Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Novak Loses petswarehouse.com, Files For Bankruptcy

Posted by timothy on from the barking-and-yowling dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Remember Robert Novak, the person who has filed several frivolous lawsuits in order to silence people who criticize his business. Well, Robert Novak has lost his domain (see here)in a countersuit filed against him, and has just filed for bankruptcy ."

35 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. I have one word for him... by greg987123 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mwuhahahahahahahahah!

    1. Re:I have one word for him... by Blkdeath · · Score: 4, Funny
      And as a follow-up;

      Petswarehouse.com sucks!

      Come sue me, biznatch!

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

  2. Heh by Cipster · · Score: 5, Funny

    Karma's a bitch huh?

    1. Re:Heh by JudgeFurious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep, couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Thinking about things like this keep me warm at night. Every once in a while I get to read about someone getting exactly what they deserve. Yum.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    2. Re:Heh by critter_hunter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm under the impression that this isn't the first time he files for bankruptcy. I'm also under the impression that he doesn't care about his business, and that he'll find a way to sue some more people next week

      What I'd like to know is: does he manage to profit from it? I'm not very knowledgeable of bankruptcy law, but is there a way he could be trading money for a bad credit history, in a way? Because if he manages and cares to do it again and again, he's probably not losing everything every time. Or maybe he's just hoping he'll get lucky?

      --
      Karma: Could be worse (could be raining)
    3. Re:Heh by darthwader · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What I'd like to know is: does he manage to profit from it?

      It's actually not that hard. All you do is not own anything. Make sure that all your assets are actually owned by someone you trust (your SO, spouse, sibling, etc.). Then, you declare bankruptcy, and let the courts take everything you own (which is nothing).

      Also, you live hand-to-mouth. When the money is rolling in, you buy expensive cars, live well, and lavish gifts on all people who are close to you. You don't save it, 'cause you know that the courts are going to take away your savings later. When the money stops rolling in, then you depend on your friends, SO, siblings for a while, as you dream up a new scam (business).

      Basically, once you've accepted the fact that you aren't going to have good credit, then there is no fear of declaring bankruptcy.

      For a certain kind of businessman, declaring bankruptcy is sort of like a fisherman deciding "All the fish here have been harvested, so it's time to pull up anchor and go somewhere else." In their minds, there's nothing immoral or embarrassing about it, it's just how they put food on the table.
      --
      I hate it when I make a joke and I get modded "+5 insightful". Mod the stupid comments "funny", not "insightful", pleas
    4. Re:Heh by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Bankruptcy: IANAL, but it's my understanding that bankruptcy protection from creditors can only be granted every 7 (IIRC) years, at the discretion of a judge. Someone regularly filing for bankruptcy to profit or whenever they feel like it isn't any kind of guarantee.

      The real question is how well has he protected his assets. F'rinstance, if his home were included in business assets he stands to lose it. Possibly any pending income from suing petsforum people could be transfered to creditors, too.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:Heh by Wavicle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Keep in mind that it isn't he whose filed for bankruptcy, it's his company.

      From the web site:

      On June 2, 3003 Robert Novak d/b/ Pets Warehouse and d/b/a petswarehouse.com filed for bankruptcy in the E.D.N.Y.

      He is his company.

      His personal credit won't be harmed, only the corporation's would.

      I suspect his personal credit will be greatly harmed.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
  3. Live by the Lawsuit... by netsharc · · Score: 5, Funny

    die by the lawsuit.

    When will this happen to the RIAA?

    --
    What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    1. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whenever someone gets a war chest big enough to sue them.

      It's remarkably hard to take down a huge coporation without a similar budget.

    2. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by fidget42 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      When will this happen to the RIAA?
      It may happen rather soon to SCO.
      --
      The dogcow says "Moof!"
    3. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by RLiegh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It may happen rather soon to SCO.

      Actually, assuming that SCO dies [which is not by ANY means certain], it is signifigantly more accurate to say that their legal strategies are more of a dying gasp, instead of saying that their defeat [if they are, in fact, defeated] is a "deathblow".

      In short, if SCO dies, it's because no-one bought their shit, not because they lost in court.

    4. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by The+Tyro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the kind of maddening garbage that makes people sound the trumpet for tort reform... and rightfully so.

      I'd like to see some kind of penalty for filing frivolous/nuisance/totally-without-merit suits, preferably a monetary penalty (jail time might be going just a wee bit too far... though it would be very satisfying).

