- 2 days ago
- #foxsports
- #marksanchez
#foxsports #marksanchez
#foxsports #marksanchez
#foxsports #marksanchez
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00What's up, everybody? Welcome back. Today, we are going to break down the entire
00:03lawsuit against Mark Sanchez and Fox. Specifically, we're talking about how the lawyer got this
00:09turned around so quickly, like a day after the event happened. And is there real liability
00:14against Fox? Those are the two big questions most people have. Of course, we're going to break down
00:19the allegations against Mark Sanchez personally as well and answer so many of the questions that
00:24have already come in on Twitter, on Instagram, on YouTube about this lawsuit and this case and
00:29what we know now.
00:44So as we bring up this lawsuit to discuss in civil court, things are so much different than criminal
00:50court. In civil court, you as the victim and the victim's attorney, which is the type of work I
00:55usually do right on the plaintiff side and injury cases. A lot of times it's a wrong
00:59death case, a trucking accident, a car accident case. These are the types of cases that I handle,
01:03but battery also fits into that. And negligent security fits into that. Was there proper security
01:09at the place? Negligent hiring. Did an employee do something that you knew or should have known
01:13they were going to do and you didn't guard against it? You didn't train better or train
01:17enough? You didn't set up enough precautions in place to protect people from your employees?
01:21What were they actually doing at the time? These are all kinds of cases that I handle, but what's
01:25important is so many cases you have to do a serious investigation before you can get enough
01:30facts to file a lawsuit and move it forward in court. So while oftentimes it doesn't take as long
01:35to start a case as a criminal case, sometimes criminal cases are quicker, civil cases are
01:39quicker. It all depends. But the plaintiff's lawyer and the plaintiff themselves, the victim in these cases
01:45or alleged victim usually can drive the timeline. And sometimes it happens very quickly. And I think
01:51some of the reasons for why you would want to do this so quickly, if you're the victim are obvious.
01:55Everybody's talking about this case. Now, most people are not fond of what they believe Mark
02:00Sanchez's actions to be in this case. He is presumed innocent in the criminal court system. And these
02:07are just allegations in civil court. He has not been found liable in any court of law at this point.
02:13So while these allegations, as you read a complaint are taken as true, when the judge looks at him for
02:18things like motion to dismiss, it doesn't mean this is exactly how it happened, exactly how it was in
02:22the probable cause affidavit, exactly what all the reports are saying, or exactly what's going to be
02:26in this complaint. We don't know that to be true. But to try and figure out how he could possibly have
02:33claims against Fox and could he possibly have claims against Mark Sanchez, which seems very obvious at
02:38this point, we're going to read these facts as he sets them out in this complaint. So Perry Toll is
02:44the alleged victim versus Mark Sanchez and Fox Corporation. The complaint for damages and jury
02:50trial demand. So these are literally the types of complaints that we write. They don't always look
02:54exactly like this one looks, but to break this down is feeling like I'm talking about what I do every
02:58day, right? So by the way, make sure you guys hit that like button. If you're ready to talk about
03:02another civil case and a civil complaint, we always love when that happens for just a civil lawyer,
03:06as they say. And if you're new to the channel, that's a joke. I do a lot of criminal defense in my
03:10career before. I focus primarily on civil now. 99% of my practice is civil is what I say. My firm
03:16still does a lot of criminal defense. My dad's one of the best criminal defense attorneys all time in
03:20this state. We've prosecuted cases. My dad, myself, JD, we're all on that side. And on this side,
03:25another one of our lawyers, Pete was a public defender, worked in the public defender's office
03:28before coming and doing this. We've got a lot of criminal defense in our firm as well. And a lot of
03:33the cases we talk about on this channel, including the parallel case for Mark Sanchez is a criminal case,
03:38but it's always interesting when the civil case follows along, especially this quickly.
