Alan Grayson, the nastiest man who used to be in Congress is not done with Washington DC yet, although Washington DC may be done with him. Yesterday DC’s highest court threw a Grayson led nuisance suit out onto the street.
Grayson, whose two years in congress would surely be called more of a nuisance than anything else was not only a plaintiff in the case but stood to be its lawyer and reap in the big bucks in the suit. The legal double dipper was suing AT&T on the grounds that the unused balances on its calling cards sold in the District of Columbia should be forfeited to the D.C. government as abandoned property. Grayson described himself as a whistle blower in the suit.
The court called Grayson’s complaint “legally insufficient” and that the plaintiff in the other case, Paul Breakman, did not even purchase the product over which he was suing.
“(Grayson) has identified no statement or practice in his amended complaint made or employed by any of the defendants which directly or through reasonable inference shows that the defendants knew that consumers would not receive substantial benefits from their calling cards,” Judge Inez Reid wrote.
“Other than conclusory allegations pertaining to vulnerable members of the District’s population – the elderly and the disabled – Mr. Grayson’s complaint is devoid of allegations demonstrating even by innuendo that defendants have issued calling cards in the District that enable them to take advantage of these segments of the population.”
Wait a second, Grayson using innuendo? The man who called the former VP a vampire? He would never…
In the American Tort Reform Association’s recently released Judicial Hellholes report, the group said the lawsuits threatened to make D.C. “the nation’s capital for spurious lawsuits alleging violations of consumer protection law.
“The requirement of standing, the Court recognized, ensures that a person who sues has a personal stake in the outcome of a controversy and that judicial power is used only to redress or otherwise protect a person against injury,” ATRA wrote on its website judicialhellholes.org.
“The broader message of the decision is that a person or organization that sues for the generous damages and attorneys fees authorized by the District’s consumer protection statute must show ‘concrete injury-in-fact to himself.'”
I believe the message to Grayson is that was a really stupid lawsuit so get the heck out of here, don’t go away mad, just go away.