Judicial Pile On: When One Benchslap Isn't Enough

After this stinging rebuke x2, the defendant will think twice before litigating again.

Sometime litigants are… stubborn. In what amounts to a state-sanctioned argument, cooler heads don’t always prevail. The “smart” decision doesn’t always jive with reality. But it isn’t often that not one, but two appellate judges file concurrences for the sole reason of letting a party know how boneheaded they’re being. But that’s exactly what happened.

In an Idaho Supreme Court case decided last month, defendant Parkway Surgery Center was told, in no uncertain terms, it was responsible for the $6,800 educational loan of employee Michelle Campbell (as part of Campbell’s employment contract with Parkway her education debt was to be “taken care of”). But the amount of good money Parkway threw away trying to get out of its $7k obligation made two justices sit up and take notice.

First up is Justice Daniel T. Eismann. He takes the short but biting route (emphasis added):

I concur in the majority opinion, but simply write to illustrate the absurdity of Parkway’s intransigence. Because it stubbornly refused to pay its $6,800 debt to Campbell, she was awarded $48,989.62 in attorney fees and court costs in the magistrate court and $18,429.23 in attorney fees and costs in the district court. Thus, Parkway will have to pay an additional sum of $67,418.85, plus interest, to Campbell in its frivolous attempt to avoid a $6,800 debt. In addition, it has undoubtedly paid its own counsel, and this Court will award Campbell additional attorney fees and costs on this appeal.

Then Justice Jim Jones completes the pile on. He takes the defendant to task, not only for the poor fiscal decision made, but for failing to act like a normal member of society:

Thus, Parkway incurred monetary indebtedness in the sum of $76,835.96, plus (1) interest, (2) costs of suit, (3) fees awarded by this Court, and (4) the fees of its own attorneys, in its quest to beat a $6,800 contractual obligation. In addition to tying up court time that could have been devoted to meritorious matters, Parkway’s conduct has undoubtedly taken a toll on Campbell, who only wanted Parkway to honor its contractual obligation. It is unfortunate that she had to put up with this course of misconduct. The fee awards may help to relieve the burden and, hopefully, will cause Parkway to conform to more acceptable behavioral norms in the future.

After this stinging rebuke x2, my guess is Parkway will think twice before litigating again.

Sponsored

Read the full decision on the next page.

Sponsored