Ordermark | ordermark.com | Los Angeles, CA | Denver, CO | REMOTE | Full-Stack/Backend Engineers | Full-Time
Apply by sending CV to syed.arshad@getordermark.com, happy to answer questions kelvin dot tran at the same domain.
We're building a platform that helps restaurants manage online food ordering services (eg, UberEats, DoorDash). The platform aggregates orders received from disparate services and allows restaurants to change their menus in one single location.
You could create a system that'd help you file SCC complaints quickly, but to have it detailed enough to pass the defendant lawyer's complaints about the deficiencies in your documents would be difficult.
The size of that problem, however, decreases with the narrowness of the subject matter you want to cover/make claims about. If it were a 'Sue Equifax For The 2017 Data Breach' service, then it might work (the whole point about class actions being that they're similar - commonality, typicality etc - enough)
I don't know about other states, but in California if you sue a corporation in small claims court, they can NOT send an attorney:
Corporation or other legal entity — A corporation or other legal entity (that is not a natural person) can be represented by a regular employee, an officer, or a director; a partnership can be represented by a partner or regular employee of the partnership. The representative may not be an attorney or person whose only job is to represent the party in small claims court. An attorney may appear to represent a law firms as long as that attorney is a general partner of the law firm or is an officer of the corporation. However, in both instances, all the other members of the partnership and all the other officers of the corporations have to be attorneys as well.[1]
Apparently this is not uncommon even in normal court.
I sat on a jury in TX where a couple was suing an insurance company, and the insurance company wasn't represented by an attorney. It was really strange, because the first thing the gentleman does is stand up and spend 5 minutes explaining how he isn't an attorney but he regularly represents the insurance company for smaller claims (it was something like $20k IIRC). Then for the remainder of the next hour and a half or so he stumbled around with arguments against the couples slick lawyer. I guess the guy probably lost most of his cases (?) but its worth it to the insurance company to spend a few hundred bucks getting this guy to show up unprepared for an hour or two in the odd chance he could save them $20k every few dozen cases.
I think the point of doing this in SCC is that the cost of defending against small-claims is usually greater than the cost of just settling the SCC. Lawyers aren't cheap, and folks going to SCC are banking on them being more expensive than their claim.
Perhaps it would be an officer of the corporation, named in one of the documents on file with the state's Secretary of State or department governing business records. If only the CEO is named, that is the person who has to appear.
I think states usually allow a regular employee of the corporation to appear, though.
Obviously, the small claims court procedures may vary according to jurisdiction, so you'll have to at least check your state's website before running down to the clerk with filings in hand.
yes in this case with the amount of people affected the idea would be to do a one-off website 'Sue Equifax For The 2017 Data Breach' each person would pay a fee $ and get a package they could use in their state to file the SCC complaint. Would this be possible? I think there's plenty of people willing to pay $100 in order to sue for $1,000 if it is even possible
If you already have to enter your name/ssn/dob/address 3x for the credit freezes a 4th time to generate the paperwork for a small claims case isn't much extra work
"A.J. Daulerio, author of the 2012 story on Hulk Hogan, is out of work and unable to pay the $100,000 in punitive damages awarded by the jury."
Odd that Gawker wasn't (isn't?) covering its journalists under its libel insurance policy, and is now relying on its failure to do so to justify publishing arguably libelous, or at least close to libelous, material.
Interesting that EA distributes importance of skill differently for right and left sided players (eg, passing 57% for right mids, and 41% for left mids, while dribbling is more important for left mids than right mids (54% v 38%)).
Might reflect impact of actual players (Robben being a right-sided left footed impact winger).
This is how I was taught it (or understood I was taught it) - at law school, so it might have been dumbed down.
The impossibility is the impossibility of ensuring rational (transitive) outcomes amongst ranked preferences and adhering to a set of fair and democratic norms.
A rational transitive outcomes is one in which votes result in option A being preferred over option B and option B being preferred over option C, such that A is preferred over C (eg, A > B > C). Option A is known as the Condorcet winner.
But there may be cases where the vote yields no Condorcet winner (eg, A > B > C > A). This is illustrated by the following table:
Two voters prefer C over V and two prefer V over S, but two also prefer S over C.
To ensure transitivity, we can introduce voting rules, but it is impossible to introduce rules that do not violate the fair and democratic norms (referred to as the pre-specified criteria in the Wikipedia article: unrestricted domain, non-dictatorship, Pareto efficiency, and independence of irrelevant alternatives).
Yeah, but that takes the punch out of the theorem. It's saying, "hey, sometimes you have really screwy preferences, too bad."
Realistically, that kind of situation doesn't break a voting system. We can say "we don't care about that case -- just pick a random winner then", but it's no longer deterministic.
Is there a stronger version of the theorem that says there's no sane procedure even ignoring those cases?
No, of course not. It's really easy to come up with a system that always comes up with "good" results if you rule out "screwy" voter preferences, with a sufficiently restrictive value of "screwy".
That is all the punch he theorem has. Arrows theorem shows that aggregate preferences have ties even when individuals don't, and strategic voting can tip the results in those cases.
I've never used the Twitter API or Meerkat, but it seems that the 'choke' could be bypassed by scraping followers/following info from the publicly accessible profile pages of users.
Eg, sign on to Meerkat via Twitter, get username, scrape user's Twitter profile page for connected users, check if these connected users are on Meerkat, ask the user which of them he/she wants to connect with on Meerkat, then add on Meerkat.
You can't scrape a Twitter profile page for followers/following, you need to be signed on, and you'll encounter rate limits scraping even if you somehow do this with an authenticated session.
Now if you were talking about scraping Twitter user profiles, that's much easier since Twitter allows anonymous access to those. But not followers/following - they removed that around 2012 or so.
Apply by sending CV to syed.arshad@getordermark.com, happy to answer questions kelvin dot tran at the same domain.
We're building a platform that helps restaurants manage online food ordering services (eg, UberEats, DoorDash). The platform aggregates orders received from disparate services and allows restaurants to change their menus in one single location.
Python, Django/FastAPI, Celery, Typescript/Javascript, React & Redux, AWS.
https://jobs.lever.co/getordermark