Analyzing the Case Law of Better Call Saul’s Sandpiper Class-Action Law Suit
Looking at Sedima v. Imrex and Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation
Better Caul Saul, the prequel to Vince Gilligan’s hit AMC show Breaking Bad, begins by following the struggling attorney James McGill. He is taking public defender work for very little money when he stumbles across a massive opportunity in the most unlikely of realms—elder law. When working on a will at Sandpiper Retirement Communities, the resident he is helping is unable to pay him his fee. James discovers that the conglomerate keeps its residents on an allowance. Upon further investigation, McGill discovers a pattern of overcharging residents for basic items such as Kleenex. James then takes drastic action.
He enters the trash cans outside of Sandpiper in search of shredded evidence in the case. Then he calls Sandpiper’s lead counsel and discusses a demand letter he scribbled down on toilet paper while in the facility. James then visits his older brother, established senior partner at prestigious Hamlin, Hamlin, and McGill Charles McGill to discuss the possibilities of the case.
They discuss evidentiary concerns, but James is able to convince Charles that the evidence was obtained lawfully. They then discuss the fact that the patterns of overcharging and concealment may indeed rise to the level of fraud, and that the case could be elevated to the status of a class-action lawsuit.
The following are two cases that Charles has the team investigate as to the pertinent case law surrounding the dispute at issue:
Sedima v. Imrex (1985)
Held:
1. There is no requirement that a private action under § 1964c can proceed only against a defendant who has already been convicted of a predicate act or of a RICO violation.
Nor is there any requirement that, in order to maintain a private action under § 1964c, the plaintiff must establish a “racketeering injury,” not merely an injury resulting from the predicate acts themselves.
This case deals with the ability of the plaintiffs, in this case the residents of the Sandpiper Crossing retirement communities, to maintain a private action (sue for damages). The predicate acts in this case would be the consistent overarching of the residents for basic goods which rises to the level of the act of fraud.
Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation (1992)
Held: SIPC has demonstrated no right to sue Holmes under § 1964c—which specifies that “any person injured…by reason of a violation of [§ 1962] may sue therefore…and…recover threefold the damages he sustains…“requires a showing that the defendant’s violation was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.”
This case deals with the element of cause, with the standard here being that the defendant violation (again the overarching of residents for basic goods) must be the proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries.
It is refreshing when such an entertaining T.V. drama does its homework, especially when it comes to complex legal issues. The fact that the show highlights relevant case law is another feather in the cap of one of the greatest television epics of all time.