Bradley Steyn complaint filed in the Orange County Superior Court (July 29, 2014)

Doing a search on the Orange County Superior Court site ($1) I found the following case:

Case Id: 30-2014-00736735-CU-CO-CJC
Case Title: BRADLEY STEYN VS. STEVEN PATRICK MORRISSEY
Case Type: CONTRACT - OTHER
Filing Date: 07/29/2014
Category: CIVIL - UNLIMITED

PARTICIPANTS
Name Type Assoc Start Date End Date
2014-15 TOURS DEFENDANT 07/29/2014
BRADLEY STEYN PLAINTIFF 07/29/2014
DAVIDSON & ASSOCIATES, P.L.C. ATTORNEY 07/29/2014
DONALD KNUTSON DEFENDANT 07/29/2014
STEVEN PATRICK MORRISSEY DEFENDANT 07/29/2014

I went ahead and purchased the documents ($37.50) and am taking a look through them now.

UPDATE:

Download here:
Bradley Steyn complaint (569K PDF)



Media coverage:
 
Last edited:

Comments

aldebaran

New Member
I'm a jack of all trades, master of none kind of lawyer, but I'll try to break some of this down for you guys and gals:

When filing a complaint, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts, not all the facts nor produce all the evidence, in support of the lawsuit. Just enough to indicate that if the alleged facts are proven, there is a legal remedy to which plaintiff is entitled. Steyn's lawyer met those minimal guidelines here.

The first cause of action is obviously breach of contract. Under this cause of action, only compensatory damages can be awarded (i.e., identifiable amounts lost such as loss of wages, etc.). Punitive damages (i.e., compensation to plaintiff for the purposes of punishing the defendant and/or deterring defendant from engaging in similar conduct in the future) are not available under this cause of action. This is why Steyn only seeks $24,450 under this cause of action, which is the lost wages, lost per diem, etc. It’s all that he can get under this cause of action.

However, under the other causes of action, punitive damages are available. (I’m not sure that he can get punitive damages on the second cause of action, but that’s beside the point since the other causes actions plead facts where punitive damages may be available if proven.) This is why the complaint uses words like “malicious” and “despicable”. Those are the types of conduct that must be proven in order to get those oh so coveted punitive damages. There’s nothing all that personal about Steyn calling Morrissey’s conduct “malicious”, “despicable”, etc., in the lawsuit. It’s what needs to be said in a complaint in order to push the lawsuit through under these kinds of causes of action.)

Steyn’s lawyer seeks $240,000 for a very specific reason. This complies with the Supreme Court’s holding a mere few years ago that punitive damages must be, at a maximum, proportionate to compensatory damages at a ratio of no more than 10:1. Thus, with compensatory damages at $24,500, Steyn’s lawyer calculated punitive damages at $240,000, which is roughly 10:1. (Incidentally, this is the reason why that lady who won $23.6 billion in punitive damages from the cigarette companies will never see that amount of money. Her compensatory damages were “only” $17.5 million. Thus, her punitive damages, if at all, would be something less than $175 million although I was also told that Florida caps their punitive damages at 3-4 times the compensatory damages, which would mean her punitive damages might be $70 million-ish at most. Obviously, it isn’t chump change, but she definitely isn’t going to see $23.6 billion).

Personally, my guess is that the lawyer wasn't enthused about a gross payout of $24,500 to his client, and decided to glom on a very loose interpretation of certain discussions to leverage a higher settlement. Banking on the probability that a deep-pocketed celebrity like Morrissey wouldn't want to be drawn into protracted litigation with depositions into personal details when he could simply scratch a check for some thousands to be rid of this headache. Happens all the time.
 
Last edited:

DubbalinGirl

Active Member
This complaint is poorly written, loaded with bad grammar and punctuation but more importantly refers to terms and conditions of an "Agreement" that isn't defined. Is the email supposed to be that? If so, it should say "this email served as the Agreement", but nothing here does. May be a fine technicality. By law Moz has to respond through an Answer within 30 days in CA I think so stay tuned...he can use that document to also file a counter complaint.
 
