip
Ich habe keine Ahnung was das bedeutet, oder vielleicht doch?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

It stated he had to pay a higher interest rate on his mortgage. He obviously has a hassle with the paperwork and repeated call to HD. That does not add up to a million bucks, IMO.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Frankly, for the GROSS negligence of HD in this case, I am surprised that they did NOT hit them for MORE in punitive damages. Big Corporate entities like HD ONLY respond when the cost gets big enough
And if they do it again, I would love to see them hit with damages in the 10s of Millions OR MORE. If they think they are above the law, maybe put them out of business via lawsuit would NOT be excessive
If you have a total woth of $100k, would someone suing you for $25 or $100 dollars actually make you change your actions?? Same idea when you talk about BIG corporate entities. Frankly, I would rather see damage issued in PERCENTAGE of the company woth rather than a set dollar amount. That would make things fair across the board from the low income individual to the MultiBillion dollar folks like MicroSoft and Bill Gate
John
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But it doesn't say how much of a mortgage it is. Over the life of a loan that can be a lot.
It also mentioned damage to his business's reputation, IIRC. How do you quantify that?

...And attorney fees, time off work, and... well you get the picture.
We simply do not know enough facts to make a call to the legitimacy of the claim.
--
be safe.
flip
Ich habe keine Ahnung was das bedeutet, oder vielleicht doch?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

That
Non Sequitor. To be effective, punitive dmages must be high enough to disabuse the malefactor from a repetition of the tort. Otherwise it may be cheaper to absord the suits as a cost of doing business and continue to ruin the credit ratings of numerous other persons many of whom will never find out why.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21 Feb 2005 10:35:31 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

What he said.....so eloquently.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

But punishing a corporation does not necessarily have to be a big windfall for the person that was hurt. Sure, he should be well compensated. Want to hurt a big store like HD? Make them close on a Sunday and lose sales to the competition. Make them take full page ads in magazines telling what they did wrong. Let the world know, not just a few people and the lawyers get rich.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I am a traditionalist.
I think public floggings of Home Depot excutives would be most appropriate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Talk about "punitive damages"... probably more effective, too, and certainly *much* more entertaining.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

windfall
You'd think so. I used to. Assuming as I do that jealousy is NOT your motivation to object, the obvious objection is that the possibility of large punitives may encourage more suits than are 'necessary'.
The obvious solution is to not grant large punitives when they are not necessary and indeed, juries and judges tend not to grant grant large punitives unless the plaintiff shows that the defendant has been ignoring previous smaller judgements. Some lawyers call this the 'every dog gets one bite' principle.
The cases you hear about in the news that sound absurd usually sound that way because they are being misreported, or if they really are absued, because they are exceptional, not what ord- inarily happens.

sales to

what
lawyers
The problem with alternatives to punitives other than monetary awards to the plaintiff is that they inevitable benifit others who
1) typically have done nothing at all to earn the benefit, at least the plaintiff did the work necessary to obtain the judgement. In the instant case this would be HD's competitors.
and
2) by realizing a benefit now have a motive to encourage or facilitate such suits. This is potentially a problem if the beneficiary of the punitives is, for example, the government. As you will recall there was a time when property was confiscated from convicted witches. That property went the king. Since the king was just we may be assured that only persons who really were witches were convicted, right?
Finally, a settlement may entail the defendant being ordered to do something, in addition to just paying the plaintiff. This is particularly in the settlement of the much maligned class-action lawsuits.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Now THAT is an idea!!
Do you think we could pursue witchcraft charges against Home Depot? ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21 Feb 2005 10:35:31 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

Punitive damages are one of the most ridiculous things in our legal system. They are intended to function as a fine, forcing a change in behavior, but they have become nothing more than another enriching option for the lawyers. I would suggest that punitive damages be treated like fines are - they go into the public coffers and the lawyers and plaintiffs don't get any of it. I think you would see a lot smarter settlements on lawsuits in that case. It would also make sense to tie punitive damages to performance - if they put certain procedures in place they are off the hook for the punitive damages, since the ostensible goal of them was to create a change in behavior.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.