03:43So let's take a read. Comes now the plaintiff, Perry Toll, by counsel Eric J. May of whatever
03:48his firm name is. I can't pronounce Gallico and Daly. And for his complaint for damages and jury trial
03:56demand against the defendants, Mark Sanchez and Fox Corporation. Jurisdiction. This court has
04:00jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the laws of the state of Indiana as the events giving rise to
04:05this complaint occurred in Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana.
04:09That's just determining where this action took place, where the damage took place usually is
04:14the proper jurisdiction since the fight or battery, whatever you want to call it,
04:18happened in Indiana, Marion County. That's why we're in Marion Superior Court.
04:22The parties, who's involved here? First, we have the plaintiff, Perry Toll. He's an individual
04:25residing in the state of Indiana who has the victim, sorry, who was the victim of the action
04:30described herein. The defendant is Mark Sanchez, herein after referred to as Sanchez, is an individual
04:35who, upon information and belief, resides in the state of California and was involved in the incident
04:40described herein. Number four, Fox Corporation is a foreign corporation that, upon information and
04:45belief, is incorporated in the state of Delaware and is the employer of defendant Sanchez.
04:49We're not going to talk about how corporations, why they incorporate in Delaware. It's a very
04:55normal thing for these corporations to be there, not in California where a lot of people think it
04:59happens, but we'll get into that maybe another day.
05:02So, okay, here are the factual allegations. Defendant Sanchez is an employer, sorry, an employee of the
05:08defendant Fox Corporation. Defendant Sanchez traveled to the state of Indiana as part of his employment
05:14duties for the defendant Fox Corporation and the television broadcast of the NFL football game
05:19involving the Indianapolis Colts and Las Vegas Raiders on Sunday, October 5th, 2025. So, from all reports
05:26and being a football fan myself and listening to Mark Sanchez call games, this seems normal that he is on
05:31one of the Fox broadcasts. This is where they were at this Sunday. He's going to call this game.
05:36That all seems fine. This is part of his job. This is what he was hired to do. None of that seems
05:41outlandish. I understand that. We understand the connection between Fox and Mark Sanchez at this
05:45point, according to these factual allegations. Now, we haven't seen anything that gives rise to any
05:50civil liability, but we're just getting the connections and the background here of the parties.
05:54At all times relevant, plaintiff Perry Toll was performing his duties as an employee of a company
05:59specializing in commercial cooking oil, recycling, and disposal at the loading dock area of the Weston
06:05Hotel where he was approached by defendant Sanchez. So, this paragraph is in there to explain that the
06:09plaintiff, aka the victim in this case, was there lawfully doing nothing wrong, waiting to do his job
06:16when Mark Sanchez created this problem. That's what they're trying to tell us here in these allegations
06:20and these factual background. Defendant Sanchez, appearing intoxicated, instigated an altercation
06:26with plaintiff Perry Toll, claiming that plaintiff Perry Toll could not be at the location and that
06:31defendant Sanchez had spoken to the hotel manager. So, you might notice something else about these facts.
06:36They're going to sound a lot like what we read in the probable cause affidavit.
06:39And that is a reasonable basis to make these factual allegations. So, they're never going to be able to
06:45say, oh, you know, you lied. Or, I mean, I guess if there's anything Perry Toll told them that is not true,
06:50then they could get him for that. But this is what's in the factual allegations. This is what
06:53witnesses corroborate. This is what law enforcement says the video showed. I don't even know if this
06:57plaintiff's lawyer has seen the video at this point. This would be awful quick for him to see
07:00the video. Sometimes law enforcement will cooperate like that. But if it's an open criminal investigation,
07:05which it seems to be, a lot of times they won't give us this stuff that early. Maybe they'll show
07:09it to us. Maybe not. This is definitely something, the video of the altercation, you would get in
07:13discovery. But I like to have it. I don't always have it before a lawsuit. I'll just tell you that.
