A single error in the date and manner in which a plaintiff purchased avocado oil led to extreme sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel in a consumer class action case.
Last week, the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Golikov v. Walmart Inc. found that Class counsel acted in subjective bad faith by recklessly raising a frivolous argument and unreasonably multiplying proceedings after failing to correct a single erroneous allegation.
In Golikov, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged that the plaintiff purchased a product from a brick-and-mortar store instead of truthfully disclosing that the purchase was made on the defendant’s website. The Complaint did not reveal that to make a website purchase, Plaintiff was required to enter into a binding arbitration agreement and waive the right to pursue a class action.
The Court did not agree that Plaintiff’s counsel’s efforts to point to subordinates for the “error” amounted to inadvertence, holding “recklessness can be established when a leading attorney fails to check a subordinate’s work and independently verify the facts and law.” Plaintiff’s counsel also argued that the error was inconsequential because Plaintiff made both in-store and online purchases. The Court was not persuaded stating “Plaintiff’s in-store purchases still do not change the fact that the Complaint and the FAC make a claim that Plaintiff purchased a bottle ... on November 14, 2021 from a … store, when she actually did not do so....
Rap star Nicki Minaj made an appearance at the US mission to the United Nations to echo President Donald Trump’s false claim that Christians are being systematically killed in Nigeria. Minaj appea...