Man sued for $30K over $40 printer he sold on Craigslist

[Gavilan]

http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/money/nation-now/2016/06/06/man-sued-30k-over-40-printer-he-sold-craigslist/85478168/


INDIANAPOLIS --- Selling a used, black-and-white printer through Craigslist seemed simple and straightforward to Doug Costello.

It wasn't.

What the 66-year-old Massachusetts man didn't know then is that he would spend the next 6 ½ years embroiled in a complicated and confusing legal dispute in Indiana over that printer, which, according to its buyer, was broken.

He would find himself liable for about $30,000 in damages. He would pay a lawyer at least $12,000 in his battle to escape the legal mess.

And it all started with a piece of hardware he sold online for about $40 in 2009. With shipping and other costs, the total was less than $75, according to court records.

The printer's buyer was Gersh Zavodnik, a 54-year-old Indianapolis man known to many in the legal community as a frequent lawsuit filer who also represents himself in court. The Indiana Supreme Court said the "prolific, abusive litigant" has brought dozens of lawsuits against individuals and businesses, often asking for astronomical damages. Most, according to court records, involve online sales and transactions.

Zavodnik, a native of Ukraine who moved to the United States in 1987 under a grant of political asylum, sued Costello, accusing him of falsely advertising a malfunctioning printer with missing parts, and pocketing Zavodnik's money. According to a complaint filed in Marion Superior Court, Zavodnik tried to resolve the issue with Costello to no avail, leaving him with no other choice but to take legal action.

Zavodnik declined to speak with IndyStar. In an earlier interview, he said his motivation for filing lawsuits is simple: to seek justice from people who, he said, stole money from him.

According to court records, Zavodnik initially filed a lawsuit in Marion County Small Claims Court, where he asked for the maximum damages of $6,000. Zavodnik lost because he had thrown away the evidence (the printer), court records said.

Costello said he thought that was the end of the legal fight, but Zavodnik filed another lawsuit in Marion Superior Court, where he requested damages for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, deceptive advertising and emotional distress.

"I figured that's it," Costello said of his victory in small claims court. "But no, no, no. Now I'm in another twilight zone."
Play Video

Craigslist can be a dangerous place for online transactions. Here are ways to protect yourself. USA TODAY

In 2010, Zavodnik sent Costello, who also was representing himself in the lawsuit, paperwork asking him to admit that he was liable for more than $30,000 for breach of contract, fraud and conversion. The trial court dismissed the case, along with 26 others filed by Zavodnik, who appealed all of those dismissals, court records state.

The Indiana Court of Appeals in March 2012 revived the lawsuit against Costello and sent the case back to the trial court, where it remained stagnant for another nine months until a hearing was scheduled later that year.

Zavodnik also had sent Costello two more requests for admissions. One asked Costello to admit that he conspired with the judge presiding over the case, and that he was liable for more than $300,000. Another one requested Costello to admit that he was liable for more than $600,000.

Other top stories from USA TODAY:

John Oliver buys and forgives $15 million of debt
Navy bans alcohol in Japan after crime spree
Just cool cars: Turning a 1971 BMW into a $100,000 gem

Because Costello did not respond to all three requests for admissions within 30 days of receiving them, and did not ask for an extension of time, as required by Indiana trial rules, Costello admitted to the liabilities and damages by default. He also did not appear at a July 2013 hearing, according to court records.

Costello said he never received the requests for admissions and was not notified of the hearing.

The case overwhelmed him so much, Costello said, that he finally decided to hire an attorney. In fall 2013, Indianapolis attorney Chad Wuertz, who represents other defendants sued by Zavodnik, filed a motion to withdraw the admissions.

The case lingered again — this time for more than a year — without any significant action.

Wuertz said the case went through several Marion County judges, many of whom recused themselves. At one point, Zavodnik sought to have a judge removed, and the Supreme Court appointed a special judge from Boone County.

