Seriously. This case is the definition of "frivolous lawsuit."

Why did this guys wife ever leave him in the first place I wonder???

Cheaper just to buy a new Big Mac... probably cheaper to buy 100.

"Mr. Remis, who said at his deposition that he has not been employed since 2008, and his lawyer, Frederick R. McGowen, did not return messages left on their phones."

Things are getting clearer -- The only thing that might be stupider than the lawsuit, might be the judge who is letting this go further.

This is so dumb it's just unbelievable. Only in America.

The old guy should counter sue to recoup lawyer fees. That's the only way to stop this crap, but it will never be a law, because it would take money fom a lawyer's pocket, which is who makes the laws.

Is it frivolous? The judge threw out part of it, after what I assume was a 12(b)(6) motion. She let it go for contract dispute. Do you know what the contract says? I don't, but I do know a judge cannot just throw out a suit if there are issues of fact to be determined. A judge can throw out the suit only if the questions presented are legal not factual.

It's a breach of contract case that was filed within the statute of limitations. You can't say it's frivolous unless you see the contract. You can say it "seems" frivolous, and I would agree. But without the contract, which is the "law" of the case, you can't say for certain.

Under typical contracts for this type of service, you are limited to recovering the amount paid for the service. Seeking damages to recreate the entire wedding is absurd and the lawyer who filed the suit should be disbarred for abuse of process. The lawyer that filed the suit should also be forced to pay the other party's legal fees. At most, this guy should be entitled to the $4100 back, and that is it.

This may not be technically frivolous, but it is stupid. Lawyers fees should be reduced by 90% on both sides in a stupid lawsuit.

What a complete joke of our legal system.

Yeah? - the contract was for $4100 and he's suing for $48,000 - that alone should have caused this case to be tossed out, and forced him to refile his lawsuit based on what he's capable of doing - which is asking for his money back because he didnt believe the photographers held up their end of the bargain.

I dont believe anywhere in the contract it said "if you are unhappy with our photo's, we'll pay for entirely new wedding"

The fact that they are divorced, should cancel this lawsuit.

Didnt the guy break his own contract? I thought they said TIL DEATH DO US PART? Can we sue him for sucking at life?

John Mack - couldnt agree more.

Why dont we have a system set up in which the person being sued does not have to retain a lawyer UNTIL the person doing the suing has a judge review the lawsuit, and once they toss out whats frivulous and keep whats legit THEN the person being sued can get an attorney...

in a case like this, it's really over a mere $4100

Isn't that small claims court?

This is a classic example of the good-ole-boy legal system. Penniless son of a lawyer gets daddy's firm to issue a "nothing-to-lose" suit as a crap shoot for possible pay out. Judge sees opportunity to help two legal colleagues make some easy money by letting the case go forward, and the owners of the photography business get stuck with the bill.

The plaintiff lawyer should be disbarred, and jailed. The plaintiff should be forced to reimburse the photographer triple damages. And since he needs a job, perhaps the judge can find him one, involving a pointed stick and a pail.

The jerk must have gotten this in just under the wire for to meet that statute of limitations. In most places, the limits are often just two or three years for this type of case but in NY, for a written contract, it is 6 years.

Ritdog-THANK YOU!

Yeah?-Lawyer, are ya?

this guy is nuts and his Dad is despicable for allowing his son to bring this suit this far

THIS is the kind of garbage that clogs our justice system.

Jessica!! Awesome idea! Not a judge though, a panel! Heck yeah!! Jobs created and courts unclogged (sorta) from stupidity!! That was a total GONG moment...seriously, that's a great idea!

He needs to have an exact re-creation of the wedding so he can remember it as it was. Does that mean that the photographer is responsible for the requisite cosmetic surgery to remove the years of aging of the wedding party members and the spectators? How does he propose having the people that have died since the original wedding participate - Hollywood doubles?

Let me see if I have this right. A guy has been out of work for about 3 years but he is still paying his own legal expenses at daddy's law firm. (sniff, sniff) I smell a very distinct odor of BULL$H!T. If it is true, maybe he would be better off reserving his limited resources to something more important like groceries, utilities, etc. rather than a catered memory.

But the real question is how is he going to have the same big smile on his face. In the last photos he knew he would get laid and in the recreation he knows he isn't. I'm curious to know who will have the bigger smile this time - him or his ex-.

LOL. Really, would ANYONE there have happy expressions?