K

keene

Guest
I'm a jack of all trades, master of none kind of lawyer, but I'll try to break some of this down for you guys and gals:

When filing a complaint, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts, not all the facts nor produce all the evidence, in support of the lawsuit. Just enough to indicate that if the alleged facts are proven, there is a legal remedy to which plaintiff is entitled. Steyn's lawyer met those minimal guidelines here.

The first cause of action is obviously breach of contract. Under this cause of action, only compensatory damages can be awarded (i.e., identifiable amounts lost such as loss of wages, etc.). Punitive damages (i.e., compensation to plaintiff for the purposes of punishing the defendant and/or deterring defendant from engaging in similar conduct in the future) are not available under this cause of action. This is why Steyn only seeks $24,450 under this cause of action, which is the lost wages, lost per diem, etc. It’s all that he can get under this cause of action.

However, under the other causes of action, punitive damages are available. (I’m not sure that he can get punitive damages on the second cause of action, but that’s beside the point since the other causes actions plead facts where punitive damages may be available if proven.) This is why the complaint uses words like “malicious” and “despicable”. Those are the types of conduct that must be proven in order to get those oh so coveted punitive damages. There’s nothing all that personal about Steyn calling Morrissey’s conduct “malicious”, “despicable”, etc., in the lawsuit. It’s what needs to be said in a complaint in order to push the lawsuit through under these kinds of causes of action.)

Steyn’s lawyer seeks $240,000 for a very specific reason. This complies with the Supreme Court’s holding a mere few years ago that punitive damages must be, at a maximum, proportionate to compensatory damages at a ratio of no more than 10:1. Thus, with compensatory damages at $24,500, Steyn’s lawyer calculated punitive damages at $240,000, which is roughly 10:1. (Incidentally, this is the reason why that lady who won $23.6 billion in punitive damages from the cigarette companies will never see that amount of money. Her compensatory damages were “only” $17.5 million. Thus, her punitive damages, if at all, would be something less than $175 million although I was also told that Florida caps their punitive damages at 3-4 times the compensatory damages, which would mean her punitive damages might be $70 million-ish at most. Obviously, it isn’t chump change, but she definitely isn’t going to see $23.6 billion).

Personally, my guess is that the lawyer wasn't enthused about a gross payout of $24,500 to his client, and decided to glom on a very loose interpretation of certain discussions to leverage a higher settlement. Banking on the probability that a deep-pocketed celebrity like Morrissey wouldn't want to be drawn into protracted litigation with depositions into personal details when he could simply scratch a check for some thousands to be rid of this headache. Happens all the time.
And that is why we need to kill all the lawyers first....can I say that?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I 'll agree on the 'ass pic', it's gotten tiresome to see over the years (just saying)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm a jack of all trades, master of none kind of lawyer, but I'll try to break some of this down for you guys and gals:

When filing a complaint, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts, not all the facts nor produce all the evidence, in support of the lawsuit. Just enough to indicate that if the alleged facts are proven, there is a legal remedy to which plaintiff is entitled. Steyn's lawyer met those minimal guidelines here.

The first cause of action is obviously breach of contract. Under this cause of action, only compensatory damages can be awarded (i.e., identifiable amounts lost such as loss of wages, etc.). Punitive damages (i.e., compensation to plaintiff for the purposes of punishing the defendant and/or deterring defendant from engaging in similar conduct in the future) are not available under this cause of action. This is why Steyn only seeks $24,450 under this cause of action, which is the lost wages, lost per diem, etc. It’s all that he can get under this cause of action.

However, under the other causes of action, punitive damages are available. (I’m not sure that he can get punitive damages on the second cause of action, but that’s beside the point since the other causes actions plead facts where punitive damages may be available if proven.) This is why the complaint uses words like “malicious” and “despicable”. Those are the types of conduct that must be proven in order to get those oh so coveted punitive damages. There’s nothing all that personal about Steyn calling Morrissey’s conduct “malicious”, “despicable”, etc., in the lawsuit. It’s what needs to be said in a complaint in order to push the lawsuit through under these kinds of causes of action.)

