Trey Burke sued despite apology

Submitted by PeterKlima on

Trey Burke has been named in a Macomb County lawsuit seeking over $25,000 in damages (minimum that has to be mentioned in the complaint).

This arises out of unfortunate joking about the guy on Twitter, that Shaq mocked, who turned out to have a rare disease.  Shaq and Waka Flocka were also named as defendants.  It is unknown if any of the other, non-wealthy, re-twetters were also named, but for some reason I doubt it.

While I feel bad for the guy, I do not think the actions were intended to be hostile AND all three apologized to him privately and publicly.  In my opinion, this should not be a viable cause of action.

The defendants are wealthy and they made a social media mistake. 

Law firms are businesses that need money and publicity.

If you have strong feeling about this and you are a recoverable potential party, please watch your comments. 

http://www.macombdaily.com/general-news/20140730/warren-man-sues-shaquille-oneal-trey-burke-over-online-mocking

 

 

BlastDouble

July 31st, 2014 at 11:47 AM ^

Cant let it slide tho, I view it similarly to racism or sexism. I am probably biased tho, I work with students receiving special education services. I also grew up around a huge non-profit that serves people with developmental disabilities that my Dad still runs, Residential Opportunities Incorporated, located in Kalamazoo.

CLord

July 31st, 2014 at 11:19 AM ^

Add yourself to "assume" makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me" gang.  There is zero evidence whatsoever Shaq or Trey knew this dude had a disability, and thus were intentionally making fun of someone with disability.  Lots of normal people out there with poor dental hygiene.

This dude, while we all feel for him for his disability, is pure money grab here, which is despicable.  Once they learned  he had a disability they apologized.   Then he says 

“When they said sorry, I felt like they were saying it to get the pressure off of them for being considered ‘bad people.’”

Yeah because Shaq and Trey have a record of abusing and making fun of disabled people, or there must be some other fact no one else is aware of but this guy knows, leading him to believe their apologies weren't genuine... 

Sorry for the disability man, but end of day everyone has problems in some form or another.  The real shame goes to this guy's lawyer for being a pathetic blood sucker looking for attention and a settlement  by guilting rich athletes into some pity donation.

 

In reply to by BlastDouble

BigBlue02

July 31st, 2014 at 12:30 PM ^

I still can't tell if the ermahgerd chick is disabled or just making a stupid face and I don't consider myself ignorant.

In reply to by BlastDouble

CLord

July 31st, 2014 at 3:30 PM ^

So you're 100% positive that Shaq knew this was a disabled person, and then he went out of his way with an intent to  mock a disabled person to the world?  Common sense, and Shaq's reputation and history dictate otherwise.  Common sense  dictates he either (a) didn't know the kid was disabled, or (b) thought the kid would take the attention of a celebrity like Shaq, trying to make himself look like the kid, as a complement.

If Charles Woodson saw you walk by in a Michigan #2 shirt, a small part of him would feel good about it, where the message is "I wanna be like Charles."  And you're not even a celebrity.   Shaq could very well have just been showing the kid love by riffing "I wanna be like this kid"  when he took the picture.

Bottom line is you just don't know what was going on with Shaq when he did it, but it is very clear what is going on with this frivolous lawsuit.

ASS U ME

ak47

July 31st, 2014 at 12:09 PM ^

Not in terms of the lawsuit but why does it matter if they knew the kid was disabled or not? What they did was fucked up even if the kid didn't have a disability and just looked that way. Not that we haven't all made fun of peoples appearences before but I don't think its absurd to hold people to a higher standard with millions of twitter followers than joe schmo with his friends.  I guess it sucks to be famous but if you don't want to deal with that don't go into sports or get off social media.

CLord

July 31st, 2014 at 11:25 AM ^

I was one for ten years, and tried to like it in every way possible - in-house,  small firm, big firm, government, but flat out - it sucked.  You're either a jaded litigator (name me one litigator you've ever met who wasn't a sullen carcass of a human being) or a transactional attorney, aka a glorified maid, dotting I's and crossing T's and negotiating indemnity clauses for clients who actually innovate and move the world forward.

The law degree was a great call - the education is excellent.  But the career path is awful.  I pity kids of friends who proudly tout  recent job offers from the likes of the Skaddens or Kirklands of the world because they have no idea the misery that awaits them.

03 Blue 07

July 31st, 2014 at 11:56 AM ^

I'm a litigator. . . not jaded, and certainly not a "sullen carcass of a human being." Sure seems like that comment says more about you than any one of the millions of attorneys across the country on which you express your opinion. 

Glad you found a new calling. For all of us, you included. 

CLord

July 31st, 2014 at 3:39 PM ^

I added color for emphasis, say, the way Brian referred to Horse Face yesterday.  But the truth is that really has been my experience.  It's a gross generalization of course, and I've known some fine litigators who were jovial and funny, but they were far fewer and far in between than you'd find in most other vocations.