They had a 3 man crew and missed the first dance and bouquet toss?

Why didn't the author of this article ask them about that?

Sounds like the author of this article is also not doing a complete job.

Why is it the first question I have is never asked by the media?

But back to the "photographers".

That is pretty incompetent if they did miss those. I could understand if there was one cameraman and he had an emergency bathroom break, but 3 guys all missed it?

I certainly wouldn't trust a once in a lifetime event that costs over $30,000 to this photography studio.

I mean really, would they have been able to get it all with a FOUR man crew?

I don't believe he deserves $40,000 to recreate the wedding. But certainly he is due an apology. And likely some of the $4000 he paid them - but not even all $4000.

I'm not saying the guy is not crazy BUT if i paid money to have my wedding photgraphed and they missed the last 15 minutes including the bouquet tossing and the dance I would sue the $hit out of them. I understand everyone complaining about generally frivolous lawsuits but how could you not be angry. Its not like he can use the $4,100 to get those pictures back. They're lost forever....

At Ryan in Texas... maybe we should sue the writer of the article... Since the photographers in your opinion were negligant and they are being sued, and the writer of the article is negligent, logically we should sue him too... ha ha ha

Yeah? .... FYI.. if there was a breach of contract? Those do have to be filed in a timely manner... the fact that this is YEARS later and the complainant is unemployed (and has been for years) doesn't set off any flags for you? Please.. This is abuse of the system.

What a despicable toad this fellow is. If there was really a problem with the photos, he should have disputed it immediately. All this is now is a money grab by a lawyer and his pitiful excuse for a son. This is what gives the legal profession a bad name.

basedrum777, being angry does not magically result in justification for suing someone. I went to CVS last night and they did not have something I wanted, which made me angry. Using your brilliant logic, I guess that means that I should sue them yes?

Can be summed up in four words..........Nut Case, Frivolous Lawsuit!

@ryan in texas:

are you a wedding photographer? did you even fully read the article? those "photographers", as you so "kindly" stated, have had a successful studio for 65 years that spans two generations. i'm sure they are more than qualified to capture the dumb bouquet toss (who orders prints of those anyway??) and the LAST dance (which is usually a sweaty drunken mess or there are 6 people left on the dance floor). If there was a breach in contract he is due some money (maybe $10) but definitely not $48,000!

unbelievable how sue-happy america is. i got a paper cut from a piece of xerox paper yesterday - guess i'll go sue those incompetent paper making fools for $100,000 in damages...honestly.

In a perfect world a judge would dismiss the entire case and this guy will have to pay the photographers attorney fees.

That is the only way to control these frivolous crap schemes for cash that destroys others lives.

What kind of human filth does this?

He is in need of money plain and simple, so he sues... I could understand mad and upset at the time and wanting something done back then, but waiting six years, come on, throw him/this case out!

I googled his photo. He looks like a ferret. How embarrassed his dad must be over forcing one of his associates to file this suit! I guess he lives in Dad's basement, since he hasn't had a job in years. Loser!!!

1. He was within the statue of limitations. That is the period of time that the courts find reasonable to file a claim.

2. 3 Photographers missed the bouquet toss and the first dance. That is incompetence. Every wedding photographer knows those are mandatory shots.

3. This isn't like a $4100 product that you can just return. Once it is botched, it is botched. There is no redo.

4. The entire photoshoot wasn't lost - so he shouldn't get back the entire $4100.

It doesn't matter how long they have been in business. In fact, having a photographer that was in WW2 may well mean they may be getting too old to do the job properly anymore. If he was 15 in 1940, then he would be 86 now.

If they are unwilling to apologize for not being able to get the pictures of the bouquet toss and first dance - with 3 guys! - then he is right to sue them. He can ask for $40,000 - but I would only give him $1000. Maybe more depending on the facts of the case (those are disputed).

I will agree that asking for a recreation is frivolous. But suing because they missed critical photos is not.

From what I read it was the last dance, not first dance. I can see being upset about the bouquet toss although I have never seen any ordered in my group of friends. The other thing he was upset about was that the video was only 2 hours long as oppose to the entire 6 hours. Who would want to watch a 6 hour video of an unsuccessful wedding. He probably deserves to get a portion of the $4k reimbursed, but not the entire wedding and the photography company should have offered a partial reimbursement years ago. The only way I could see recreating the event is if there were no photos taken or provided.

