Mom rejects donated iPod, proceeding with lawsuit

Remember that 14-year-old girl who is suing her friend over a missing iPod? An anonymous kind soul took it upon herself to buy Shannon Derrik a new iPod Nano, a pink case and a $50 iTunes gift card -- but Melanie McCarthy, Derrik's mother, who filed the lawsuit on her daughter's behalf, is refusing the gift and is going ahead with the case. A package was dropped off for Shannon Derrik, the victim of this terrible, terrible situation, at the offices of The Naperville Sun, a suburban Chicago newspaper that has been closely following the case. The newspaper also reported that both Derrik, and Stephanie Eick, the girl who was entrusted with Derrik's iPod, were invited to appear on the Judge Mathis show, which is taped in Chicago. The respective families had initially accepted the offer, but then McCarthy came to her senses and realized that she'd be ridiculed publicly for putting her daughter through such absurdity.

[Thanks, Ricardo G.]

[John @ Aug 31st 2006 5:39PM]

Ugg, I cant believe some people!

[blackout @ Aug 31st 2006 5:43PM]

i'll have it... sans case ¬_¬

[Javaflash @ Aug 31st 2006 5:52PM]

I'm going to have a seizure soon if I don't stop laughing.

[pp @ Aug 31st 2006 5:52PM]

Even if they don't go on Judge Mathis, they'll still be ridiculed by the entire internet.

[embee @ Aug 31st 2006 6:02PM]

As an attorney (a trial attorney at that), I'm disgusted by that kind of behavior. This is not why we have courts. I must say, I'm a fan of "extra-judicial" remedies. I believe, after reading this, that the McCarthy/Derrik family should be shunned. Good ole fashioned ostracism.

When Miss Derrik is at school, the other students should refuse to speak/play with her. Ms. McCarthy's co-workers and friends should take a similar tack. Why should the child be subjected to the treatment? Because hopefully, after seeing what her overly-litigious behavior has done to her daughter, Ms. McCarthy will come to her senses (read: realize what a terrible person she is for putting her daughter through this crap over a gizmo).

This is a frivolous lawsuit, plain and simple, and any attorney prosecuting it encrappens the profession.

[Don Nordeng @ Nov 14th 2006 2:17AM]

Right on! Shunning:�A Part of the Faith of Jehovah�s Witnesses� (Watchtower 4/15/88, p. 29)

Along those lines I think Melanie McCarthy needs a good old fashioned spanking to teach her a lesson about manners. Boy I would like to bend her over my knee and give her a right good thrashing. All of you are invited to witness the joy and power of ... teaching.

[Mentat @ Aug 31st 2006 6:03PM]

Can the donor of the iPod sue the bastards for pain and suffering inflicted upon him by their not accepting his gift?? What a freakshow.

[LLShibata @ Aug 31st 2006 6:05PM]

If the girl's friend stole the iPod, then the mother should sue in order to teach her a lesson.

But in this case it was a simple mistake where the friend misplaced and lost the iPod. The mother should drop the lawsuit and the friend should pay for lost iPod.

Even if Shannon accepts the generous iPod donation, the friend should still pay, because it was her fault.

I really don't get how some people's thought process works. These people are a shame of America.

[Abe @ Aug 31st 2006 6:16PM]

at LLShibata, I'm pretty sure that the donation of the iPod was to entice the McCarthy/Derrik family to get over it and drop the lawsuit, not sure they deserve the cash for another iPod from the friend in addition to this.

[Nat @ Aug 31st 2006 6:22PM]

I agree, she's a totall bitch to deny hospitality.

[Dispraiser @ Aug 31st 2006 6:24PM]

This lawsuit is actually only a 3 on the "stupid lawsuits" scale, I'd say. I find it very bitchy, but far more legitimate than lawsuits against Mcdonalds, which are solid 10's...

[Jonathan Keim @ Aug 31st 2006 6:25PM]

Obviously if they are filing a law suit over a $300 ipod, against a friend on top of that, they are not going to be accepting some gift.
People are just terrible, but it's the judges fault that lets this all happen

[Vimal @ Aug 31st 2006 6:26PM]

Encrappen?? Hmmm! Good word! I like it!

[Some guy @ Aug 31st 2006 6:28PM]

Under these circumstances the little girl should be legally allowed to be beaten. That is all I'm going to say. And you all know I am right.

[Joey @ Aug 31st 2006 6:37PM]

It looks like they tried to settle this post suit and all the original owner wants is what was not returned.

It seems the original article points that

"Mrs. Eick states a refurbished iPod can be purchased for $45," McCarthy said in a letter to the Naperville Sun. "Shannon's iPod was only two weeks old and had a new pink leather carrying case and $50 worth of iTunes."