Steyn’s lawyer seeks $240,000 for a very specific reason. This complies with the Supreme Court’s holding a mere few years ago that punitive damages must be, at a maximum, proportionate to compensatory damages at a ratio of no more than 10:1. Thus, with compensatory damages at $24,500, Steyn’s lawyer calculated punitive damages at $240,000, which is roughly 10:1. (Incidentally, this is the reason why that lady who won $23.6 billion in punitive damages from the cigarette companies will never see that amount of money. Her compensatory damages were “only” $17.5 million. Thus, her punitive damages, if at all, would be something less than $175 million although I was also told that Florida caps their punitive damages at 3-4 times the compensatory damages, which would mean her punitive damages might be $70 million-ish at most. Obviously, it isn’t chump change, but she definitely isn’t going to see $23.6 billion).

Personally, my guess is that the lawyer wasn't enthused about a gross payout of $24,500 to his client, and decided to glom on a very loose interpretation of certain discussions to leverage a higher settlement. Banking on the probability that a deep-pocketed celebrity like Morrissey wouldn't want to be drawn into protracted litigation with depositions into personal details when he could simply scratch a check for some thousands to be rid of this headache. Happens all the time.
Take a bow, aldebaran. Thank you!
 

Pokey

Member
I guess if this does go all the way to court and Morrissey loses then we could probably expect Autobiography 2 out within the year.
 

ADAM

No One You Know
If a judge doesn't toss this out of court, I'll go dig up my Old Daddy (who was a State Attorney) and kiss his decaying arse. (Mother was a civil attorney with a leaning to defense, so she'd have eaten this bastard for breakfast, leaving room for luncheon.) My cousin Gloria holds (not tends) Bar in California, but I believe she's busy standing in front of cameras and bellowing about whatever will pay more and get more airtime. [She must loathe that Nancy Drew/Grace for stealing her thunder.]

This complaint reads like a thunderous pile of bullshit that no legitimate court will slog through.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If a judge doesn't toss this out of court, I'll go dig up my Old Daddy (who was a State Attorney) and kiss his decaying arse. (Mother was a civil attorney with a leaning to defense, so she'd have eaten this bastard for breakfast, leaving room for luncheon.) My cousin Gloria holds (not tends) Bar in California, but I believe she's busy standing in front of cameras and bellowing about whatever will pay more and get more airtime. [She must loathe that Nancy Drew/Grace for stealing her thunder.]

This complaint reads like a thunderous pile of bullshit that no legitimate court will slog through.
My husband is a lawyer so I gave him the complaint to see what he thinks. I'm interested to see.
 

Uncleskinny

It's all good
Subscriber
Interesting. No idea how this will play out, but interesting. So, wonder what Multi thinks about the very existence of this?

P.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
What I love is David admits he's been banned from concerts...which sure sounds a lot like he's been "gotten rid of".
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hahahaha, this is beyond ludicrous. So a suit has been filed. So what? Everyone can see that the deliberate misrepresentations contained within it are utter nonsense e.g. suggesting that stage invasions are the sign of a "disastrous" concert (not to mention the idea of Morrissey personally "begging" anyone for anything). Should be very easy to discredit this rubbish. This is going nowhere fast, except perhaps in the minds of a tiny minority on here.
 

George the 23rd

Still-Mostly-Mute Witness
Another court case? Just when we were fortunate enough to have an album with hardly any references to lawyers and judges....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Specious lawsuits are filed every single day. Doesn't make them credible or guarantee success, and just a cursory glance through this one reveals how risible it is.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
California is an at-will employment state which means an employer can terminate an employee's employment at any time with or without reason. The exceptions to the rule include terminating an employee for reasons "based on the discrimination laws; for participating in union activity; for refusing to carry out an activity that violates the law." (www.business.ca.gov)
Good Lord, can you really be fired for participating in union activity???
That's horrendous.
Those crazy Americans!
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom