• December 3, 2015
Boot Photograph by Ian Britton

Boot Photograph by Ian Britton

Yeah, you keep lyin’ when you oughta be truthin’. And you keep losing when you oughta not bet. You keep samin’ when you oughta be changin’. Now, what’s right is right but you ain’t been right yet. These boots are made for walking and that’s just what they’ll do. One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you….

Energizer_Bunny_Hot_Air_Balloon_2009Update (December 3, 2015): According to a Minnesota Litigator reader/commenter, Plaintiff Madgett, the subject of the post below, just keeps going and going….(see comment).


Original post (May 16, 2013): It was 1966 when Frank Sinatra’s daughter, Nancy Sinatra, went to the top of the charts with this angry screed/footwear product placement (written and produced by Lee Hazlewood).

Fast forward to this week, and we note a complaint, originally filed in Minnesota State court but removed to U.S. District Court the gist of which that a boot manufacturer has managed to make and sell a boot that is so bad that, according to the plaintiff, it is not made for walking and cannot be sold.

There are some strange things about this complaint.

First, note that the Plaintiff is “DJSM.”  This is odd.  The complaint makes clear that DJSM is a human, not some kind of entity or business formation.  Is a defective boot allegation some shameful claim that needs the protection of anonymity?  “[W]ith rare exception, anonymous pleading is not allowed under Rule 10(a).”  Indep. Glass Ass’n, Inc. v. Safelite Grp., Inc., 05-238 ADM/AJB, 2005 WL 2093035 (D. Minn. Aug. 26, 2005).

Second, note that the complaint is actually a “verified complaint,” meaning that it is signed by the complaining party.  So persistent readers who read to the end will learn that the plaintiff’s name is David J. S. Madgett.  So much for the “DJSM” in the caption.  (And one might note Rule 10.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, like the federal rules, requires that parties to litigation be named in the caption.)

Third, “defendant Deere & Company” makes a fleeting appearance in Para. 13 of the complaint but there is, of course, no such defendant in the case.

Fourth, note that Dave Madgett is a lawyer and, apparently, he was or still is a Judge Advocate for the United States Air Force.

Finally, an editorial comment: if Americans were able to sue every time we bought lousy footwear, it is essentially certain that this would result in the end of the world as we know it.  The justice system would be brought to its knees (which at least would allow it to take a load off its feet which are probably aching from the government issued boots, I guess).  I do not know when this lawsuit will get the proverbial boot to match the plastic pair that form the basis of the action but I honestly do not think this lawsuit has legs…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *