Gersh Zavodnik

[letissier14]

Man Sued for $30,000 Over $40 Printer Sold on Craigslist

Doug Costello, a Massachusetts man, thought selling an old printer on Craigslist would be a simple and easy way to make extra cash.

It turned out to be one of the biggest, and most costly, mistakes of his life.

Costello, 66, said he didn’t realize that selling off the printer on the website for $40 would embroil him in a six-year-long legal battle that would end up costing him $12,000 in legal fees.

In 2009, Costello sold the printer to Gersh Zavodnik. However, Zavodnik turned around and said it was broken and filed a lawsuit, the Indianapolis Star reported.

http://www.ntd.tv/2017/12/26/man-sued-f ... raigslist/

[King Lud]

In cases like this the law is an ass. It builds mistrust and makes itself look foolish.

[morrand]

In cases like this the law is an ass. It builds mistrust and makes itself look foolish.

Well, maybe. More like the plaintiff is an ass. The appeals court didn't exactly phrase it that way in their opinion, but clearly they were not happy with the plaintiff's abuse of process in this case, nor with the trial judge's failure to detect it:

Far from crafting narrow requests aimed at the actual merits of the case, Zavodnik asked Costello to admit that he was liable for $30,000, $300,000, or even $600,000 without also asking him to admit facts that would justify such an extraordinary award in a case involving a used printer sold for less than $75. Furthermore, as already mentioned, there was no trial date set, let alone a date that was just two months away. And Zavodnik certainly knew that Costello contested the matters at issue: Costello had already defended the case on the merits—and won—at the small-claims level. ...

Zavodnik’s misuse of Rule 36 is plain. 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; he sent them because he hoped Costello would not respond, rendering the matters admitted by operation of Rule 36. An important purpose of the rule is to more quickly and efficiently reach a resolution based on the actual facts; Zavodnik used the rule as a way to avoid such a resolution. The trial court’s partial denial of Costello’s motion to withdraw served to ratify Zavodnik’s blatant abuse of the rule. See, e.g., Wilcox v. Birtwhistle, 987 P.2d 727, 733 (Cal. 1999) (explaining that permitting withdrawal of admissions eliminates “undeserved windfalls and the resulting subversion of the policy favoring the resolution of lawsuits on the merits”); [and a bunch of other citations that I won't bother copying out here].

I'd be lazy not to point out, however, that this also doesn't really look like a sovcit case on the facts presented, so much as it looks like a general-issue crank who's grossly abusing the courts.

[TheNewSaint]

This guy's got a history:

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/201 ... /16529893/

(May 2013)An Indianapolis man who has filed more than 120 lawsuits since 2008 got a stern message this week from the Indiana Supreme Court.

Enough's enough, the justices told Gersh Zavodnik.

The state's high court, in an order issued Tuesday, called Zavodnik "a prolific, abusive litigant" and put him on notice. In the unanimous ruling, the five justices warned the Ukraine-born U.S. citizen that he "can expect any further abusive litigation practices ... to be met with appropriate sanctions and restrictions."

Zavodnik could face fines, criminal charges or a prohibition on filing new lawsuits unless he is in "immediate danger of bodily injury," the justices warned.

The Supreme Court also issued guidance to judges "confronted with abusive and vexatious litigation practices," particularly on the part of non-attorneys attempting to represent themselves.

One wonders how effective these steps were, if Zavodnik cases are still working their way through 4 1/2 years later. Perhaps they should have sanctioned him:

This week's order said the Supreme Court "as a matter of grace" will not impose sanctions against Zavodnik.

[Gregg]

Eventually, someone he crosses is going to file non judicial responses to his person and bury the evidence out on some farm in Jersey...

Are we sure its all the same guy, and not two people with the same name?

[TheNewSaint]

Are we sure its all the same guy, and not two people with the same name?

Did the name Gersh Zavodnik remind anyone else of Gern Blanston? Or was it just me.