Judicial Hottie of the Day: George Schiavelli
Judge George Schiavelli (C.D. Cal.), regarded in some quarters as a judicial hottie, is probably not feeling so hot right now. From the Los Angeles Times:
A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury has ruled against a federal judge who was seeking $21 million after alleging that he was severely injured when he fell from a malfunctioning escalator at an Encino shopping center.U.S. District Judge George P. Schiavelli, 59, said he was riding the escalator at Encino Place shopping center in August 2005 when it stopped “suddenly and without warning,” knocking him down the stairs and causing permanent injuries, according to court records.
It wasn’t destined to be an easy case for Judge Schiavelli. California is a well-known judicial hellhole for plaintiffs who sue shopping malls. It’s second only to New Jersey in pro-mall bias.
And prejudice against judges may have played a role in the jury’s verdict:
The plaintiff’s lawyer, Browne Greene, said the jury ruled against Schiavelli not because of the merits of his case, but because of his position on the federal bench. “The bias against judges in today’s world is just palpable,” he said Monday evening.
Perhaps another argument in favor of a judicial pay raise?
P.S. What is it about judges who bring suit after falling down escalators or stairs? See also Judge Robert Bork and Judge Paul Chernoff.
Encino judge gets no award in escalator fall [Los Angeles Times]
George P. Schiavelli bio [Federal Judicial Center]
Hotties in the Holding Pen: Untimely SFJ Nominations [Underneath Their Robes]
(25) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
Jersey has a terrible pro-mall bias. It's a hellhole.
Second!
I don't think his future earnings would come anywhere close to $21m. Is it really that emotionally distressful to fall down an escalator?
Aren't the "Judicial Hellholes" places that are overly friendly to plaintiffs, and not vice versa?
The Hellhole report lists California on its watch list of jurisdictions that are unfair for defendants in tort suits. In other words, its not a "hellhole" for plaintiffs like Judge Schiavelli, but the opposite. Or maybe I'm just missing what is supposed to be irony here.
NJ can be Plaintiff friendly- depends on the C ounty- generally the more urban the county, the more retarded the jury pool- the more likely Plaintiffs win big dollars.
“[A] federal judge who was seeking $21 million….” says it all.
I have seen many a jury who would have otherwise sympathized with a personal injury plaintiff turned off by an excessive demand (and I mean $400,00 instead of a more reasonable $175,000) to the point of a defense verdict.
To paraphrase an unknown author (with possible apologies to Barack Obama): “The Lord helps the needy, not the greedy”.
[PRACTICE TIP: If your name is “Bork”, you might not want to go in front of a jury with a $1 million+ claim arising out of a simple slip and fall case.
Lat is an idiot. he doesn't even understand what a Judicial Hellhole is. No wonder this whole law stuff didn't work out for him. HEY LAT, a judicial hellhole has a pro-plaintiff big award bias!!! Why don't you bother to actually read the shit that you link to??
4:12 - you obviously don't understand sarcasm. jersey is a hellhole, and only the Poors and their supporters live there.
GALLION OUT!
Bruce Springsteen, Bon Jovi nuf said.
The highway was jammed with broken heroes on a last chance power drive.
$21 mil? He must have ripped his pants on the escalator...
I can't access the article, so how did the jury 'rule against' him? There appears to be liability, so there would necessarily be a (potentially nominal) award of damages, i.e., a ruling in favor of the plaintiff.
4:06, 4:07, 4:23: One man's judicial hellhole is another man's judicial heaven.
The inclusion of the language "for plaintiffs who sue shopping malls," which immediately follows and modifies "judicial hellhole," makes clear from whose perspective the hellhole determination is being made.
I know a couple of judges that you'd have to rescue from a stalled escalator.
5:10 - Yes. The commenters here need to work on their reading comprehension.
I think the point Lat was trying to make is that we Californians love our malls (which is true).
I am torn. But on balance, I cast my lot with 5:10 and 5:18.
On the one hand, terms should be given their ordinary meaning. So "judicial hellhole" should be given its ordinary meaning as an unfairly pro-PLAINTIFF jurisdiction.
Here, however, Lat has modified the term "judicial hellhole with a prepositional phrase, "for plaintiffs who sue shopping malls." This language would be rendered surplusage under the reading of 4:06, 4:07, and 4:23.
Accordingly, I vote with 5:10 and 5:18.
$21 mil? He must have ripped his pants on the escalator...
Posted by: Anonymous | February 26, 2008 04:45 PM
No, he fell trying to grab the pants from the dry cleaners who claimed they lost it. Give him a break, he was only asking for $21MM. He could've sought $54MM.
What's the problem with all these Clinton, Carter, and Johnson judges -- we need more Republican appointees on the federal bench who will not bring these frivolous lawsuits!
Oh wait, Judge Schiavelli was appointed by George W. Bush in January 2004. Never mind...
Knowing this guy, he could have asked for five bucks and the jury would have still stiffed him. He's smart and well-connected, but arrogant and smug like few practicing lawyers I've ever met.
5:10, 5:18, and 5:45, please exaplin then the words "Pro-Mall Bias" you stupid fuckers?
2:23, I don't have to "exaplin" anything to you.
Retard.
To "Not a Schiavelli fan," yes he is arrogant and smug, but he is not an asshole, and the accident in the mall continues to cause him a lot of pain, he should have gotten something from the jury...
The zero award was poetic justice- given only a month before- this same judge forced a plaintiff's attorney to go to trial while fully aware the lawyer was still in recovery from hospitalization and against doctor's explicit orders- then dismissed the case because the lawyer could not go forward- denying even a week's continuence to find substitute counsel- THEN changed the reasons for dismissing the case five months later ( so as to shift the blame onto the attorney and justify the heartless ruling one supposes.
Further, how could anyone with a lifetime appointment sue for "future" loss of earnings- he has a LIFETIME appointment for pete's sake.
Guess being deemed an arse *ole is a matter of perspective and which side of the gavel one is on.
The zero award was poetic justice- given only a month before- this same judge forced a plaintiff's attorney to go to trial while fully aware the lawyer was still in recovery from hospitalization and against doctor's explicit orders- then dismissed the case because the lawyer could not go forward- denying even a week's continuence to find substitute counsel- THEN changed the reasons for dismissing the case five months later ( so as to shift the blame onto the attorney and justify the heartless ruling one supposes.
Further, how could anyone with a lifetime appointment sue for "future" loss of earnings- he has a LIFETIME appointment for pete's sake.
Guess being deemed an arse *ole is a matter of perspective and which side of the gavel one is on.