07:17Sometimes defendants will have control of the video. They'll see the video. They will not share
07:21it with us until after we file a lawsuit and force them to in discovery. So, it's not like every civil
07:25lawsuit, you have to have the video first. But in an ideal world, you want to do as much of an
07:30investigation, get as many documents and witness statements as you can to be very confident going
07:36forward in your lawsuit. No way they were able to do a deep dive in this case prior to filing this
07:44lawsuit. Doesn't mean the lawsuit's a sham. It doesn't mean it's just a empty money grab. It
07:50doesn't mean there's anything wrong with this lawsuit. It just means it's different than cases
07:54where you do have a lot of time and you think it's necessary to put in that time to do the
07:57background investigation. They may think timing is of the essence. And by the way, this is what I
08:02would call a bare bones complaint. Not every complaint that we file is some incredibly complex
08:07legal document. We can easily turn complaints around in one day if we need to. Absolutely. And we have
08:12cases coming up to the statute of limitations. We do as quick of an investigation as we possibly can
08:17in order to protect the victim's rights. We have to file the lawsuit quick. A law change is going
08:21to happen. We've got to file the lawsuit tomorrow. We are able to do that as lawyers. Take the time
08:25necessary to draft these complaints. Check all the boxes to make sure within the four corners of
08:30complaint, you do every single thing necessary in order to get the ball rolling. Because a lot of
08:36times you can also amend complaints. If there's something you accidentally missed, if there's an
08:40allegation you want to add, if there's a count you want to add, you can amend the complaint.
08:45In most jurisdictions, you can amend it once without even asking the court. But most courts
08:52will allow you to amend the complaint as long as it's for a reasonable purpose. And a lot of times,
08:57opposing counsel won't even object to you amending the complaint if it's for a reasonable purpose.
09:01So this might not be the final version of the document that they go to trial on if, of course,
09:05it ever gets there, which I would guess it's not going to get there.
09:08Okay. During the interaction, defendant Sanchez attempted to enter and later entered plaintiff
09:15Perry Toll's work truck without permission and blocked plaintiff Perry Toll from accessing his
09:20cell phone to contact his manager. The situation escalated when defendant Sanchez physically blocked
09:25and shoved plaintiff Perry Toll, leading plaintiff Perry Toll to use pepper spray in self-defense.
09:29It's obviously important that that's in self-defense. And when we read what the actual causes of action,
09:34meaning what Perry Toll is suing Mark Sanchez and Fox for, they're going to marry these facts
09:39with the law to get us to those causes of action. So we're reading through the facts here still.
09:44I want to see how they put it together and legally get to where they say they are in this civil lawsuit.
09:51The situation escalated when, sorry, I already read that. Despite the use of pepper spray,
09:55defendant Sanchez continued to advance toward plaintiff Perry Toll, resulting in a physical
09:59altercation, which resulted in Perry Toll suffering significant injuries to his head, jaw, and neck.
10:05On October 4th, 2025, at approximately 1235 AM, officers from Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
10:12Department were dispatched to 301 Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. Upon arrival,
10:17officers found plaintiff Perry Toll bleeding profusely and severely injured. Defendant Sanchez was
10:22subsequently arrested for battery, unlawful entry to a motor vehicle, and public intoxication.
