A Heroic Plaintiff

     It takes courage to right a wrong.
     My hat is off (or at least it would be if I wore one) to a Riverside, California man that I’m not going to name for having the courage to appear as the named representative plaintiff in a proposed class action against a company called Living Life, LLC.
     You’re probably wondering right now why I don’t give this hero some public credit. Maybe I should, but, then again, maybe I shouldn’t.
     After all, it’s just remotely possible that his multiple lawyers – there are actually two law firms listed on the Los Angeles Superior Court complaint – might not have fully briefed him on the kind of exposure he could get.
     And I really do mean exposure.
     The plaintiff and the class he represents are claiming they bought a penis widening (not lengthening) product that, allegedly, failed to widen them.
     Let the publicity potential sink in for a moment.
     Suit Says Thin Members Fail To Expand
     Class Action Seeks To Remedy Widespread Problem
     Riverside Man Admits To Tiny Member
     You see what I’m talking about?
     I don’t mean to be cynical – I’m just that way naturally – but sometimes it seems that law firms think up class actions and then recruit plaintiffs to go with them. But let’s suppose that didn’t happen here. Let’s check out the timeline.
     According the suit, the plaintiff went online and bought the product, Prolixus, on April 26, 2010. We don’t know how quickly he got the stuff but let’s say it was immediately. The suit then says the plaintiff consumed Prolixus as directed for 60 days.
     That would put us around June 26, 2010.
     According to the complaint, the plaintiff sent a letter (spontaneously, I’m assuming) on June 8, 2010 to Living Life advising it “of its ongoing violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act…. Plaintiff’s letter to Defendant Living Life included a demand that the company adequately correct or otherwise rectify the deceptive practices described in this complaint for the entire putative class, pursuant to Civil Code § 1770….”
      Who wouldn’t do that?
      The lawsuit was filed on July 9, 2010.
      I know some of you are thinking this is a case of premature litigation but get your minds out of the gutter. If you’re waiting for your penis to widen and it doesn’t, you’re going to want some instant gratification. You either file a lawsuit or salivate over online Court TV reruns.
      In this case, the plaintiff presumably decided to find a lawyer some time after April 26 and by July 9 there were four lawyers and two law firms listed on the guy’s lawsuit.
      I’m hoping this litigation doesn’t wilt because depositions should be fascinating. I’m picturing this:
      Defense attorney: So you say your penis failed to widen during a 60-day period? How do you know this? Did you actually measure it?
      Plaintiff: Every day. With a ruler.
      DA: And during that 60-day period, were you ever in close proximity to a female?
      P: A what?
      DA: A woman.
      P: No. There was no mention of a woman in the instructions.
      DA: Then how do you know the product didn’t work?
      P: I don’t understand….
      (The record indicates a whispered conference between the plaintiff and his attorney.)
      P: Oh! Really?
      Let’s hope this litigation doesn’t climax too soon.

%d bloggers like this: