Soto Law Group - June 2019

The Soto Law Group 1101 Dove Street Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660

PRSRT STD US POSTAGE PAID BOISE, ID PERMIT 411

949-945-0059 TheSotoLawGroup.com

INSIDE THIS ISSUE From the Desk of DeDe PAGE 1 Get Out FromUnder the Shadow of Sugar PAGE 1 ‘Influence’ and the Psychology of Yes PAGE 2 3 Ways to Keep Up Productivity During the Summer PAGE 3 Take a Break PAGE 3 No. 1 Dad Hash Browns PAGE 3 Crazy Lawsuits Surrounding the Dearly Departed PAGE 4

Lawsuits FromBeyond

Let’s Hope There’s a Courtroom in the Afterlife

We pride ourselves on being a country where everyone receives a fair trial. And while that’s not always the case, even the craziest claims still have to be heard in some capacity by a court of law. As you can imagine, this can result in plenty of spooky high jinks in the courtroom. Let’s take a look at some of the more baffling court cases in recent memory. DEAD MAN TALKING In something straight out of a Coen brothers movie, a New York man had to sue The New York Times on three separate occasions to get them to stop reporting that he was dead. In all fairness, it seemed like an honest mistake prolonged by the ineptitude of his public counsel and a whole lot of terrible coincidences all rolled into one. Juan Antonio Arias just so happened to share the same first and last name as one “Juan Arias”who had met his untimely demise. After it was reported in

a Times article, the living Arias accidentally had his own date of birth and Social Security number added to the death certificate of his now deceased namesake in a terrible mix-up from the coroner. As a result, he sued on three occasions after his lawyer missed certain deadlines to turn in proper documents. Thankfully, the issue was resolved, but not before he had his credit cards and Medicaid revoked after appearing to be dead. SOLEMNLY SPOOKED An unnamed New York resident — just what on earth is going on in New York? — claimed that the house they’d recently purchased was

horribly and cripplingly haunted by unseen forces. The poltergeist was said to disrupt their daily activity, and the plaintiff was suing on the grounds that the home was notorious in the area for being haunted and had a reputation as such, therefore it should have been disclosed to the buyer before closing. They won. That’s right; the court ruled that the seller misled the plaintiff and should have disclosed the nature of this potentially harmful house. Shockingly enough, this type of thing is required to be disclosed when selling a house in New York. Well, at least a buyer will have peace of mind knowing that they got a sweet new pad and a ghoul for pennies on the dollar.

4 • www.TheSotoLawGroup.com

Published by The Newsletter Pro • www.NewsletterPro.com

thesotolawgroup.com

Made with FlippingBook Annual report