first?

Lat, you live in the Post Mass? Blogging must be paying off for you.

The party pants LAT. You must investigate the party pants.

I have to highly recommend PLI for her CLE needs. I attended a week-long Patent Bar prep course there at the beginning of the month, and was impressed with their NYC center and staff. While she will probably want to go with some of their online offerings for quick credit, they provide a very nice environment for knocking out your continuing education.

I have to highly recommend PLI for her CLE needs. I attended a week-long Patent Bar prep course there at the beginning of the month, and was impressed with their NYC center and staff. While she will probably want to go with some of their online offerings for quick credit, they provide a very nice environment for knocking out your continuing education.

The earlier post is now an official Comments Clusterf*ck: 108 comments and counting.

Wow. Uh, just wow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/fashion/weddings/17Marshall.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Her complaint is much more sympathetic if those allegations are true regarding the bait and switch. And, as a litigator, I don't think $400k is grossly greedy- it's not anything like the $55M pants suit.

Still, I think filing suit is only prolonging the pain. Have sense of humor about it-after all, every married woman has to have some sort of wedding mishap to share with your girlfriends over drinks for years to come.

ahahahahahaha!

I agree wiht 2:01. PLI is a terrific place for all your CLE needs. The staff is helpful and courteous, and the faculty is tops, bar none.

Any person may bring a suit on their own behalf without being admitted to teh bar. It is actually a recognized Constitutional right. So, her admission vel non is irrelevant to her lawsuit. This is kind of a silly post.

Great posts today Lat. Keep up the good work.

Any person may bring a suit on their own behalf without being admitted to the bar. It is actually a recognized Constitutional right. So, her admission vel non is irrelevant to her lawsuit. This is kind of a silly post.

2:01 & 2:19,

Really? That's funny. I find the staff and faculty to be complete douches that will try to solicit business on a law blog post that really has very little to do with the courses they are offering. I guess my experience with them is just different than yours.

Likely bar failure and now delinquency, plus she has an Adams Apple! What a piece of work.

still waiting for the party pants photo, lat. get on it!

still waiting for the party pants photo, lat. get on it!

Any time you are paying $27K for something, you deserve to have exactly what you ordered and were promised.

Does anyone have a link or hard copy of the Mademoiselle "Party Pants" article alleged to feature Ms. Glatt (née Elbogen)? Please, please, please!?! This has been a fantastic ATL day – but the Party Pants article would make it so much better.

bride & groom pic:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10162007/photos/news003b.jpg

note the leather jacket worn by ms. bridezilla, esq. we'll assume now that she has a leather fetish.

Pro Se,

You are an idiot if you think that Lat was attempting to link her delinquency to her *right* to file suit. Her delinquency raises questions about her judgment. Her filing of an apparently spurious and highly comical lawsuit also raises questions about her judgment.

"Any time you are paying $27K for something, you deserve to have exactly what you ordered and were promised. "

That is right. Only rich people deserve to have their rights protected. If you could only afford $1,000 for flowers, and they did not turn out right - screw you - your poor SOB.

Egad, you can tell who is personally friends with this trainwreck. They are as vacant as she is.

Please. The bitch is a fucking whiner. I'm not even spending $27K on my entire fucking wedding, much less on my flowers.

$27k for flowers. Ridiculous.

2:11 - you do realize that the link you posted is about the marriage of "Brian Glatt", not, as here, "David Glatt"

Wallet Size,

Let me kindly offer that you are a moron. In this world, you get what you pay for. Reps and warranties cost money, whether you are talking about a half-billion dollar company, or some flowers for a wedding.

If you want someone to promise you that the flowers will be precisely in a certain manner, pay up, and they will be so, and if they are not, you can sue. If you can't afford the promises, don't try to drag down those who can, (you pinko schmuck).

No one's contesting that you should get what you paid for. The question is whether you should get ten times the price if you don't get it.

Flowers to 400K!

My apologies 2:11 - just saw that this does appear to be David Glatt's brother. I agree, Wow.

I think she is pretty hot.

How the fuck do you go delinquent when you're working for Biglaw? They have support people who are supposed to take care of that shit. It's not like she was raising a kid at home and forgot to renew her registration.

I enjoy 2:52's interpretation of contract law. Is a $1000 transaction any less bargained-for? A $100 transaction?

Granted, $100 won't buy as much of anything as $27,000 will. But aren't you still entitled to the $100 worth you paid for?

she looks like a MAN in her firm picture, better in the other picture

The article about their marriage is retarded. "Defied probability" because they met and didn't go to the same high school or "share the same Hamptons house" Barf. 90% of couples have stories just as "improbable" -- we all meet dozens of people each week, how can it be improbable that they met? It's not like he was the only guy for her on the planet.

That said, her registration status is irrelevant to her filing the lawsuit. She should not have asked for more than 27k though, given the bad publicity mr. dc pants guy got.

The Party Pants picture, by jingo!

3:08 -- your inability to see that the article is not about her makes you... what?

3:08, the NYT Marriage Announcement posted above refers Brian Glatt, who appears to be her husband David's brother. If that is indeed the case, I guess the Glatt boys have a thing for lawyer girls.

1) She is ugly
2) 27K for flowers is ridiculous
3) I would not want to be the husband and put up with that B.... it is obvious who wears the pants in that relationship (and that has nothing to do with the fact that she has an adam's apple).

When her claim is dismissed she should also be sodomized..

had a few classes with her 1st year in law school. Not the friendliest of people. ok the B-word would be appropriate.

3:02,

I hope you are not a corporate lawyer. Let me spell it out. Suppose I want to buy a 1000 widgets. For $500, Seller is willing to say, "Seller shall provide 1000 widgets, each widget substantially resembling the picture of a widget attached hereto as Exhibit A." This gives the widget Seller sufficient wiggle room if some of the widgets come out a bit off color, or slightly irregular.

Suppose however, I insist that Seller additionally covenant that "Each widget shall be wholly painted in aquamarine and be precisely 4" by 8." It just so happens that this Seller makes these types of widgets anyway - 4 by 8 aquamarine widgets - but should he make the above covenant, he bears the risk for any deviations from his standard, not just substantial deviations. Sometimes, deviations have been known to happen, usually compromising entire batches of widgets at a time. Seller wants me to bear some of the risk, and is willing to agree to the covenant only if I agree to a $100 price increase.

That, douche bag, is also how it works with flowers. If you want it to be "just so," you gotta pay up.

WTF are you talking about 3:40? You seem like a first-year law student.

Are you saying Bridezilla paid extra for any warranties? And don't counter with any guesses. Unless you know some relevant FACTS about the agreement here, your hypothetical agreement means nothing.

i love how Lat called her office to get comment. it tickles me to no end that Lat thinks that because he runs a trashy, catty legal gossip site, he's a bona fide journalist and is justified in entertaining the thought that this woman would want to give some comment to him. Lat - you are not a reporter. You are the perez hilton of the legal world. Perez does not try to get comment from the stars he makes fun of. Don't try to pad over the intellectual shortcomings of your current gig by misrepresenting yourself to the world as an actual reporter.

3:46, read the thread.

A Google search for "posy floral design studio" yields few results, none meaningful. You'd think if you dropped $27,000.00 on flowers, you'd go with, say, a better or more legitimate name.

The Glatt/Marshall wedding was covered in Legal Eagle Weddings:
http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/09/legal_eagle_wedding_watch_sept_3.php

All you effing dorks hating on her looks are just jealous. She is not that bad, particularly for a female attorney at big law. 95% of the women at big law are flat-out gross. Now, I'm certainly not defending what she is doing -- she is spoiled, whiny brat -- but I would definitely hit it.

OMG! Elana interviewed at NYU during 2006's EIW--she was terrible! She made all of her interviewees late, didn't apologize at all, and everyone came out of her room saying what a crappy interviewer she was. It takes a lot to make that impression in 20 minutes when all you're asking is "So, did you like your job this summer?"

Uh, 3:50/3:40, what the thread (and the newspapers articles) make(s) clear is that she did *not* "bargain for extra warranties." Much the opposite--she was explicitly warned that due to variations inherent in this type of flower they could only "do their best."

Elana is actually a lot prettier in person. She is actually really hot.

The florist said that she sent 250 emails about the f***ing flowers. What kind of brat sends 250 emails about flowers?