10:27So while this might not come in an actual civil trial, you put it in your complaint, you're allowed
10:31to put it in your complaint, but it's definitely not going to be something that the jury hears
10:34unless there's a conviction, obviously, and you say he was convicted for this, but just being
10:39arrested for something or, you know, somebody accusing you of something in criminal court doesn't
10:42always come in and become relevant in the civil case, but this absolutely beefs up a civil complaint,
10:47especially if later the person pleads guilty or is convicted of those crimes, then you can use it
10:50as raised judicata, which means the criminal court with a higher burden has already determined he's
10:55guilty of this. So in civil court, the only thing left for us really to determine is did what he
11:00was arrested for cause damages and what is the amount of those damages, meaning how much money
11:05in civil court, because that's what you can go out there in civil court. They can't throw Mark
11:08Sanchez in jail. That's for the criminal court, which we've already kind of broken down what's going
11:12on there and what he was arrested for. This is civil justice, money damages. Count one, assault and
11:18battery. Plaintiff, so here now we get to the actual law and the cause of action. We read the 14
11:23paragraphs of the facts. Now let's see what causes of action they feel they have against Sanchez and
11:28Fox. First is assault and battery. Plaintiff Perry Toll incorporates by reference the allegations
11:33contained in paragraphs one through 14 as if fully set forth herein, meaning paragraphs one through
11:3814, they might as well be here in this cause of action. Defendant Sanchez intentionally and
11:43unlawfully made harmful and offensive contact with plaintiff Perry Toll, causing serious bodily injury.
11:49Defendant Sanchez's actions constitute malicious, willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct.
11:55As a direct and proximate result of the defendant Sanchez's actions, plaintiff Perry Toll suffered
12:00severe permanent disfigurement, loss of function, other physical injuries, emotional distress,
12:06and other damages. So there's a lot of kind of interesting nuance here in what we've read, but
12:12intentional conduct, reckless conduct, offensive conduct. A lot of times that language,
12:19punitive damage is used in punitive damages situations. Meaning not only are you going to
12:24get medical bills, pain and suffering, those are compensatory damages. Lost wages if he's got to
12:29miss work now, has a truck driver and misses paychecks. All those things you can sue Mark
12:33Sanchez for under this, right? But intentional torts like assault and battery, usually you can also
12:39sue for punitive damages. What are punitive damages? They are in place to punish, to punish that
12:45wrongdoing and deter other people from doing what you claim this defendant did. So big, strapping,
12:51strong guys can't be going around punching people, throwing people around, yelling at people,
12:55whether they're drunk or not. And we've got to send a message here that these big, strong athletes
13:00can't be walking around in different cities and doing this to people. And we have to make sure Mark
13:04Sanchez himself doesn't do this again. So let's punish this bad behavior and make it hurt.
13:09Punitive damages have to hurt. So he knows not to do this again. He'll think twice
13:13about doing this again. That's how that kind of works. This one is easy assault and battery
13:17if these allegations are true. And that's how we're going to look at the complaint when reading
13:20the causes of action. That's legally how you're supposed to. I'm not just choosing to do that.
13:24If the allegations are true, then an assault and battery claim is definitely going to survive a
13:29motion to dismiss and potentially get to a jury if they want to get there after discovery. If they
13:33don't settle the case, 90 plus percent of civil cases usually settle. So that's count one. Let's go to
13:39count two. Negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. They incorporate paragraphs one
13:48through 18 now. Some courts allow you to incorporate other causes of action. Some don't. Some prefer
13:53you just say one through 14. But defendant, Fox Corporation. Okay, now we're talking about Fox.
13:58We were talking about Sanchez before. Now Fox. They owed a duty of care to plaintiff Perry Toll
14:03to ensure that its employees conducted themselves in a reasonable manner. So first question, is this
14:08true? Does Fox owe a duty of care to just random people driving on the street? And generally the
14:14answer is yes. Every company owes a duty of care to make sure their employees aren't going out and
14:19battering people. They owe a duty of care to make sure that they have a safe environment, that they're
14:24training their employees, they're putting them in positions that'll be safe not only for the employees,
14:27but for other patrons. But it's very, very important because any of this vicarious liability
14:33you try to get on an employer, usually, usually, and I can think of some circumstances where there
14:40are exceptions, right? But we're going to talk about the vast majority of these cases. Your employee
14:44has to be working within the scope of their employment. Meaning if I'm a carpenter, I'm doing
14:52carpentry. I'm not throwing darts. I'm not throwing axes. I'm not driving race cars, right? Because that's
14:57not what the scope of my employment is, number one. And then number two, I have to be working
15:02in furtherance of your business, doing something to help your business. So if I'm a door-to-door
15:06salesperson, I'm knocking on doors and I've got your shirt on and your brochure, they open the door
15:10and I batter the person who opens the door. Well, that's in the scope of your business and that's
15:15in furtherance of your business. But if I'm a door-to-door salesman and I'm drag racing on the weekends,
15:21that's not within the scope of my employment. That's not in furtherance of your business.