      This should really go for all types of torts, including medical malpractice (disclaimer: I am a physician). I have multiple colleagues who have been sued, and NOT ONE of these suits had real merit, or were for any sort of egregious breach in the standard of care. How do I know? I've looked at the charts and thought "I wouldn't have done anything different." I could never testify against any of these physicians, because what they did was objectively medically reasonable. Now, they all won their cases, but some were very close... frighteningly close.

      You always play the odds in medicine... and sometimes you lose. Every surgical procedure has a certain complication rate, no matter what you do. Every disease has a certain mortality rate, no matter what you do. The medical reality is that "sh*t happens," and it inevitably happens to a certain percentage of patients. It sucks to be in that small percentage, but attorneys and "hired gun" expert witnesses attempt to pin it on the doctor. The scariest thing of all is that you can lose everything you've ever worked for, just because "sh*t happens."

      Tort reform is a good thing... trick is, you have to do it while not taking away the poor man's keys to the court room. Even so, if the poor man files a nonsense suit, he should find himself even poorer.

      Seems fair to me...

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    5. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Dark+Nexus · · Score: 3, Interesting
      preferably a monetary penalty (jail time might be going just a wee bit too far... though it would be very satisfying).


      Perhaps some form of "3 strikes" approach? Small fine the first time, big fine the second time, jail time the third?

      I mean, if it's just a fine, and they manage to pressure most into settling out of court, it's still financially sound for them.
      --
      Dark Nexus
      "Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
    6. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by rot26 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You always play the odds in medicine... and sometimes you lose. Every surgical procedure has a certain complication rate, no matter what you do. Every disease has a certain mortality rate, no matter what you do. The medical reality is that "sh*t happens," and it inevitably happens to a certain percentage of patients. It sucks to be in that small percentage, but attorneys and "hired gun" expert witnesses attempt to pin it on the doctor. The scariest thing of all is that you can lose everything you've ever worked for, just because "sh*t happens."

      I would find it a lot easier to agree with you 100% (instead of 90%) if you had bothered to mention the one little "gotcha"... which is that some doctors suck and shouldn't be practicing medicine and other doctors rarely if ever do anything to police their own ranks. You ALLOW the bad apples to taint you all, and so, I gotta say it, DESERVE some of the suits.


      Q:what do you call the guy who graduated from medical school with the lowest GPA?




      A: Doctor

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    7. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by The+Tyro · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm truly sorry, but I cannot live up to that ideal, much as I would like to.

      I've made mistakes when treating patients... I've even watched treatments that I've prescribed kill patients (look up the complication rate for thrombolytic treatment for strokes, you'll see what I mean). I then had to face their family, and explain to them that the medicine they were gambling on to cure their relative's stroke had, in fact, caused her death. Bad outcome? Yes. Do you think I should be sued?

      I would like nothing more than to be right all the time. Sometimes I just don't have the information I need (I work in the ER, and often have to go on little to NO information), and the patient suffers as a result. When a guy having a heart attack lies to me about his cocaine use, some of the drugs I'd normally use to treat his heart attack can harm, even kill him. What am I supposed to do? An attorney can go to court and argue that if I'd waited for his medical records to arrive, I would have seen the drug abuse in his old chart... but I have to treat RIGHT NOW, or I run the risk of breaching the 30 minute door-to-drug standard of care, and I can get sued for THAT. Hard choices.

      I don't mind being between the devil and the deep blue sea... I signed up for that. What I cannot do is be perfect, or always have a perfect outcome.

      The good news is this: most people understand... which is part of the reason that doctors prevail in 80-90% of all malpractice suits. Juries often "get it," despite the depredations of the personal injury bar.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    8. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by The+Tyro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      good question... I'll try to answer it, but I'll have to plead ignorance on what the hospitals pay for malpractice, because I honestly have no idea.

      Malpractice insurance is very regional, and depends almost entirely on what state you practice in (Bad states include Florida, West Virginia, and others). It also depends on amount of coverage, and type of coverage (occurrence, versus "Claims-made"). Without getting into too much detail, my malpractice insurance as an ER doc is 35,000+ per year for average coverage, with no suits in my past. OB/GYNs have it even worse... some of them pay 100,000+ per year.

      100,000K seems like a lot of money (and it is), but believe it or not, they're the lucky ones; some specialists, like neurosurgeons, can't even GET insurance. They have to "go bare" and try like hell to protect their assets, such that if they are sued, they don't end up broke and without a license... (kind of a kick in the teeth after 15 years of training).

      I honestly don't know how much it would decrease the cost of medical care. So much of the cost of medical care is out of the control of physicians, and hidden from consumers, that it's extremely difficult to get accurate figures.