Finally, in March 2015 — six years after Costello sold the printer — Special Judge J. Jeffrey Edens issued a ruling. He awarded Zavodnik a judgment of $30,044.07 for breach of contract.
Gersh Zavodnik poses in a room in his home, Tuesday,

Gersh Zavodnik poses in a room in his home, Tuesday, May 14, 2013, that is full of files for the vast number of lawsuits he has filed. (Photo: Kelly Wilkinson/IndyStar)

Edens acknowledged the amount is "seemingly high" and the judgment "may seem extreme for the breach of contract for the purchase of a printer." But he wrote that he's constrained by how the Supreme Court had previously interpreted a state trial rule, called Rule 36, which sets the 30-day deadline for responding to requests for admissions.

"What kind of reality am I in now?" Costello said of the ruling. "I don't know what's going on. Why don't I know what's going on?"

Costello, who owns a forensic accounting business, appealed the ruling. On March 23, the appeals court issued a sharply worded 13-page opinion in his favor.

The $30,000 in damages "had no basis in reality," Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote.

Zavodnik misused the Indiana trial rule, which was meant to more quickly and efficiently reach a resolution, Vaidik wrote.

"He did not send requests claiming $30,000 and $300,000 and $600,000 in damages because he believes those figures are legally justified and thought Costello might agree," Vaidik wrote. "He sent them because he hoped Costello would not respond, rendering the matters admitted..."

"Zavodnik used the rule as a way to avoid such a resolution," Vaidik wrote.

Costello was on a business trip in Ontario, Canada, when his attorney called him to tell him the news. He said he almost broke down while sitting at a diner.

"I've had this huge weight, this financial and emotional weight for 6 ½ years," Costello said.

Zavodnik likely does not see it that way. A colleague of Zavodnik's who's also a pro se litigant — legal jargon for someone who represents himself or herself in court — spoke on his behalf.

Jesse Clements, who said he and Zavodnik are members of a group of pro se litigants whose purpose is to "end Marion County judicial corruption," said the appeals court ruling was "ridiculous," "irrational," and "opposite to the law."

Clements describes himself as a highly skilled litigant , and Zavodnik sometimes uses Clements' research for his cases. He said the appellate judges "misrepresented" and "cherry-picked" the issues and facts that support their opinion.

Zavodnik likely will ask for a re-hearing, Clements said.

Costello said he will no longer sell anything online. He also said he has no plan to pursue any legal action against Zavodnik.

"I've had enough," he said. "I don't need him in my life anymore."

But the case is not yet over.

The appeals court ordered the trial court to hold a hearing to determine whether the case should be dismissed "based on Zavodnik's repeated, flagrant, and continuing failure to comply with Indiana's rules of procedure."

That hearing won't be held before Edens, the special judge from Boone County. He, like many others before him, recused himself.

Special Judge Christopher Burnham, of Morgan County, is now on the case.

Contributing: Tim Evans, The Indianapolis Star. Follow Kristine Guerra on Twitter: @kristine_guerra

[Gavilan]

http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2013/05/ind_courts_freq.html


Ind. Courts - "Frequent filer in Indianapolis court system represents himself: This outspoken Russian emigré is notorious among local judges"

Tim Evans' lengthy story appears on the front-page of today's Indianapolis Star. Some quotes:

[Gersh Zavodnik] has filed more than 100 lawsuits in Marion County courts since 2008 and says he has as many as 100 more in the works. Most involve Internet sales and purchases gone bad. * * *

In a Court of Appeals ruling, Zavodnik is described as someone who “attempts to make his living by filing lawsuits.” * * *

Of all the lawsuits he has filed, Zavodnik says, he has collected on just two. The payday: about $2,500. He says he has won a handful of other judgments, totaling more than $100,000, but has not yet collected on them. * * *

That doesn’t keep him from filing more, often asking for astronomical damages. In a case in which a woman reneged on an agreement to buy digital camera equipment, he is now seeking $1.2 million in damages. Sometimes he even asks for attorney fees.

But few of Zavodnik’s lawsuits survive to the point of being judged on their merits. Many have been thrown out over questions about whether parties outside the U.S. received adequate legal notice they were being sued. Others were dismissed for technical or procedural failings.

Zavodnik takes every setback and loss personally. When a case is dismissed, he suspects a conspiracy among judges and defense attorneys. And he recently has turned his attacks up a notch.

