Oberlin College, found by Jury liable for $11m to Gibson's Bakery for calling it racist, may triple (3x) in punitive stage

Here's the background. Basically a social justice mob encouraged by Oberlin tried to smear and destroy this bakery simply for not letting some students steal from them (seemingly because they were black). Now Oberlin will have to pay for it.

Gibson’s and its owners sued the college and Raimondo for libel, tortious interference with business relationships and contracts, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and trespass. Gibson’s alleged long-term damage to its business and reputation for the allegedly defamatory accusations and other torts. The plaintiffs in closing argument asked the jury to award $12.8 million in compensatory damages. The college's expert in turn valued the bakery business at a mere $35000 dollars.

Dear Members of the Oberlin Community:

Donica Thomas Varner

Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary

Boy, nice to get a little good news every now and then.

Reminds me of the Duke professors proclaiming the lacrosse kids guilty without any evidence.

Leftistssuk wrote:

Qui che Lorain? wrote:

Dear Members of the Oberlin Community:

Donica Thomas Varner

Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary

Boy, nice to get a little good news every now and then.

Reminds me of the Duke professors proclaiming the lacrosse kids guilty without any evidence.

+1

?

Seems like Oberlin youths may have said some hot-headed stuff (likely); whereas it’s claimed that a bunch of old, rich administrators tried to destroy a bakery (unlikely).

F SJWs. Gibsons deserves the money. These pathetic individual SJWs still hide behind the college, which has to pay for everything.

I’m in trouble here, I’ve just never seen these gluten-free people go this far; it’s hard to believe, for us liberals.

There are not many bakeries left, not the most lucrative business, an appeal might take this into account.

There's no chance this absurd ruling won't be overturned. Oberlin had nothing to do with it, and think of the precedent: students protest a business and the college they attend is charged $11-33 million for a business that probably grosses $1-2 million per year at most, probably less than $1 million, and which lost a tiny fraction of that in business.

The wheels of justice grind slowly but surely. Probably not gonna get the treble damages but great to see these idiots get their comeuppance.

Next stale roll I get, I won’t go after the capitalist pigs who baked it!

The System is just too powerful.

zxcvxzvc wrote:

There's no chance this absurd ruling won't be overturned. Oberlin had nothing to do with it, and think of the precedent: students protest a business and the college they attend is charged $11-33 million for a business that probably grosses $1-2 million per year at most, probably less than $1 million, and which lost a tiny fraction of that in business.

When you say that Oberlin had nothing to do with it, are you arguing that the claims stated in the article are untrue, or do you have some other rationale?

This gluten-free Armageddon is more fun.

Give us this day our daily bread ? scandal.

If you followed the trial, you would know the numbers.

Overall store revenues have dropped from $828,000 in 2016 to $690,000 in 2017 to $525,000 in 2018. Based on what has been brought in so far this year, the 2019 revenues are predicted to be $433,000. Monaco said that is a loss of 47.74% in income four years. “These are textbook before and after numbers,” he told the jury.

Many alums are complaining their money will now go to Racists.

For instance, this self-described "Tom Cruise Scholar" (4 yrs @ Oberlin) says she (she/her pronouns) isn't with it.

https://twitter.com/KendraJames_/status/1137096687128760320

no comment from lena? wrote:

Many alums are complaining their money will now go to Racists.

For instance, this self-described "Tom Cruise Scholar" (4 yrs @ Oberlin) says she (she/her pronouns) isn't with it.

Actually, if they just raise tuition on the 3000 students by 1000$ a year, it will pay for it in 4 years.

Then the 2021 Student Debt extinguishment from Dem-led Congress will allow all us (net) taxpayers to have some skin in the game.

Oberlin Insurance is going to decline indemnification.

Here is an excerpt from Lexington’s motion setting forth the nature of the insurance coverage (emphasis added):

Lexington issued a Commercial Umbrella Liability policy that potentially provides coverage to defendants Oberlin College aka Oberlin College and Conservatory (“Oberlin”) and Meredith Raimondo for certain damages in this action. Lexington seeks intervention in this action for the limited purpose of submitting interrogatories to the jury in order to determine facts at issue in this action that would impact coverage under its policy.