      I always ask people if they are paying less for their healthcare than they used to, and they inevitably say they are paying more. And yet, physican incomes have actually dropped in recent years. Not kept pace with inflation, not stayed even... dropped. Where did the difference go? Some would say newer/more-expensive treatments, others would say treating the uninsured... I think part of the answer is administrative overhead. More HMO employees, more office staff to file claims, more people to refile those same claims after the insurance company's routine first denial (lather, rinse, repeat). Larger salaries for HMO CEOs... there's an enormous middleman in the health care industry, and I'm not sure malpractice savings wouldn't get added into the bottom line and reappear as a stock dividend.

      Yikes... now I'm starting to sound like some of slashdot's anti-corporate anarchists.

      I think tort reform would save substantial cash, not only in premiums, but in defensive medicine costs. I know some docs that do a CT scan on every headache, just so they don't get sued for missing that 1-in-a-million 18yo stroke victim, or the early brain tumor. It's horrendously expensive to practice medicine that way. Even so, I understand why they do it... it only takes one weird case to get scared. I've seen people walk into my ER with normal neurological exams, only slightly sleepy, with half their skull full of blood. Scary thing is, by most standards, you could easily justify not scanning that person... (I'm damned glad I did the scan). and that's just one example. I try not to practice defensively, but it can be hard when the patient threatens to sue you before you even find out their name, or they are on the phone with their lawyer from their ER bed (both true stories).

      Does that sort of answer your question? I think it would help, and it would go well beyond simple premium savings.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
  4. And the doctor by PirateDave+-) · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Gets a tast of his own medicine, one could say.

    Do we see here proof that unethical corporate practices (sueing everyone) will eventually be the destruction of your business? I for one hope so.

  5. Learn from this one kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ya see what happens to your business when you don't have a cute sock-puppet character on your side? Oh, wait... nevermind. They didn't make it either...

  6. Am we finally allowed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Am we finally allowed to talk about the horrible rate of dead animal deliveries from this place?

    Seriously. This was one of the more common reasons he would sue. People would order fish, aquarium plants, rodents, etc. and they would arrive dead, not marked for paid-for weekend delivery, sent at slower than safe shipping speeds, not packaged to protect from temperature and normal handling, or even not delivered to the carrier the same day they were packaged!!!

  7. Re:All I can say is... by Roosey · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't think we've heard the last of Mr. Novak somehow.

    We certainly haven't unless we can get him to stop showing up on Crossfire every other night.

  8. marketplace confusion... by spazoid12 · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Petswarehouse.com" has long been a source of confusion in the marketplace. For many years a company known as "Pet Warehouse" (not "Petswarehouse") has been a trusted source of supplies for fish enthusiasts. Long before the .com retailer thing, Pet Warehouse was, IMHO, the best of the mail order catalogs. They were eventually bought out by "Doctors Foster and Smith" (www.drsfostersmith.com), but the good Drs continue to print the "Pet Warehouse" name on their catalogs because it's a well respected name. They even continue to operate via the same old tollfree number. I've been out of the hobby for years, but hopefully they're still good.

    It's been a nuisance that Novak and his pathetic activities has brought confusion via a similar name. Good riddance.

  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Ahhh... by techturtle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the link:

    Novak 3 involves a lawsuit against Novak as the result of a defamatory message that was posted claiming a Bar Complaint was pending on November 2001 against John Benn. A judgment has been rendered against Novak in that case.

    So he's going off suing people because they are (I assume rightfully) complaining about his poor business practices in a public forum. Then he publicly defamates a LAWYER'S character and loses the whole business!!! What an ultra maroon! It's big time poetic justice that Mr. Benn will get his $50,000 settlement from the obliteration of the brand.

    --
    If you don't have something nice to sig, then don't sig anything at all.
    1. Re:Ahhh... by techturtle · · Score: 3, Informative

      I know it's not good manners to reply to my own posts, but did anyone read through the Google (and other search engines and companies) law suit that this guy filed? Amazing!

      He basically alleges that he lost tons of revenue and incurred damages to his brand because other companies that paid for advertising and ranking using keywords such as "pets" and "warehouse" unfairly got more hits/click throughs than his site. He sues the copanies that paid for the advertising AND the search engines like there was some giant conspiracy to undermine his business.

      Woner if there are any complaints of people receiveing two headed animals or puppies that ate children from this guy? He's gone and slipped off the edge of reality...