Which may have led to filing. It seems the mother of the child feels that she can discount the amount that was paid for her new walkman/ipod.

I would have refused the gift as well because what exactly are you teaching your child?

If you loose something that isnt yours dont worry about it because you can replace it with a used one or better yet hold out and wait for someone else to bail you out.

We are lacking acountablity and the childs mother should have step'd up and replaced the missing ipod on day 1 then did some parenting with the child and taught them the value of the dollar as well as respect of others property.

[Bob @ Aug 31st 2006 6:38PM]

Obviously Dispraiser has only heard the facts about the McDonald's coffee case from Jay Leno's monologue. It might not hurt to read up on the case before making uninformed statements about the legitimacy of
that case. Here is some good reading to start you off.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

[Adam A @ Aug 31st 2006 6:39PM]

This is a frivolous lawsuit, plain and simple, and any attorney prosecuting it encrappens the profession.

A real attorney wouldn't say that!

[Jacob Burdecki @ Aug 31st 2006 6:40PM]

wow...how could you be so snotty...its the kids fault even though her friend lost it. If she loves her ipoop so much she should'nt of let her friend borrow it! I just cant believe some people...

[glacia00 @ Aug 31st 2006 6:41PM]

I'm not saying the lawsuit has merrit but if you truly believe someone is legally responsible for some damage why would you want someone else paying for it?

I'm surprised how few people believe in doing anything on principal. I may not entirely agree with the lawsuit but I have to respect the mother for standing on her principals.

[TeddyN @ Aug 31st 2006 6:42PM]

Please someone make her live in North Korea.

And yes, it should be done for my own sick amusement.
That woman is a freak.

[Dispraiser @ Aug 31st 2006 6:43PM]

Thanks for the info bob, guess I wasn't too clear... I meant the people that were suing mcdonalds because they were overweight. FYI, I'd give the lap coffee spilling a 2, and I'm a conan guy (Lenno, ugh)...

[Bob @ Aug 31st 2006 6:47PM]

Dispraiser,
Forgot about those. I agree 100% on those and being a Conan guy.

[Scabies @ Aug 31st 2006 6:48PM]

The mother that files suit on her daughters behalf. Bitch, yes, but she is also teaching her daughter (and several children around the country) terrible things. When class bully Tommy steals your lunch money, when someone steals your box of crayons, when someone cuts in line at the water fountain, DO NOT tell the teacher. DO NOT talk to the school counselor. Sue Tommy's sorry ass for all it's worth! You went hungry that day, that's emotional trauma that may lead to relationship problems 20 years down the road!
She's also telling parents to stock their childrens backpacks with lawsuit-inviting goodies. Expensive cell phones, PMPs, whatever! And the more the merrier, cause if something gets stolen, you're in the money!
(I'm sure that Shannon was in flagrant violation of school policy by bringing an iPod to school, by the way. She would have had it taken away by the teacher, so who cares if it was lost or stolen?)

God Bless America.
Cause we need it...

[Jacob Burdecki @ Aug 31st 2006 6:50PM]

also, wow just wow...

[Little Joe @ Aug 31st 2006 6:56PM]

gahahahahahahahahahahahah

I live like 20 mins from Wheaton and it is NO SUPRISE that something like this would happen.

That whole area is full of some of the most stuck up, rich, a**hole kids on the planet.

They make the OC kids look like a group of selfless missionary children.

[Gareth @ Aug 31st 2006 8:14PM]

I hope pending the result of the lawsuit that people in the area donate to the poor girl being sued to help cover the costs of the lawsuit. I love hearing when a community helps people in situations like this girl is in.

[Tommy @ Aug 31st 2006 8:14PM]

How did they find a lawyer to take this lawsuit? I guess one that is taking a fee from plaintiff upfront. I know it is usually the case in tort actions.

[ryan @ Aug 31st 2006 8:20PM]

this makes me want to punch a baby

[Richard @ Aug 31st 2006 8:24PM]

@ LLShibata. Regardless of how this is phrased I doubt that the parents went straight to suing the other family. I imagine they asked the other girls family to pay, and they refused, saying it wasn't their daughters fault it was lost (which I don't believe, and yes it was her fault).