The Lexington policy does not provide coverage for “bodily injury” or “property damage” intentionally caused by defendants. While the Lexington policy potentially provides coverage in relation to “personal and advertising injury,” defined to include defamation and/or disparagement in certain circumstances, the Lexington policy excludes any such coverage if “personal and advertising injury” is caused “with the knowledge that the act would violate the rights of another … ,” or if the insured published material it knew to be false. Further, the Lexington policy provides coverage for punitive damages insurable by law, but only where the corresponding award of compensatory damages is also covered by the Lexington policy. In this action, plaintiffs Gibson Bros., Inc., Allyn Gibson, and David Gibson allege that defendants Oberlin and Ms. Raimondo published material that falsely characterized the bakery owned by plaintiffs (“Gibson’s”) as being a racist establishment. While such allegations potentially implicate “personal and advertising injury,” plaintiffs also alleged that the statements were published with malice, were intended to injure plaintiffs’ business reputation, and were part of a purported campaign to harm plaintiffs. If it is established that the defendants knew the alleged statements were false, or if the defendants knew their alleged acts would violate plaintiffs’ rights, the Lexington policy would exclude coverage for any resultant damage. Thus, Lexington seeks to intervene in order to submit jury interrogatories to determine the extent of the defendants’ knowledge in relation to the alleged publications.

Further, the Lexington policy provides coverage for punitive damages only when the punitive damages are assessed relative to covered compensatory damages. Here, plaintiffs seek punitive damages for the claims of libel, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and trespass. Only the libel claim is potentially embraced by the Lexington policy. Thus, Lexington seeks to intervene in order to submit jury interrogatories and instructions to determine what punitive damages, if any, correspond to each cause of action.[/quote]

The motion then sets forth Lexington’s inability to gain cooperation as to jury interrogatories from the college:

In particular, Lexington affirmatively requested on several occasions that the defendants submit jury interrogatories and instructions as proposed through this motion. Lexington also inquired as to when proposed jury interrogatories and instructions were due, and was informed on April 27, 2019 by defense counsel for Oberlin and Ms. Raimondo that there was currently no deadline set by the Court and that the deadline would probably be several weeks away. Lexington advised the defendants that Lexington understood the defendants would adopt Lexington’s request to submit jury interrogatories and instructions as outlined by Lexington. On April 27, 2019, the defendants responded that they would inform Lexington of their position on April 29, 2019. Defendants did not inform Lexington on April 29, 2019 as represented and, as such, Lexington is acting out of an abundance of caution in the form of this motion, as Lexington remains uncertain of defendants’ position, despite repeated communications and requests by Lexington.

The Court rejected Lexington’s motion to intervene.

Again, maybe if you followed the case, you might know a tiny amount (0.1%?) of the facts.

Clarence “Trey” James and other witnesses (Day 3)

There were other witnesses called by Gibson’s side that are very relevant in this overall argument of “active” participation by the school in causing damage to the business.

Clarence “Trey” James, an African-American who had worked at the store since 2013, first denied that any racism existed in either the store’s treatment of its customers, or how he has been treated. “Never, not even a hint,” James said. “Zero reason to believe, zero evidence of that.”

James said he had moved to Oberlin from Cleveland to have a better family life for his young daughter. He is a single-father of a teenager, and he said that he and his daughter were invited over Dave Gibson’s house for Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner.

James said he was working at the store during the protests and could see Oberlin College Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo directly outside the front door, as he was working the cash register near the front windows and store entrance. Raimondo has claimed she was merely at the protest because it was her administrative duty to oversee the safety of the students and to keep the event “lawful.” She has repeatedly said she was not an “active participant.”

The level of “participation” in the protest grew to higher levels with the last two witnesses. Two employees who worked in the school’s music conservancy offices (just down the street from the Gibson’s store) said students were allowed to use the conference room in their offices, make copies of the flyers that said Gibson’s was racist, use the restrooms of these offices, and were brought in pizza and beverages by the music conservancy administrators that had been ordered by the school.

The school has denied they participated in the protest in any way beyond trying to “deescalate” the tension.