The root of the matter is, given your experience, would you really want your son or daughter to be an attorney?  I mean, of course an attorney vs say, jail or unemployment or waiting tables, but all things equal wouldn't you prefer your children find a career where they can innovate and drive society toward the future vs. a job where they are constantly in conflict with an opposing counsel on a variety of matters, frequently espousing positions they don't even agree with?  And having to bill 2,000 hours a year on top of pro-bono and non-billable work?  I.e.,  slaves to their jobs?

It's probably just me.

ak47

July 31st, 2014 at 5:09 PM ^

My mom is a lawyer who works to defend the rights of people with mental health issues who are in the justice system.  I think she likes her job.  Being a lawyer doesn't mean what you think it means, that is just one specific type of lawyer and you happened to not enjoy it. Shit I know someone that enjoys tax law.

bluewings

July 31st, 2014 at 10:42 AM ^

Hope he wins. This guy has been getting bullied his whole life. Shaq said he did not think it was a real person. What a liar. Good thing for basketball because shaq is not very smart (don't sue me)

SECcashnassadvantage

July 31st, 2014 at 10:47 AM ^

He got a limousine ride, free boxing, making bank off donations, and tons of media love. I wish when I got called a name my life changed for the better. I hope the kid isn't called names ever again though.

MaximusBlue

July 31st, 2014 at 11:08 AM ^

There's absolutely no case here. How will they prove damages? Trey shouldn't have done what he did and was wrong in his ridiculing of this person. He has sincerely apologized and that should be that.

Tater

July 31st, 2014 at 11:10 AM ^

They messed up.  They should each throw $5K into a pot and offer to settle.  It's not like it's that much to them. And it's not like the guy is asking for $25 million.

03 Blue 07

July 31st, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^

No, they should only settle as a business decision. The rationale you propose here is so wrong for so many reasons. I advise/represent clients in situations like this, and my standard m.o. is that when someone has a claim that's b.s. legally (which this one really is), I tell my client "pay me x to defeat it, but what you should really do is pay less than x to get them to go away; if they won't take less than x, then we just defeat them, but don't pay more than you're going to pay me to defeat this claim in settlign it, since, again, it's a b.s. legal claim."

Whether or not Shaq and Trey should "feel bad" is a completely different discussion. What they shouldn't do is allow someone to extort them, which is essentially what this is. I don't care if it's a sick kid or Mother Theresa (RIP), legal extortion is still legal extortion. 

Erik_in_Dayton

July 31st, 2014 at 2:44 PM ^

But people file dubious (or flat-out crazy) suits all the time.  I wish newspapers and such wouldn't report on the filing of suits as ofen as they do, because it gives the mere filing of the given suit more importance than it deserves. 

Wolverine Devotee

July 31st, 2014 at 11:22 AM ^

I really hate living in this county. Add this to the list that they're mentioned for a suit against Trey.

ak47

July 31st, 2014 at 12:13 PM ^

Have you ever lived in another country or is this just something you say for fun? And if you really believe your a college aged kid, go live somewhere else, its pretty easy to do for a year at that age, I have ton of friends who did it.

In reply to by Wolverine Devotee

ak47

July 31st, 2014 at 5:11 PM ^

Oh my b. Well my comment still stands you should give living in another country or county a chance for a bit.

gmoney41

July 31st, 2014 at 12:22 PM ^

This country has plenty of serious problems dealing with corruption in politics, judicial corruption, rigged elections, a two party system that is totally corrupt.  Wall St. immigration, etc.   I wouldn't want to live anywhere else though, and unfortunately, the whole world haas to deal with petty lawsuits, it's not just a U.S thing.

avid

July 31st, 2014 at 11:32 AM ^

seems like a money grab but...  i can't blame the guy.  as a person with pretty much zero dollars, i can see the benefit of having thousands of dollars.  trey shaq and waka will still have lots of dollars too.  i dont think they deserve to be sued, but if everybody has lots of dollars at the end of the day, then it seems ok.

03 Blue 07

July 31st, 2014 at 11:48 AM ^

I think the cause of action is specious at best, and they're going to need to prove some key facts to assert the invasion of privacy cause of action, facts which they likely don't have and/or don't exist with respect to the "monied" defendants. 

He's not seeking only $25,000.00; he is seeking in excess of $25k, the jurisdictional minimum. However, what may happen is that rather than pay lawyers to defeat the plaintiff's case via motion to dismiss or after the close of discovery via motion for summary judgment. . . they just pay the kid less than what they'd pay their lawyers and settle the matter. 

TL;DR: It's a cash grab. Sucks the kid has had an unfortunate life, but that doesn't turn this into much of an actionable claim. If you have money, people sue you a lot.