Dish Network Arbitration

creeper wrote:
I was once on the winning side of a class action suit for MANY millions. I got a check for $1.25 and the lawyers got MILLIONS. Class actions are good for the lawyers .

What is the definition of a million lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start.

I was once on the winning side of a class action suit for MANY millions. I got a check for $1.25 and the lawyers got MILLIONS. Class actions are good for the lawyers .

az99 wrote:

BB_TX wrote:

They are not trying to take away anyone's rights.

Do you work for Dish Network? Or are you a politician?

Neither. You tell me what right they are taking away.

Robin1953 wrote:

gbopp wrote:

BB_TX wrote:
Unfortunate sign of our times.

Says it all. And it's probably only going to get worse. :(

And would anyone like to speculate as to why this becoming the norm? Think whiplash judgements back in the 60's as a history lesson.

I'll speculate. In my opinion this is brought about by the fact that defending a lawsuit is incredibly expensive. Lawyers know this, so they sue for frivolous reasons knowing that the party being sued is going to settle for a relatively small amount rather than spend the money going to court. Since this country has not embraced the "loser pays" civil proceedings that exist in many other countries, suing someone over nothing is a nothing to lose proposition. A binding arbitration agreement eliminates this.
I would love to see a system where the Judge/Jury could make determinations on who has to pay. My dream system would start with the party that is suing putting up a bond equal to the amount they are suing for. (it wouldn't be that expensive, since the bond company would review the facts of the case and decide it there was merit, it there wasn't any merit, they wouldn't issue the bond). At court the judge/jury could award like usual when the plaintiff wins, but if they lose, the Judge/jury would have three basic choices. They could say "this is a difficult matter and both sides had merit, therefore each side pays it's own fees", or they could say the defendant had no responsibility in the matter so the plaintiff must pay the defendants reasonable legal fees, or they make a third ruling which would be the case was frivolous and award damages to the defendant in an amount up to the amount the plaintiff was suing for. Any monies awarded the defendant would be paid from the bond, so they wouldn't have to go to court to collect. My plan would put an end to almost all the frivolous lawsuits from day one.

BB_TX wrote:

They are not trying to take away anyone's rights.

Do you work for Dish Network? Or are you a politician?

jackquontee wrote:

There has to be a reason they are trying to take away your rights.
.................

They are not trying to take away anyone's rights. They are saying you should execute your right to either be part of the class action, or choose not to be part of the class action and take on the company on your own. You can't double dip and be part of the class action and still reserve the right to sue on your own if you are not happy with the first outcome.

There has to be a reason they are trying to take away your rights.
And that's the concern I have. Is there a lawsuit that they should probably be telling us about first, and then give us the option to opt out? Their approach is similar to disarming us first, and then waging some attack.

az99 wrote:

afrescop wrote:
Where is this underhanded or shady?

By sending it in an email that 85% of the people ignore and by also knowing that 90% of those remaining 15% will not take the time and effort to print out a form and mail it in by certified mail to be sure they get it.

It is extremely underhanded and deceitful.

There has to be a reason they are trying to take away your rights.

How is this underhanded and deceitful? And how are they taking away your rights? They are offering the individual the option of staying in the class action suit or opting out to pursue possible legal action on their own by hiring their own lawyer and filing their own law suit. Their choice. What is underhanded about a choice? The company has to have a method of moving in a timely manner. The vast majority of the people will not care enough to even read the notice. And of the ones who do, few will care enough to bother one way or the other. If they had to wait for everyone to respond, it would never happen. That is why everyone will be included unless they opt out by a certain defined date. The other option would be to have everyone automatically not be included in the class action unless they opt in. Then the vast majority would have to pursue legal action on their own, of which very very few would even consider. Which would be better in your opinion?

The only winners are the lawyers anyway, no matter which path you take.

afrescop wrote:
Where is this underhanded or shady?

By sending it in an email that 85% of the people ignore and by also knowing that 90% of those remaining 15% will not take the time and effort to print out a form and mail it in by certified mail to be sure they get it.

It is extremely underhanded and deceitful.

There has to be a reason they are trying to take away your rights.

I haven't picked up my mail for a few days, what's going on with Dish Network? I found an Arbitration suits from 2 years ago about failure to pay minimum wage, so whats the scoop.