I agree 100% with Ryan In Texas. Very well put.

Just wondering why he would go through all this nonsense when the wife is now the ex wife and MIA???????????

I would agree...if he didn't wait 6 years, and after divorce proceedings were started.

If these moments were SO important, why in hell did this couple not demand some sort of reparations AT THE TIME.

This is completely ridiculous. He should not be entitled to anything given the circumstances. People should not be allowed to get money because they are dumb.

Tina - maybe he is just trying to hold on to old memories. I don't know.

But they made some mistakes in shooting the wedding.

I would think an apology and an offer of $500 bucks would have settled it. $1000 at most.

But clearly the studio has some problems. 3 guys didn't get the pics of the bouquet and the dance?

Our guy got all that by himself and he charged just over $1000.

And did the studio yell at him? They didn't seem to deny it.

Botched shoot, poor consumer relations - would you want to risk it with those guys for your wedding?

Seems like they should have gone the extra mile to make him satisfied. Obviously, they can't produce pictures they forgot to take, but when they mess up your order at a restaurant -they try to make it up to you. Comp you something. Free drinks or dessert. You do what you can to resolve the problem.

That's just basic customer service.

Of course a restaurant relies on repeat customers. Maybe this studio just doesn't care.

Yeah, but if they mess up your meal do yo wait a year later and then try to tell them you are unhappy? No way...lol Maybe they did mess up...but geez...if they were not happy with the pictures, meh...they should have said so waaaay before 6 years....lol

And the guy is out of work and divorced. Seems like a stretch...lol

Tina - You can't really sue a restaurant so I'm not so sure it's apples to apples.

If you don't like the statute of limitations, take it up with the legislature. It's not like he is breaking any rule by filing now. There must be a reason why the statute of limitations is 6 years.

Hey, I'm not saying that he should even get over $1000.

But it's his right to sue - and he may well lose. I can't believe he got a lawyer. This is small claims stuff.

A normal judge in small claims would have thrown him $500 or maybe up to $1000.

After attorney fees, he would be lucky to walk away from this lawsuit not OWING the attorney over $1000 even IF he gets a settlement.

But that is why the studio should have worked harder to satisfy him. When people get emotions or when the studio yells at him and makes him angry - people throw logic out the window and then everyone loses.

The studio would have been better off giving him a full refund than to have to hire an attorney to fight this case. There's no way it won't cost them at least $4100.

But I bet their emotions are also caught up. (I can hear the studio owner saying "But it's the principal of the thing..."

Sometimes the prize is't worth the fight. That would be the advice I would give to all parties in this case. But I'm not a lawyer and don't get paid to lead people down bad paths.

Ryan, I have to disagree. The studio should not make such a frivolous lawsuit 'easy' for anyone. That's part of the reason frivolous lawsuits run rampant in the legal system as it is.

You can sue a restaurant - remember the McDonald's coffee suit?

I think he could sue, but I don't think the guy has two dimes to rub together and that's why he's trying to sue.

This is why Texas has a "loser pays" law for frivolous lawsuits. If the court deems that the lawsuit was a complete waste of time, the loser has to pay the winner's legal costs.

What does this story have to do with "the tax payers money"?

Uhm... taxpayers pay the salaries and administrative costs of running a courtroom. By having to oversee this case, it diverts time and resources away from other legitimate cases.

Yes... let's throw out one ludicrous lawsuit and replace it with one just as dumb.

I agree Dave, funny how he's been unemployed since 2008 and then files the suit in 2009. I doubt if he'd use that cash to recreate the wedding anyway... The very idea is insane anyway since he and the wife from the first wedding are divorced.

Litigants pay court costs in civil cases - taxpayer money would be minimal.

Not holding my breath - I dont really care how minimal it is, it's still too much.

and are you trying to say that the people having to defend themselves against this nut, that $50,000 is nothing?

The U.S. legal system should take lessons from us up north. Typically in Canadian lawsuits the losing party gets the "privilege" of paying the winning legal fees. We learned that from the litigious society of the U.S. Sounds like the U.S. needs to learn from their northern neighbours.

Thinker....good thinkin

The thinker.. ahelir... Texas already has that.. has for years..

The taxpayer money involved is the court's time. Our taxes pay for the judge, court staff, court building, etc. The filing fee charged for filing the lawsuit is a contribution towards that but doesn't cover the entire cost.

Point taken Logical, you are correct!!!