15:24So how are they really going to connect all this up? They've chosen here in count two,
15:28negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. So they are correct that every company owes a duty
15:33to when their employees are working, that they're not injuring other people.
15:38Defendant Fox Corporation knew or should have known about Defendant Sanchez's unfitness as an employee,
15:47propensity for drinking, and or harmful conduct.
15:51So now is when we start to get into the biggest answer to your question, which is,
15:57does he really have a case against Fox? How could he possibly have a case against Fox?
16:02And the answer is, it depends. We are absolutely going to need more facts. For example,
16:09if Mark Sanchez truly does have a history of while on these game weekends when he's calling games and
16:15doing things with Fox, getting drunk and beating people up, and Fox never did anything to stop him
16:23or protect other people or send somebody with him to make sure he doesn't drink too much or
16:27send security with him to make sure he's not going to do this and they could break up a fight.
16:30You know, I could think of all sorts of things that would be appropriate to stop a fight like this
16:34if they had knowledge, if they actually knew, or if they should have known.
16:40Meaning there's wild reports about this, you know, it's public knowledge.
16:44Maybe there's even some other civil lawsuits that, you know, Fox didn't know about it because
16:48they never read it, but they absolutely should have. It was easily accessible and you would think
16:51you would want to look into this before you hire somebody.
16:53So if they did know this and did nothing about it, potentially you can get that connection.
17:01Now, I don't know. I don't know this background about Mark Sanchez. I don't know if this is true
17:05or not. Maybe some of you guys watching have read articles or no information that I don't,
17:09but they are going to have to prove this fact in order to get some liability on Fox.
17:16Additionally, more facts I'd like to know. Where was Mark Sanchez coming from? Where was he going to?
17:21What was he doing? Was it a party that Fox put on and they over-served him? And, you know,
17:26he left and he was going to another Fox event. Like the more Fox stuff you can, you know,
17:31bring into this situation, the better for the plaintiff. But if he was there to call a game
17:36on Sunday and he worked, you know, Saturday prepping for the game, meeting with the teams,
17:40went out with some buddies and had some drinks and went down and did this.
17:45What kind of a connection is there to Fox? Is he really on the clock? Is this really in the
17:48scope of his employment? Are they really on notice that they should be liable for what he's doing
17:52here? And that's why knowing about his background. And if he does this on business trips and you do
17:58nothing to prevent it, despite this knowledge or the availability of this knowledge, that's important.
18:04How available is the knowledge? Defendant Fox Corporation hired defendant, meaning also like
18:10you're hiring somebody that's not fit. If you know, you have a big, strong guy who likes to go beat
18:14people up when he gets drunk and you're sending him out on weekends to go to parties and drink.
18:18And then he goes out and does this. You should be on notice for that. He's not fit to have this role
18:23and be this employee and be sent out and have the privilege of being sent out to do this job.
18:29And because you knew about that and sent him out anyways, it's now on you. Is that how the facts
18:34are going to lay out? I don't know, but I'm trying to give you the idea of how do we get Fox hooked?