4:08:

That may be what the florist is saying, but the allegations in the Complaint (assumed true for purposes of a motion to dismiss, at least) are that the bride was explicitly promised that the flowers would be exactly as ordered. Moreover, I have it on good authority that all of the communications, including the promise of providing the "exact" same flower, are documented in emails. If so that is true, then this case will be a slam dunk for the bride.

3:49 - why you gotta be so douchey, douche bag?

best yet, she's an attorney for Britney Spears!

http://www.kelleydrye.com/news/transaction_matters/0095

In 2007, Beyonce Knowles purchased a pair of designer leggings for $19,500 which she wore to the BET awards and was lauded for her ability and beauty. Daniel Radcliffe spent 17,000 on a mattress and Tom Cruise famously purchased his new compound for 30.5 million. These are the people our society reveres. They sell our magazines, fill our theaters and control our airways. Nobody makes a public crusade out of humiliating and subjecting America's most elite to public admonishment and mass hatred. Why then are we insisting on doing it to this Elana Glatt? While I agree that 30,000 on flowers is excessive considering the state of the world, etc., I also recognize it is none of my business how others choose to spend their money. It seems that this is just another case of the media creating a story complete with hero, heroine and villain in order to peddle their sad rags. Look at the way this story is being reported and the way the public is eating up this predigested crap. "A bride sues her florist over pastel hydrangeas". PLEASE read the actual complaint that was filed and learn that there was a lot more to this story than what is being fed to you. If you really feel that a company has the right to do as they please to their customers, break contracts and generally scam their clients out of money without fear of reprisal, than by all means, keep criticizing Ms. Glatt. The reporting on this story has been atrocious. The media should be ashamed of themselves, a feeling I'm sure they are used to by now.

4:14, aka this c&*t's Husband,

Nice try, but you married an ugly man with a shitty personality.

@ Anthony C., 5:06 pm:

"Nobody makes a public crusade out of humiliating and subjecting America's most elite to public admonishment and mass hatred."

WTF? Dude, do you ever read Perez Hilton?

Wow. What a dolt you are.

Elana Glatt to deli roses!

Well if you'd like to send them a gift I came across this.

http://couples.weddingchannel.com/wedding_websites/PersonalWebsite.action?view=home&occ=567536600

Dear Tony,

Cruise, Radcliffe and Knowles all have something in common. The masses that adore them are comprised of plebeian idiots. Ms. Glatt is an elite attorney. Her peers are elite attorneys. It's okay to expect of them not to fall victim to the madness of crowds.

OK, 5:32 said it better than me.

Anthony C., those things are all ridiculous and were, in fact, publicly admonished. But even so, those people were spending money they actually made themselves.

A report on CNBC says that Posy Florist is filing a countersuit for defamation.

5:45 - You cannot sue for defamation based on a legal pleading. Litigation privilege. Now, that suit will be frivolous!

@ 5:46 - my guess is she's been defaming the florist in the 2 months since her wedding and before filing suit. Litigation privileges won't get Mrs.(?) Party Pants off scot free from a defamation suit.

@5:52 - Unless they have evidence that she has said anything defamatory about Posy to someone else (not in connection with the litigation or preparing for the litigation), they have no basis to file a defamation claim. Moreover, as we know, truth is a defense.

Also, I see a pattern of behavior here:

First, Posy totally ignores three letters from the bride seeking a peaceful resolution to the alleged problems and a modest refund.

Then, after being sued, Posy makes derogatory comments about the bride to the press - essentially accusing her of extortion in the NY Times and calling her "bridezilla" to the Post.

Now, Posy allegedly plans to bring a counterclaim for defamation.

To me, this is the typical behavior of someone who knows they are in the wrong and would rather insult the victim and try to deflect attention from their own wrongdoing.

Lat, tell us about the pants party. I heard we're all invited.

Why is it necessarily "bridezilla"? Couldn't it be "groomzilla"? How do we really know who's driving the lawsuit? I mean, dude's mom is the one who paid for it.

I need my Mademoiselle picture of Partypants!

@ 6:09 - you are correct so far as the bounds of the litigation privilege, but I find it impossible to believe that she didn't disparage Posy to friends, co-workers, etc. long before the suit and separate and apart from preparing for or filing the suit. Frankly, it is the only natural thing to do if Mrs. Glatt legitimately feels that Posy ruined her wedding through a bait and switch scam.