      --
      If you don't have something nice to sig, then don't sig anything at all.
  11. To quote nelson by Loosewire · · Score: 5, Funny

    HA HA

    --
    Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
  12. just another tool of legal abuse by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Interesting
    and has just filed for bankruptcy

    Don't think for a minute that this means this guy is broke. He's likely just using the bankruptcy laws to shield himself from paying his obligation. The guy apparently abuses the legal system to sue everyone he can to make a buck, then when a law suit catches up with him he does this to not pay on the judgement against him. Pretty typical.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  13. Well... by PS-SCUD · · Score: 3, Funny

    At least we still have petsovernight.com Pets Overnight

    --


    "Much work is lost, for the lack of a little more." -Edward H. Harriman
  14. Novak moved to a new domain. by Gendou · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've been following this story from the start, and it's been fascinating. Pets Warehouse is still up and operating. Novak switched over to a new domain shortly after the turnover of the domain was ordered, so he's managed to avoid any downtime despite losing his old domain. It's now located at Pets-Warehouse.com (Novak just added a dash). Maybe it'll soon be gone too, but Novak has been through a couple of bankruptcies already. I hope he's learned a lesson, at least.

  15. uh oh! by scovetta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Pets Warehouse.com
    1550 Sunrise Hwy, Copiague, NY 11726
    Phone: (631) 789-5400

    I called, they're still open. The lady was kind of rude on the phone though. Anybody up for a class-action?

    --
    Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
  16. Def: Barratry by Remik · · Score: 4, Informative

    barÂraÂtry

    1. The offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones.

    2. An unlawful breach of duty on the part of a ship's master or crew resulting in injury to the ship's owner.

    3. Sale or purchase of positions in church or state.

    What he's doing is illegal, he should be fined into oblivion or sent up the river to be married to some guy named Bubba.

    And, while we're at it, let's get the RIAA up on charges too.

    -R

  17. petswarehouse.com? by SEWilco · · Score: 3, Funny
    petswarehouse.com

    I think the self-storage business has gotten too specialized. First you could rent a storage area for your stuff, then your boat, then your car...

  18. Re:Trading animals should be made illegal worldwid by tbond_trader · · Score: 3, Informative

    Animals are not sentient. First of animal. Humans are considered animals, therefore you are already wrong. If you are speaking of other mammals, you've obviously never had a pet. The definition of sentient is: 1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions 2 : AWARE 3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling #1 speaks for itself. The reactions of a dog are not random, he will greet you with affection, growl at those he doesn't recognize and many other responses to stimuli. #2 Does a dog know it exists? As much as any two year old child. The reactions of both are incredibly similar. #3 Again dogs are incredibly sensitive to their surroundings. They know when you are upset, when they have done something wrong, and so much more. Based on your response you obviously have never spent time with something you didn't eat. I would recommend you do, it's a rewarding experience. :)

  19. Seriously good Psychiatry case write-up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This guy it nuts and way out of his mind. As I recall, one of the big differences between the DSM III and DSM IV was the omission of the Passive Agressive Personality Disorder. Here are the criteria I could find:

    o Resist fulfilling their given responsibilities through procrastinating, "forgetting," sulking, or being argumentative
    o Protest, without justification, that unreasonable demands are being placed on them
    o Seem to work deliberately slowly or to do a bad job on tasks that they do not really want to do
    o Obstruct the efforts of others and fail to do their share; are uncooperative
    o Resent useful suggestions from others concerning how they might be more productive

    What I am getting at is Novak's actions are the most extreme example of passive agressive behaviors I have ever heard of. Maybe he has a personality disorder is is Psychotic out of his mind. He is using the court system as part of his psychopathology. Because of the grand scale of this, his case could easily be published in a major Psychiatric journal. Is there any way to force him to undergo a Psych eval ???

  20. Re:Have you seen the cover of TIME? by Technician · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Any business when too risky, reduces entry into the field. 10 years ago the concern was who is delivering babies in small towns? This was due to excessive malpratice lawsuits for less than perfect babies. It had to be the doctor's fault, make him pay, he has insurance, yada... Doh, the insurance rates went out of sight to cover the increased risk. Small physisians simply could not afford it and left the small town practice, or simply stopped delivering babies to drop the high insurance premium.

    The problem has not improved. With managed healthcare, not only is the risk high, but the potential earnings are down with extreme workloads.

    This is one of the great reasons I went into electronics instead of the medical field. A failure is limited to replacement cost, not pain, suffering, potential income over lifetime etc. The pay is better for a surgeon, but the risk kept me out of the field.

    So tell me, where is the next generation of doctors comming from?

    --
    The truth shall set you free!