« Attorney Fee Award Against Charles Carreon for Abusive Trademark Litigation | Main | Dustin Zacks Paper on Foreclosure Firms »

Monday, April 15, 2013



Mr. Radey, suing someone for defamation when their statement is truthful (thus not defamatory) shows your inability to recognize the truth. Claiming you "instructed our attorneys to ask for only $1.00 in damages" when the complaint you filed states: "For damages against Nicholls in the amount to be determined at trial necessary to compensate Med Express for the losses it has and will suffer as a result of Nicholls' conduct; Because Nicholls' conduct was intentional and malicious for an award of reasonable attorney fees and punitive damages." -- unless your attorneys disregarded their client's instructions (which would be unusual and highly improper behavior for any attorney) -- shows you not only cannot recognize the truth but can't speak it, either.

Scott M

Except you've done it before. Researchers on popehat point out that past suits have all resulted in default judgments well over the $1.00 you purport here have happened in the past, over and over.

Pete Rock

Good for Public Citizen and others for bringing the character of MedExpress management to
light. It is not a company or employees I would want to do business with. The so-called apology's sincerity is certainly questionable in light of the under-oath affidavit the company president signed to be able to file the lawsuit in contrast to his writing he had not read the complaint. .


Pathetic. Enjoy the Streisand effect MedExpress, people do not forget this type of bullying, censorship of public opinion and abuse of our legal system. It is clear that you're only retaliating because of the attention, and would have sued her otherwise. I hope you have the a minimum of decency left to give the defendant a very large sum of money for the psychological damage you have incurred.

Bob Brown

Mr. Radey says of his bullying lawsuit, "I do deeply regret the wording of the lawsuit. I had not read it..." (I copied that with cut-and-paste from his comment above.) However, there's a notarized affidavit, with his signature, as affirmed by the notary, attached as an exhibit to the suit, in which he declares under oath that the feedback is "false and slanderous."

Do I believe the comment above, or the statement made under oath? It's a puzzle.

Matthew W. Fuller

No, and now I am considering getting a couple of friends together to buy items from your company and giving it a poor rating as a matter of first amendment rights.

Med Express

I hope all of you will accept this as an open letter of apology from Med Express.

Please understand that our customer was never the target of this lawsuit. We had instructed our attorneys to ask for only $1.00 in damages. Her feedback was also never an issue. We fully support her right and all of our customers right to leave any feedback they desire – true or otherwise!

The issue involved “Detailed Seller Ratings” or DSR's. The low ratings caused us to lose our “Top Rated Seller Plus” standings. Based on our current volume, this was a potential fee increase of tens of thousands of dollars over the course of a year.

The only way DSR's are removed is by court order, and I was told that such court orders were not uncommon. I do deeply regret the wording of the lawsuit. I had not read it and only learned of the wording on the blogs. I too would have been outraged and for that I also sincerely apologize. It is the addendum attached ordering Ebay to remove the DSR's that was our only goal.

The only person to blame here is me. You have spoken and I have listened. A terrible wrong needs to be righted. I am instructing our attorneys to drop the lawsuit. I want to assure everyone that you may feel free to leave any feedback on our company without fear of reprisal. I have learned my lesson.

Richard Radey
Med Express Inc.

The comments to this entry are closed.