We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

Final: Court Rejects Michael Johnson’s bid for Class Action Lawsuit against R&R Auction

R&R Auction Press Release, March 13, 2015:

Lawyers for Michael Johnson faced defeat in Santa Barbara County, California Superior Court on Friday, March 13, after Judge Donna Geck issued a ruling denying Johnson’s motion for class action certification in a 2012 lawsuit Johnson filed alleging that autographed items he purchased through New Hampshire based R&R Auction were later found to be inauthentic.

Judge Geck issued a six-page tentative ruling Wednesday denying class action status to the case “Because of the findings that the class is not ascertainable, the class is not numerous and individual issues predominate over common issues.”

Lawyers for Johnson did not object during Friday’s two-minute hearing.

Since October 2012, Johnson has waged the litigation against R&R Auction as a class action, seeking to recover on behalf of all of R&R’s 393 California clients from 2008-12. But Judge Geck noted in her ruling that Johnson failed to identify any persons or parties who wanted to join his case.

By his own admission, Johnson has been the principal litigant in 9 civil actions in the last 25 years, with 4 cases still pending: R&R, America Safety Services, Inc. (ASSI) (assignee); his original attorneys in the R&R case, McCarthy & Kroes; and website designer Ray Munson. Two of the 9 lawsuits Johnson filed were against his family and their company.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by CJCollector on March 14, 2015 at 1:35pm

"9 civil actions in the last 25 years."

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on March 14, 2015 at 7:43pm

sounds like a real charmer

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carlos on March 16, 2015 at 9:02pm

How many of those lawsuits has he won?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Demontague on March 18, 2015 at 1:33am

Hi Guys, reputation is a funny thing.... takes a long time to earn and can vanish in a moment. To my mind if RR Auctions have ever "knowingly" sold one fake then they don't deserve to be in business. But what if they "weren't 100% sure".... then is it okay to sell it? Or is it reasonable to rely on a 3rd Party Authentication? What if they know the 3rd party authenticators can be a bit cavalier? What I find most disturbing is the casual nature of the process... I watched a great deal of the depositions and was horrified. It seems to be more about having a "reasonable argument" to say something is genuine, rather than caring about whether it really is or not. I sent an email to them seeking clarification if the item I paid for a 3rd party COA was shown to PSA in person or a scanned image. I never got a reply... sent it again... no reply. That too is very poor customer service to give a good repeat customer asking very politely about the process they use. I am not making any comment on scanned or in person but I would assume any authentication is more reliable if you can see and touch the item in person. I also don't know if the character of the plaintiff, or their frequency of taking an action, is relevant to the merits of the case... I would think not. Maybe he is just rich and pissed off.... if I was wealthy there'd be a bunch of people I could probably seek vengeance on for giving me bad service or products. What do you think... am I wrong?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chad B on March 18, 2015 at 8:15am

I agree with you Tony. You made some good points. I still believe the vast majority of what RR has sold over the years is good but I do question their ethics. Once you see several instances of questionable practices it plants a seed of doubt about everything.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 18, 2015 at 10:08am

Tony,

Bobby Livingston from RR told me that they answer all their client emails, but he couldn't find your name in their database to check into it. Send me the name and email address you use at RR and I'll forward the info to him, or you can write him directly at bobby.livingston@rrauction.com.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by FB on March 18, 2015 at 2:54pm

I'm with Steve on this one. I have done business with RR many times, and they have always been responsive and courteous.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Demontague on March 19, 2015 at 1:20am

me too FB, but no reply to this particular question. Otherwise they have been quite good. See below my question to Sue...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Demontague on March 19, 2015 at 1:19am

Hi Steve and thanks for assistance... it wasn't a big deal but the non-reply was odd. I emailed sue.recks@rrauction.com on 23 Feb 2015 (10:30pm Qld time so about 5:30am EST)... the contents was: "Hi Sue, Please see attached invoices for an item I won, and for the TPA, and the Paypal receipt of my payment. The item arrived and I am very happy with it. My question is; did PSA actually sight the original or did they TPA via a high resolution scan? Just my own curiosity how it works. Thanks ! Tony"

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 18, 2015 at 10:25am

What Johnson and his attorneys don't say regarding Karen Burris's accusations is that she and her husband embezzled $450,000 from RR Auction, and she wrote that affidavit after RR fired her, filed a lawsuit against her and her husband, and went to the police. It's obvious that it's something she made to give her some bargaining power against RR.

Johnson doesn't mention that she embezzled from RR at all.

How can you trust anything Burris said? How do we know if any of it is true? If other RR employees come forward or testify and confirm accusations she said in her affidavit, that's a whole different story. Until then, why take the word of a thief trying to get away with their crimes?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chad B on March 18, 2015 at 11:20am

Hey Steve,

Are they still going to depose you and that other long list of people? I'm not sure how all of this proceeds.

The argument can be made that the depositions and other case information served a purpose while trying to determine if a class existed to move the class action forward. Now that part is over, I wonder how they can justify putting all of the information on the site. It seems unusual. I have never heard of or seen a case proceed in this fashion. I suppose it is legal but seems odd. RR, Roger and others could argue the Johnson side is putting all of the information online in an attempt to harm them. --These are some thoughts I was having and would love to hear from others. Any attorneys on here?