Obviously, Posy isn't in the right here either, and ignoring the letters and e-mails offering to settle for $4,000 was idiotic, especially if they were aware Elana is a lawyer. As for making derogatory comments in the press and threatening a counterclaim, these actions frequently go hand in hand with litigation. It's run of the mill posturing to the NY Post and good litigation strategy to counterclaim for defamation, which seems like the most obvious, credible claim Posy could assert.

6:15, she is the named plaintiff; she is a lawyer; she is the one talking to the press about how upset she was that her flowers weren't perfect. I think it's a safer bet that she, rather than the groom, is driving the lawsuit.

the media always distort stories in order to support and reinforce some theme or pattern they've been developing or want to develop, but that's just a footnote here. the bridezilla/exorbitant wedding theme is a case in point...see, e.g. the results under "bridezilla" when searching the NYT. considering the NYT still reigns supreme in this theme-based cultural/lifestyle/bourgeois reportage and every other national paper in the land takes its cues from it, it's no surprise that other media outlets have picked up this story and run with it in light of what the Times has done.

every person, whether a joe schmoe or some intellectual elite, loves an easy target. bridezillas are an easy target. whether the particular set of facts in this case constitute a bridezilla indictment is almost irrelevant. easy targets will always be indicted simply because...they're easy. all that potential brides have to do is stick out their toe an inch into the realm of bridezilla-like actions and they will be indicted as such. we do not have intrepid and sensationalistic reporters to thank for this. rather, we have our own bottle-necking, petty, and juvenile selves. everyone pat themselves on the back. thanks.

I don't mind spending a lot of money on a wedding but $27K on FLOWERS, something that's going to die in 3 days, is stupid.

Ah, the defamation experts come out of the woodwork. But you're forgetting an equally essential element -- Damages. Good luck to the posy pranksters in trying to show how they were harmed because she told her friends how bad a job they did.

Did anyone find the party pants picture? I need the image.

"In 2007, Beyonce Knowles purchased a pair of designer leggings for $19,500 which she wore to the BET awards and was lauded for her ability and beauty. Daniel Radcliffe spent 17,000 on a mattress and Tom Cruise famously purchased his new compound for 30.5 million. These are the people our society reveres. They sell our magazines, fill our theaters and control our airways. Nobody makes a public crusade out of humiliating and subjecting America's most elite to public admonishment and mass hatred. Why then are we insisting on doing it to this Elana Glatt?"

Um, well 5:06, that is because Elana Glatt is not Beyonce Knowles, Daniel Radcliffe, or Tom Cruise. Anthony Kiedis, perhaps, but not any of the above.

Sounds like the Elana Glatt posse is out in full support. OR are these posts from Elana herself?? Hmmmm...

3:40, I'm operating under the assumption that you're also referring to the line of discussion going back to Wallet Size and 2:36.

Thanks for your brilliant illustration of how you have to pay more to get more or better stuff.

My point, and the point wallet size brought up, is whether you bargain for the $500 vague-widget or $600 specific-widget, you should be allowed a legal remedy if the tender is not up to the respective specifications.

Yes, if you want 27K worth of flowers, you have to pay 27K. If you want 1k worth, you have to pay 1k. Expectations of what you get are commensurate with what you pay. When what you get falls short of those expectations, in either case, it's equally proper for a court to seek a legal remedy.

Since you've probably missed the whole point anyway, I'll stop now.

5:06. your passionate plea for Elana is inspiring. But - where's the reasonableness? Even if the floral shop did fraudulently induce her into purchasing their services, the damages (even including punitive damages), are NOT worth 400K. Such a high damages demand just makes her lawsuit appear frivolous and unsympathetic.

I've just read all these comments and others and I'm confused where this $400k number came from. The complaint asserts various contract and tort claims, each asserting damages for compensation of the contract price (or for one claim, the difference in price between the amount paid and the services provided). The complaint also seeks a few thousand dollars in consequential damages for the injury caused to the wedding as a whole as a result of the florists' fraud (the florist knew that the flowers were an integral part of an overall design for the wedding). And then, in punitive damages, the complaint seeks $200,000. Obviously, if the plaintiffs prevail on all their claims, they can only recover compensatory and consequential damages ONCE (no double recovery, as we all know). And IF the jury decides to award punitive damages then they would determine the amount regardless of what the plaintiffs requested (here, less than 7x the contract price). Also, I don't see any claim for emotional distress (although it is mentioned in the complaint that the bride was upset, etc., I don't think the plaintiffs are claiming it as damages).