Logical- the judge, court staff, court building, etc. would all be paid and in use during this time regardless if this suit were brought forth or not. The taxpayer dollars are already in use and weather or not this idiot brought forward this suit, no amount of taxpayer dollars would be saved or lost due to the time this takes up. In a very general sense one could argue that taxpayer dollars are being wasted due to this extremely frivolous lawsuit, but in reality the exact same amount of dollars are being used if this case is or is not on the docket. It might also be argued that since the guy paid court fees, the court even made money. Nothing extra or special is being done during the course of the day that wouldn't normally be done during any day.

And before the grammar police jump all over me, yes, I know it's whether and not weather. Typo.

@ Sandals -

And before the grammar police jump all over me

FREEZE Mothersticker!! :)

The taxpayer dollars are already in use and weather or not this idiot brought forward this suit, no amount of taxpayer dollars would be saved or lost due to the time this takes up.

I see your point and I don't think it's entirely true. If the court would have been sitting idle without this suit then you would be right. As the number of these suits add up, it requires us to hire more judges, clerks and build more courts to handle the flow. Even then courts can be so booked up it can take months or longer to even get a court date. Cutting down on the backlog would be worthwhile all on it's own.

Sandals30, your logic is not quite right. We know the issue is that tax payer money is already set aside to pay for these costs (salaries, building, etc.). The issue is, why the court is wasting its time on cases like this, while real cases are not being heard, which has led to a huge back log in the court systems. While the judges and clerical staff may be on salary, I know for a fact many of the other jobs it takes to run a court house (security, janitors, etc.) are paid hourly and through the unions, which in an over-run courthouse, overtime adds up. In any case, it is tax payer money that is being wasted on this frivolous lawsuit.

When everyone is being asked to do MORE with LESS, when the LESS that you have is being used on non-essential stuff, it is a burden on the tax payer, because yes, while our taxes are already set aside for the courts for THIS year, NEXT year I can assure you taxes will go up to cover the costs associated with frivolous lawsuits like these and the added expenses to run an already over burdened court system. So yes, your tax dollars are affected. When was the last time you saw a reduction in you state or federal tax? Never. Because they keep going up to cover the costs of stuff like this. That is why most people are upset about this. Sure, we're not paying for it this year because we've already paid our taxes, but next year? Who knows how much our taxes will go up. I certainly am not holding my breath that they will go down...

While "court costs" are supposed to be paid, my suspicion is that it will still cost the local taxpayers more than the recompense they receive, plus the fact that this courtroom, judge, etc. are all going to be tied up doing this one day rather than getting to someone else's legitimate meritorious case. Every time this foolishness is taking up calendar time someone else's justice is being delayed or denied. There are reasonable lawsuits that get dropped when the plaintiff finally gets tired of the amount of time that it's taking and settles or drops entirely, and this thing is just one more hairball to clog up the drain.

That is in a criminal case. That rule doesn't apply in a civil case.

I didn't say it was a right, just that everyone should be able to redress wrongs, actual or ones they think exist. The operative word being 'deserves' in my original sentence.

It sounds as though most or all of the torts were thrown out, as they should have been. This is a contractual issue, and tort reform won't do a thing to solve it.

Even if it was a contractual issue, why did it take six years to determine the photos were not worthy of retaining for memories?

to pay that much im sure he had prints and other stuff, plus when hiring a photographer they have to have at least two guys on hand everytime.

Forty guests -- it was not a big wedding. I still wouldn't expect the photographer and videographer to capture every single moment of it.

What happened to notifying the photographer of wedding events like tossing the bouquet and garter and first and last dance?

Why did they pay for everything to begin with? Why did they NOT inform the photographer of the error when they reviewed the pics? That would have been the proper time.

Why is this suit being allowed especially since the idiot is divorced and it has been six years?

Really Tracey, can you imagine if this lunatic, if he could even accomplish it, brings back the ex-wife? She probably went back to Latvia so she could get away from this psycho. I'm sure her smiles would be so loving, just like their wedding day.

He's unemployed, and that's why he's bringing this lawsuit this late. I absolutely agree with everyone that said he should have to pay for the legal expenses for this photographer, if not triple or more.

Oh, and Dave with the Big Mac from 1993???? Thank you so much for the giggle, you made my day!

You are right. That's one reason why there is a director or planner who is responsible for making sure that the photographer is where he needs to be, among other things.

