Insults: $1.00

Reuters reports that a schoolteacher and a beautician have sued CNN for $1.3 billion for violating the dignity and reputation of the Chinese people.

They allege CNN perpetrated this heinous wrong when Jack Cafferty complained that the United States imports too much Chinese-made “junk with the lead paint on them and the poisoned pet food” and then went on to say the Chinese are ”… basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they’ve been for the last 50 years”.

The damages equate to $1.00 for every Chinese person, according to Liang Shubing, the beautician, and Li Lilan, a Beijing-based elementary school instructor.

Not satisfied with suing only in the Beijing courts, the plaintiffs have brought the same action in New York.

Where do we even begin?

Well, let’s start with the jurisdictional issues.  First of all, I have difficulty understanding how counsel in New York can accept the matter, and file the pleading, knowing that there is a pending lawsuit based on precisely the same act, claiming precisely the same damages in another jurisdiction.  One of the suits is subject to a stay application.

Let’s just assume that the Beijing suit should be stayed.

Secondly, where from where do Ms. Shubing and Lilan derive the mandate to advance the matter on behalf of every Chinese person in China?

Perhaps this is destined to be certified as a class-action.  Let’s assume that too, just for fun.

From where will the evidence come that every Chinese person is aggrieved?

I distinctly remember taking an oath, when I first became a barrister, that I would not bring frivolous and vexatious litigation to the courts.  The bottom line is that this lawsuit probably meets the textbook definition of “frivolous and vexatious”.

Counsel do the profession no favours in advancing it.