The problem is that it seems that the judge made the legally correct determination, and that the majority of judges understand that this type of suit is ridiculous, but they have no tools to stop it.

> The problem is that it seems that the judge made the legally correct determination,

Judges are supposed to use some digression. I doubt very much that the litigants losses for a $40 printer are $30K. Especially since he conveniently lost the printer.

I just don't believe that there are any laws which require the judge to (a) decide in the litigants favor with zero supporting evidence, and (b) allow $30K in damages for a $40 printer.

FTA, the court of appeals pretty much stated the above The $30,000 in damages "had no basis in reality," Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote.

I'm left wondering why anyone supports a position which the judges describe as having no basis in reality.

As quoted, "Edens acknowledged the amount is "seemingly high" and the judgment "may seem extreme for the breach of contract for the purchase of a printer." But he wrote that he's constrained by how the Supreme Court had previously interpreted a state trial rule, called Rule 36, which sets the 30-day deadline for responding to requests for admissions."

Arent such notices supposed to be handed in person via a process server? How could the person be held liable for a default judgement without being personally handed court documents?

suggested edit: s/digression/discretion/

> Judges are supposed to use some digression.

Yes, and they do, however sometimes their hands are tied. In this case by rule 36 of a series of peer approved rules which states what action the judge in this case has to take. When submitted to appeal the judges who passed the rules then said the ruling "had no basis in reality" about their own rules, hopefully they will fix them and/or future judges will use this as precedent to in cases like this.

This part of the system is functioning correctly, it's the ridiculous litigation from pro-se plaintiffs that's at fault. Most jurisdictions have an equivalent to spam filter that passes down criminal charges on people who act like this.

> The problem is that it seems that the judge made the legally correct determination, and that the majority of judges understand that this type of suit is ridiculous, but they have no tools to stop it.

If they had the tools to stop it, and chose to use them based on their determination rather than the "rules" (no matter how nonsensical they be), we'd be throwing a fit about activist judges legislating from the bench.

The separation of powers is there for a reason and it's not the judiciary that needs to solve this.

Perhaps someone could tell me what happens exactly to a judge that goes against the law in a case like this? If it goes to a higher court and what he has done is overturned what is exactly the practical significance of that? In other words the "my hands are tied" how valid is that in terms of what actually does happen as opposed to what theoretically can happen?

Sometimes judges do go against the law or at least make a legally ambiguous ruling. That is what appeals courts are for.

It wasn't legally correct, at least in the opinion of the appeals court which, as the article states, ultimately reversed the $30,000 award.

The majority of judges understand that this type of suit gives them incredible power relative to the average person, and work in a way that preserves their power.