So, where did this $400k number come from? My guess is that reporters who know nothing about the law simply added up all the numbers in the Prayer for Relief without taking into account that all the claims seek recovery for the same injury and, even if they prevailed, the law would not allow double, triple recovery, etc. Lets all drop the $400k number - my reading of the complaint is that it is simply wrong.

What's with all the out of control female attorneys? First Judge Judy and now this? They make a mockery of the legal system! A mockery!

WGWAA to unemployment!

Mee,

Get back to reading for your upcoming torts class. And try to actually learn something from your case books this time.

In defamation, especially defamation per se (when you accuse someone of certain acts, such as a crime), you can sue without proving damages. Damages are assumed and you are entitled to at least nominal damages. Go ahead and look up nominal damages in Black's (I don't feel like explaining them to you).

They should remain this site BTL, Belowthelaw.

You cannot be sued for defamation for opinions. Otherwise, things people say in Zagat's and online review sites like citysearch would be actionable whenever the comments were negative. Surely it is not a tort to tell your friends and family (or others) that you had a negative experience with a store and that, in your opinion, the store provides bad service.

9:43,

I would suggest looking up "opinion" in the dictionary. Saying that the flowers were the wrong species is not an opinion. Neither is saying they are the wrong color, or wilted. These are factual assertions.

An opinion is more along the lines of "I would guess 9:43 is in the bottom 30% of his current law class at a TTT with moronic statements like his."

She graduated in 2002, but wasn't admitted until 2004. What's the story there?

She graduated in 2002, but wasn't admitted until 2004. What's the story there?

Get a clue, you are the wrong person to be professing to be intelligent. Is that a statement of fact or opinion?

9:02 -- nice job of looking up defamation on Wiki or in your barbri outline. But defamation per se is reserved for when the alleged statements are so defamatory -- e.g., falsely stating that someone has performed a criminal act -- that damages need not be proved. "They used the wrong flowers, they were wilted, and the vases were dirty" doesn't come close. No damages = no defamation claim.

"A Google search for "posy floral design studio" yields few results, none meaningful. You'd think if you dropped $27,000.00 on flowers, you'd go with, say, a better or more legitimate name."

Was this really that hard to find?
http://www.posyflowers.com/

Why don't you do a search for "posy floral design studio" and tell me your result. Use quotation marks.

11:04

People typically take the bar exam in July after they graduate. They get the results in November and then (assuming they passed) begin the bar application process. The process is time consuming- especially if you have worked before because you have to get affidavits from former employers regarding your character. Thus most people are not actually sworn in for one to two years after they have graduated.

"And, according to the complaint, due to the florist's horrible service, the bride herself was arranging flowers moments before her weeding!"

Her "weeding"? I love the Freudian typo.

I've read nothing to convince me Ms. Glatt can prove fraud as a basis for punitive damages. It's standard practice to plead fraud in the inducement in a breach of contract case, but producing sufficient evidence to substantiate actual fraud is far more difficult.

Yo yo yo... according to the NY Times article, JAP-girl filed the suit not just on her own behalf, but on behalf of others... if this indeed is the case, and her registration lapsed, she may well have a problem.

This shit makes me embarrassed to be a lawyer. We have enough of an image problem without lawyer bridezillas filing 6-figure lawsuits over flowers. And I'm no Walter Olson tort-reformer; I'm a plaintiff's PI practitioner, but this still makes me sick.

Anyway, the article says:

“The use of predominantly pastel centerpieces had a significant impact on the look of the room and was entirely inconsistent with the vision the plaintiffs had bargained for,” Ms. Glatt, a lawyer who practices under the name Elana Elbogen, said in the lawsuit, which she filed on behalf of herself, her husband and her mother-in-law, Tobi Glatt, who paid for the flowers.

Cost of Flowers $47K

Damages sought for wrong color flowers $400K

For the rest of Elena's life any Google Search by a prospective employer or client is going to pull up all a million plus blog entries about Hydrangea-Gate, Priceless!

Hey,

This WAS her wedding night! Perhaps she made a mistake and something ELSE that night was pink and wilted rather than Brown and erect as she expected?
Hummmmmmm.