The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

Another email and video showed up this week from the U S Chamber. This time, the video is about a poor landlord who is facing an emotional distress suit from one of his residents. The video is really unclear as to what really happened in the case. They don’t even disclose what they paid the day of trial. Clearly, the video is being used to incite other blogs. Google it and you see discussions of "landlords being raped" and the "fall of the whole economic system" It’s another U S Chamber overblown story from what I can tell:

1) The woman is never identified. She could be crazy or they could be hiding her side, because she does have a side.

2) The owner Vytas Juskys looks to be the same guy that posted this on Facebook about Proposition 98:

In the video he says: “There’s no way to avoid it,” Juskys says. “At some point, if you’re into real estate, you’re going to get sued. We’re easy prey.”

I wonder if easy pray and writing "going postal" really go together? Now, the claim itself seems like a tough one to make on the "facts" as provided in the video. I checked out the California jury instruction on the claim and found:

1600. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – Essential Factual Elements

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant]’s conduct caused [him/her] to suffer severe emotional distress. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:

1. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was outrageous;

2. [That [name of defendant] intended to cause [name of plaintiff] emotional distress;]


[That [name of defendant] acted with reckless disregard of the probability that [name of plaintiff] would suffer emotional distress, knowing that [name of plaintiff] was present when the conduct occurred;]

3. That [name of plaintiff] suffered severe emotional distress; and

4. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s severe emotional distress.

These look like some tough hurdles if this case is anything like the U S Chamber presents. So why did this get to the day of the trial and why wasn’t there a summary judgment motion to get it thrown out? What defense firm charged him a "very large bill" .

I know that there are small business people who are involved in lawsuits. Maybe all of those businesses that are sued by corporate conglomerates over copyright violations should be featured. It seems like this video really falls in the usual tripe we see from the U S Chamber:

U S Chamber Hides The Facts In ADA Lawsuit Ad, Mike Bryant | May 22, 2009 9:52 AM

Frivolous U S Chamber Email In A In Box Near You, Mike Bryant | April 21, 2009 9:28 AM

U S Chamber Emails Minnesota About Washington State Jobs, Mike Bryant | May 03, 2010 9:14 AM

The U S Chamber : Yes They Did It Again, Mike Bryant | January 25, 2010 5:24 PM

U S Chamber Back With Another Abuse Of Kids, Mike Bryant | September 11, 2009 9:26 AM

U S Chamber Exploits A Seven Year Old, Mike Bryant | May 05, 2009 9:58 AM


Comments are closed.

Of Interest