He needs an "exact recreation" of the wedding. The photographer should call the claimants bluff and say "okay I'll pay for it as long as you can have EVERY person there, looking EXACTLY as they did in 2003 (same hair styles, dress/tux sizes, facial wrinkles, etc.) on December 28, 2011.

If the ex-groom cannot guarantee that he can fulfill his demand for the exact re-creation then the suit is dropped and the ex- gets to pay all of the photographer's legal fees and expenses.

This is my issue with this whole thing. The client came in and picked up the proofs from the Photographer and was never heard from until a lawsuit was filed. The proofs are Copyrighted and the client used one in a magazine article showing his wedding. The photographer should sue the client for Copyright infringement. No one is permitted to use the proofs to make prints, nor use in a magazine article, without a Release from the Photographer. The whole mess should have been thrown out since a lawsuit is supposed to have merit and this one clearly does not.

Tim - That is a fine line. Were they actually copyrighted or merely property of the photographer. When I had my senior/graduation pictures taken at a local photography studio the photographer used a large photo of me in his studio showcase window as advertising without my permission/release. While the actual photo may have been his property, the image was mine.

There are lawsuits going on right now involving IKEA using family photos in their ads that were not authorized.

If this guy is so obsessed with the wedding, it's no wonder the marriage failed. And I agree, I don't think he's getting much of anything.

He really does sound deranged. I think he must have driven her nuts. I feel really bad for her, actually - and I know absolutely nothing about her. Even if she was a gold-digger, she ended up with far more than she bargained for.

And he probably wonders why his wife left him ...

Pay for missed photos? The groom and his bride have been divorced for six years and he doesn't know where she is. Why would any person want photos, six years after the fact, of a wedding, if the marriage tanked? This moron wants quick, easy cash and nothing less. The time to legitimately complain about "missed photos" was six years ago. The studio owes him nothing.

Nicole- you are somewhat correct. I've been doing weddings for 40 years. They guy paid $4100 for photo AND video - he got a hell of a deal to begin with.

Things happen at weddings. They are happy, most of the time, but get tense. I've seen trestle tables with dishes all over them collapse.... ON the bride. Cakes slump. Brides /grooms / guests being taken away in ambulances. People choking to death. It's nobodys fault- it's an accident.

Yes, missing a bouquet toss is "unprofessional", but I've missed a few in my career, mainly when the bride all of a sudden decides to step outside the "schedule" and do sosmething impromptu (those bridesmaids can get frisky!). It's NOT always the fault of the photographer.

Bride GONE? I don't think so. Six years later, and after the divorce? This guy is looking for $$$, is all.

Ritdog - I was thinking the same thing. $4100.00 for pictures AND video seemed awfully low, even for back then.

Nicole,

Not after this long... That's like a woman sueing her ex after a divorce because they could not get pregnant, seemingly his fault. He remarries gets new wife pregnant, now old wife sues for mental anguish of not getting pregnant, and wants his sperm...

Just as stupid of law suit! It's over, done with it did not happen back when, can not happen now... In a case like this.

No kidding. Wouldn't it be interesting if he managed to win only to find out no photographer would hire on? Maybe he would have to go back to court to sue again the get a photographer from Latvia.....

google the guys name, then press images and you'll see what a weasel he is. It's all clear now. Little man's complex rearing its ugly head. Check out the pursed lips... he looks like a *rick.

And stiff the lawyer his fee. Who's the idiot that took this case?

The idiot is a lawyer for the firm at which his father is a litigation partner. He was assigned is my guess.

I'm so sorry to hear you got bad pictures B.C. This guy DID get pictures, but he's nitpicking and now he's divorced to boot (big surprise).

I've been married before (no children with that one, T.G.), but I'm remarried and I do have children with my current husband and I'll tell you what, the LAST thing I would ever do is bring out pictures from a failed marriage. Who in their right mind wants to see those? It wasn't a horrendous marriage, but it was over, and in the garbage went the pictures. It's called a new start and putting the past where it belongs.

Thanks for the concern Lemonverbeena...now my guy is a temporary judge in California...no money for salaries for new judges so he does this quite often as a public service while still maintaining a law practice on a lesser scale. This wedding case is beyond ridiculous.

that actually just happened somewhere!

Yeah, that was the point of my 'sarcastic' comment.

It has probably already been tried. You're going to have to get way more creative to top the lunacy of people.