18:41There has to be a hook. If I work for my firm and I go out and do something crazy, right? Go get on a
18:49boat on the weekend and cause an accident. I'm not going to sue my firm for that. It's nothing to do
18:53with me being a lawyer. Defendant Fox Corporation hired defendant Sanchez as an employee, retained
19:04defendant Sanchez as an employee, and or failed to supervise defendant Sanchez in his capacity as an
19:09employee of the defendant Fox Corporation. So if you knew about this bad behavior, you should have
19:15had somebody supervising him, a handler of some sort, something to protect other people from
19:19somebody you know is unfit, you know has alcohol problems, and you know is dangerous. That's what
19:24they're saying, right? Again, I'm not saying this about Mark Sanchez. This is what the complaint is
19:27saying, and this is what they're going to have to prove to connect these dots. Defendant Fox Corporation
19:32breached its duty of care to plaintiff Perry Toll as set forth above, as a direct and proximate result
19:37of defendant Fox Corporation's negligent hiring, retention, and or failure to supervise. Sometimes
19:42you'll see negligent training in there as well, or failure to train. Defendant Sanchez, plaintiff,
19:46sorry, to supervise its employee, defendant Sanchez, plaintiff Perry Toll suffered severe
19:52permanent disfigurement, loss of function, other physical injuries, emotional distress, and other
19:56damages. So the severe and permanent disfigurement, it's going to be interesting if he pleads guilty or
20:03gets convicted of the current crimes he's charged with, that battery with serious bodily injury,
20:09that could be another admission. That could be another race judicata that he did not only commit
20:14the battery so he's liable, but he caused, meaning causation, significant injury. So that could even
20:20take care of some of the other elements of negligence claims. Causation and the significance of the
20:26damages, now you still always are going to have to prove the dollar number because you're not going to
20:29get that in criminal court. Restitution does not take into account everything that you can get in
20:34civil court to provide you full justice for what somebody does to you. Restitution is certain
20:39categories. You can get lost wages. You can get medical bills and things like that, but not pain
20:44and suffering, nothing in the future. It doesn't cover all medical bills. So there's plenty of things
20:48that you can't get in restitution that you can get in civil court. All right, what's the prayer for
20:53relief? This is what he's asking for. Wherefore, plaintiff Perry Toll, by counsel, respectfully request
20:58that this court enter judgment in his favor and against defendant Sanchez and Fox Corporation
21:03and award the following relief. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
21:08So usually there's a jurisdictional amount. I don't see that they pled it here. This complaint
21:12seems like it was put together pretty quickly. Does not have all the details and things that we would
21:17put in our complaints normally, but maybe it'll be amended, like I said. But compensatory damages will
21:22include a lot of what we've been talking about. His medical bills in the past that he's already had now
21:26resulting from this, the hospital, his medical bills in the future. Is he going to need some
21:29kind of plastic surgery on that gash across his cheek? Is he going to need any kind of injections
21:35or surgery or whatever on his neck, jaw? Who knows? Medical bills in the future, pain and suffering in
21:40the past, pain and suffering in the future, lost wages in the past, lost the capacity to earn in the
21:44future. Does he have PTSD? Can he not mentally drive the truck anymore? Is he too worried about
21:48everybody he sees thinking they're going to jump him and beat him up? What type of emotional distress?
21:53Those are all compensatory damages. And then there's B, punitive damages. So because we have
21:58the battery charge, the intentional tort, that intentional conduct or grossly negligent conduct,
22:04that's how we get the punitive damages. Not all causes of action in civil court even allow you
22:10to ask for punitive damages. Some jurisdictions, you actually have to prove up the case. And then later,
22:14requests from the court, like in Florida, we have to request from the court later to amend,
22:18to add punitive damages. And we have to show the court how we got to this intentional conduct
22:22or grossly negligent conduct before we can even ask for punitive damages. Costs and expenses of
22:27this action, including reasonable attorney's fees. Again, that's another one that not all
22:30jurisdictions does the winner get attorney's fees. Some jurisdictions it does. Some jurisdictions
22:34also there are certain causes of actions that statutorily give you attorney's fees, meaning
22:38the statute says if you win, the other side has to pay all your attorney's fees. Any other relief,
22:44the court deems just and proper. And this was filed on 10-6. I think this happened on the early
22:50morning hours of 10-4. October 4th, is that right? On October 4th, yeah, 1235 a.m. So what is that?