Zavodnik and another disgruntled pro se litigator, Jesse Clements, have teamed to file lawsuits against several Marion County judges. They contend there is a “legal mafia,” consisting of judges and attorneys conspiring against them and other pro se litigants by issuing rulings contrary to law and procedure, tampering with court records and evidence, and treating them differently than attorneys.

They also have taken aim at the Indiana Supreme Court and Chief Justice Brent Dickson.

“The subject judges,” the pair wrote in a January letter to Dickson, “could not have evolved into monsters if their overseers (YOU) did their (YOUR) jobs.” * * *

In a decision issued last year, the Court of Appeals found the local court “abused its discretion in ordering the dismissal” of three of Zavodnik’s cases. That ruling came after he appealed a judge’s dismissal of the 27 lawsuits in one fell swoop. * * *

The appellate panel found the judge dismissed the three cases without conducting a required hearing. Another Court of Appeals ruling in March revealed a different judge dismissed two lawsuits without a request from the people Zavodnik was suing.

“Ordinarily, ‘a trial court may not sua sponte (without a request by any party to the case) dismiss an action unless the court lacks jurisdiction or is otherwise authorized by statute or the rules of procedure,’ ” the court of appeals ruling said.

And earlier this month, Marion Superior Court Judge Thomas Carroll spanked Zavodnik and Clements in an order dismissing their lawsuit against fellow Superior Court Judge John Hanley. It revealed the growing frustration among judges with Zavodnik’s cases and courtroom antics.

“The plaintiffs, both well known to the Marion County judiciary as serial pro se filers, for years have unnecessarily clogged our court system with voluminous filings and motions in numerous cases, none of which has shown to have had any merit,” Carroll wrote in the May 17 ruling.

“This case is merely a continuance of the same abusive, outrageous, impertinent, immaterial, slanderous filings ... they have visited upon the court system of Marion County. ... The court will not allow itself to be used as a forum for these pro se serial filers to conduct their babble and scandalous attacks on members of this judiciary.” * * *

At some point, Dreyer said, there may be no judges left in Marion County willing or able to hear Zavodnik’s cases.

“Eventually, if he continues like he is,” the judge said, “it will be something the Supreme Court will have to address.”

A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court declined to comment on Zavodnik.

“I’ve told Gersh a million times,” [Mark O’Hara, a Brownsburg attorney who has represented Zavodnik in cases before the Court of Appeals] said, “that he can be his own worst enemy.”

In addition to his outspoken personality, O’Hara acknowledges, Zavodnik’s “pleadings can be long and rambling at times.” It is an observation echoed in local and appellate rulings.

“Mr. Zavodnik submits literally boxes of documents that are nothing more than pages pulled from the Internet with notes on Post-Its. ... They often lack coherence, much less conciseness,” Marion Superior Court Judge Timothy Oakes wrote in the order stomping out 27 cases on the same day.

ILB: Here is the most recent COA opinion involving Mr. Zavodnik, Gersh Zavodnik v. Brian Richards, et al., filed May 22, 2013. This involved a motion for rehearing of the earlier March 14, 2013 opinion.

Here is a 24-page, March 1, 2012 NFP opinion involving 27 defendants, where the COA rules:

In this consolidated appeal, Gersh Zavodnik appeals the trial court's Trial Rule 41(E) dismissal of his complaints in twenty-seven cases. Zavodnik raises two issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaints. Concluding the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing three of the cases, but did not abuse its discretion with respect to the remainder, we affirm in part and reverse in part. * * *

The trial court abused its discretion in ordering the dismissal with prejudice of Zavodnik's cases against Margulyan, Rinaldi, and Costello because no Trial Rule 41(E) hearing was ordered in those cases. We therefore reverse the trial court's orders dismissing those cases and remand for further proceedings. The trial court did not abuse its discretion with respect to the remainder of the cases, and the trial court?s orders in those cases are affirmed.

What do anyone make of these guys?

[David Merrill]

The "judge" you would complain to loves litigious people! - Job security.


This is the heart of proper Refusal for Cause. Just one non-responsive action.




4079