The long-expected suit was filed in federal rather than state court, and one attorney speculates that the reason was to get more suburbanites on the jury panel, on the theory that they will be less hostile to the plaintiffs than San Francisco residents. Federal theory? Well, “Kulbir Dhaliwal contends his federal civil rights were violated because he was deprived the use of his BMW M3, the car the three took to the zoo.”
The suit also accuses Sam Singer, a well-known crisis management spokesman whose firm was retained by the zoo after the attack, of libel and slander.
The Dhaliwals contend Singer and city officials engaged in a smear campaign to suggest the young men were disreputable and had taunted the tiger before the escape.
“There’s no merit to the lawsuit whatsoever,” Singer said. “More importantly, I’d like to remind people that [plaintiff’s lawyer Mark] Geragos was the one who said his client, Michael Jackson, was a perfectly normal human being and Scott Peterson was an innocent man. I leave it up to the judgment of the public as to how accurate he is on any of his claims.”
Watch out getting into a fight with a crisis management specialist, they have sharp tongues. (John Coté, “Tiger attack victims file suit in federal court”, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 13; more Chronicle coverage; earlier).
14 Comments
That is strange, the complaint isn’t available on PACER. The rest of the documents filed in the case are accessible. From what little is in the S.F. Chronicle, it looks like it was written as a PR exercise.
“There’s no merit to the lawsuit whatsoever,” Sam Singer said. “More importantly, I’d like to remind people that [plaintiff’s lawyer Mark] Geragos was the one who said his client, Michael Jackson, was a perfectly normal human being and Scott Peterson was an innocent man.
And Scott Peterson still IS innocent. The state spent $11 million to get him but could never find evidence of anything except adultery.
Im pretty sure they got him for murder. IANAL, but when the jury says “Guilty” that usually means that you aren’t considered innocent.
These fellows absolutely have a cause of action and they will win or settle favorably.
Children commonly make faces at a caged gorilla and roar at lions. IOW, they tease them.
It would serve them right if the animals got out and mauled or killed them? That seems to be the attitude of the majority of public comments I read on this subject.
And recall as well the Geragos is the lawyer who claimed Winona Ryder was not a shoplifter. Don’t count Geragos out on the whole wife killer theme, he is currently defending a Japanese man accused of murdering his wife.
@A Voice of Sanity, you might consider taking your the theme of your pseudonym seriously, to suggest that Scott Peterson is innocent when he is sitting on death row is ludicrous. You may believe he is innocent but he has been proven guilty where it matters, in court.
Just what case has Mark Geragos ever actually won? Look how much good he did Susan MacDougall…
To what standard of care should zoos be held? Was there some kind of deficiency in the tiger enclosure that they should have been aware of?
Also, could I sue the city for a violation of my civil rights if they boot my car?
E-Bell, the height of the walls was found to be below specifications for a tiger enclosure.
“And Scott Peterson still IS innocent.”
I can think of 12 people who disagree.
for shame ! what a poor state of affairs in our courtrooms that allows bigoted statements against the defendants lawyer to color the jury’s finding. that the laweyer has defended guilty people, does not make this person guilty.
Scott is innocent those bodies were placed at the bay and did not wash up.
Peterson was convicted by the media, not by any facts. The police spent 20,000 hours – and found one hair and some cement mess, nothing else. No evidence of murder was ever found.
Most who believe Scott is guilty don’t know what the evidence actually is and so misstate it. To save arguing it here, go look at
Guilty?
to see what the prosecution had – which was nonsense.
Then look at
Innocent!
to see what the real circumstantial evidence in this case actually proved.
18 items of evidence for fetal abduction.
Zero for uxoricide.
Just another of the hundreds convicted but later proven innocent. Not the first. Not the last.
Don’t hold your breath on the “later proven innocent” part.
I appreciate that the Scott Peterson angle is of interest to some visitors. That having been said, both sides have now weighed in on it, and interested newcomers can find a vast amount about the case on Google as well as by following the suggested links. So unless someone has something truly new to add to the above, both sides should consider themselves on notice that further comments unrelated to the zoo dispute are subject to being moderated/removed.