Don’t Judge a Complaint By Its Cover Sheet
An elderly woman is suing Sacha Baron Cohen and NBC in Los Angeles County Superior
Court for injuries she suffered, which left her permanently disabled, due to an incident at a bingo tournament where Cohen was filming for his upcoming movie “Bruno.” The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages of more than $25,000.
Gossip blog Gawker’s take on the matter:
We would hope that if this lady genuinely suffered brain bleeding that left her in a wheelchair that she's asking for much more than $25,000 in damages, but why she waited two years to file the suit is anyone's guess—-Some would say probably because it's all a bunch of BS.
Fellow legal blogger Maxwell Kennerly's explanation:
[A] suit that "seeks unspecified damages of more than $25,000" could be worth millions or billions of dollars. That allegation is nothing more than a legal term inserted in the complaint by the plaintiff's lawyer to let the clerk know that the case should be assigned to the full-fledged civil trial court and not the small claims court.
(via Litigation and Trial).
Generally, Kennerly is right. Specifically, in most types of Unlimited Jurisdiction cases, the amount in controversy must exceed $25,000 (see the mandatory Civil Case Cover Sheet). And, while a plaintiff is usually required to state the amount of damages he or she is seeking in a civil case in the complaint under section 425.10(a)(2) of the California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), in personal injury cases, CCP § 425.10(b) specifically prohibits the plaintiff from stating the amount of the damages in the complaint.
Instead, the plaintiff must serve the defendant with a “separate statement of damages” that is not filed with the court. See CCP § 425.11. The reasoning behind the rule is that it protects defendants from adverse publicity resulting from exaggerated monetary demands since the separate statement of damages is not public record.
Of course, given that Sacha Baron Cohen essentially built his career by making an ass of himself in public and on film (frequently with hilarious results), I doubt he’s worried about the adverse publicity. Nevertheless, and despite the irony, even plaintiffs suing those who thrive on bad publicity are bound by the rule.