22:59Saturday, early Saturday morning. Yeah, and this was filed on Monday. The first business day that you
23:05could file it. Incredibly fast. And I understand people are going to be out there saying, this is
23:11just a money grab. He's a rich defendant. This was always going to be a civil claim. This was always
23:16going to be a civil lawsuit if these allegations are true. Both of these guys, right? Whichever
23:22one of them is not the aggressor. Whichever one of them was the victim in this scenario
23:26has actual damages. They were both seriously injured. So a civil claim was always going to
23:31come. Why add Fox? You could say bigger pockets, sure. But in reality, multiple defendants,
23:38big corporation, probably insurance with Fox, always more likely to pay. Because Mark Sanchez's
23:45pockets are deep enough for a civil claim. But it is so much harder. I don't care how rich a
23:49defendant is. It is so much harder for somebody to reach their hand in their own pocket and stroke
23:53a check than for a big company or corporation or insurance company, whatever it may be, to pay it and
23:59make a business decision. Do I want to fight this? Do I want to pay lawyers to defend this? Do I want
24:03the negative publicity? This could be really bad. His damages could be astronomical. If I can settle for
24:09a lower amount now, it's a business decision. A lot of times that can happen and big corporations
24:13can look at it like that. It's all a risk-reward balance. But when it's somebody personally,
24:19and when you have a criminal case going on, a lot of times that can be more difficult.
24:23So maybe they're thinking Fox is an easier target. At the same time, it's like, do they really care
24:28to pay lawyers? Big corporation, they'll fight this thing to death. They'll try to bleed the victim
24:33drive because most plaintiff's attorneys are doing this contingency. They're not getting paid hourly.
24:38They're actually shelling out money for costs. So Fox being so big, having unlimited money,
24:43basically. Well, they just fight this to the death. It'd be like, let's see how long you can
24:47last. Let's see how desperate you are for money. I'll give you five grand today if you go away.
24:52So there's all sorts of things happening in the background and decisions being made
24:55strategically when these cases happen. But it is an interesting civil lawsuit. I could probably think
25:00of some other causes of action depending on the facts. That's the problem. I like to get all the
25:05facts so I can think of every potential cause of action that I think I can prove by a greater
25:10weight of the evidence or preponderance of the evidence or 51%, just like a criminal prosecutor.
25:14What I do on the civil side is client comes to me, they bring me all these facts and I'm the one
25:18that's looking and say, okay, here's the causes of action that are appropriate here. Here's what I
25:22believe we can prove. Here's what I don't think we can prove and why. Let's see if we can get more
25:26evidence and information here while we're doing the investigation, while we're building up the case.
25:32In certain cases are pretty easy and pretty stock. You know, at this point, whether it's a
25:36wrongful death or an injury as a result of a car accident or truck accident, a lot of those can
25:40have similarities, but the facts will be very different. Cases like this, there's nuance and
25:44there's a lot of different potential civil causes of action that could be at play here. And these
25:48might not be the only two at the end of the day, as they do their investigation, which I'm willing to
25:53bet they're doing right now and continuing to get information from law enforcement as they're
25:57investigating the criminal side, which they said their investigation is still ongoing.
26:00You could see causes of action added, causes of action removed, or some things changed in this
26:07complaint. So just remember, this might not be the final complaint. So let me know what other
26:13questions you guys had in the comments. Make sure you're subscribed. If you want to keep following
26:16the Mark Sanchez case, let me know by hitting that like button and telling me in the comments that
26:20you're here to stay. You're interested. You want to break down this case. So we got his pretty quick
26:24review of a complaint. It wasn't the most complex complaint, but that's not always a bad thing.
26:28So tell me what you thought of it. But for me, that's all I got. Until next time, I'm out of here.
Recommended
0:30
|
Up next
2:01
5:23
41:45
0:46
2:11
Be the first to comment