And the reason for rejecting the gift is because it's not the same as the one she had before. If you had a top of the range Jaguar and it was wrecked by someone, so you sued them and someone donated a cheap, middle rung Jag, would you drop the case? No you wouldn't. By rejecting it they didn't throw it back in the other persons face. They probably appreciate the gesture but the point is that the other person lost a $450 or whatever iPod, and an iPod Nano isn't the same thing. Why should the other person get off with having 'lost' (or stolen as it fairly obviously is. I'm 16, I still know how 14 year olds think) the other persons iPod and not having to give it back/compensate her for it? If I lent someone my mobile phone (or cellphone, whatever you call it) and they lost it/it got stolen whilst they had it, I personally would expect them to pay for it. Were the roles reversed I'd feel responsable and feel that I had to pay back the other person.

I know that suing seems a little over the top, but if the other family refuses to pay and the iPod can't be recovered, then aside for claiming it under the house insurance what other option is there?

[mr-slice @ Aug 31st 2006 8:28PM]

This pathetic BITCH is what is destroying our country and feeding these filthy lawyers that clog or judicial system with this BULLSH*T. Take a look around you lady, there's more serious sh*t going on and you should feel grateful that anyone even had a kind enough heart to assist you and your daughter. Up yours, go die. The world doesn't need scum like you sucking up our oxygen.

[Big Ed @ Aug 31st 2006 8:35PM]

No Way! Bottom-feeding hicks publicaly embarrassing themselves on daytime T.V.?

Shocking.

[Loomis @ Aug 31st 2006 8:35PM]

It is an iPod you know....it's almost like taking a banana from a monkey...just wrong! But this mom needs to wise up, take the free iPod you doof!

[Eli Hodapp @ Aug 31st 2006 8:44PM]

This is the real front page of the Naperville Sun:

http://flickr.com/photos/io_burn/222421149/

[Jacob @ Aug 31st 2006 9:39PM]

Of course.

Why simply accept an iPod when you can get A WHOLE LOAD OF CASH from a lawsuit?

(It's "The American Way!")

[supersocialist @ Aug 31st 2006 9:44PM]

This kind of thing belongs in small claims court, and if that's where it is--I can't be bothered to read up on something so insignificant!--then all power to that mother for standing up for her family's rights. If she's wasting a real court's time, though, I hope she rots!

[K @ Aug 31st 2006 9:57PM]

Just to be a bitch to the sixth poster about being an attorney...

The difference between an attorney and lawyer is that attorney requires a relationship (you are [enter name here]'s attorney) whereas a lawyer is someone who practices law (in general). You are a lawyer, and maybe you're Bob's attorney.

[nacho @ Aug 31st 2006 9:58PM]

I don't understand why not to go on Judge Mathis both parties can settle this without a loss of money. The story is already in the media anyway. Stupid people.

[johhny#5 @ Aug 31st 2006 10:54PM]

I don't understand why she is sueing for $50 in "iTunes". If the daughter bought the music off iTunes, it's still sitting on her computer and can be transfered to another iPod, she didn't loose the music at all.

[Andy Eick @ Aug 31st 2006 10:56PM]

Stephanie is my niece and my brother, Stephen Eick, has already tried twice to settle this dispute. He does not feel that disputes between 14-year olds belong in court. He has posted some entries on my blog:

http://blog.andyeick.com/2006/08/31/Almost+Settled+The+IPod+Dispute+On+Judge+Mathis+TV+Show.aspx

http://blog.andyeick.com/2006/08/31/No+Music+For+Shannon+Ms+McCarthy+Turns+Down+IPod+And+ITunes+Gift+Certificate.aspx

[school1012 @ Aug 31st 2006 10:56PM]

Good, maybe see will get a better device, like and iRiver, iClix, or Zune.

[jeff @ Aug 31st 2006 11:12PM]

the eicks need to pay up and own up to the responsibility of losing the ipod. i for one agree with the lawsuit. from the newspaper article, it sounds like the eick's aren't willing to repay for the ipod, and that's why they needed to take this to court.

andy, $100 is NOT the cost of the ipod. the principle here, and the goal, is for stephanie to take responsiblity for her actions, not for someone else (the good samaritan) to pay for her.

it's the responsibility of the eicks to pay for the ipod, not the kind stranger that sent the gift. the eicks need to own up to it, that's the principle.

americans have been taught to dodge any responsibility whenever we can. we need to teach our kids otherwise.

[Technology Slice @ Aug 31st 2006 11:19PM]

Obviously she has a personal agenda going on.

[Julian Emmett Turner @ Aug 31st 2006 11:25PM]

Just give it to the OTHER girl with the stipulation that she use it to make things right with the "victim." They have no excuse to sue if the other party replaces the iPod.

[Moogle @ Sep 1st 2006 1:15AM]

I have to agree, encrappen is a great word.

Aside from that, I think an important life lessons is that your actions (and accidents) do have repercussions.

I've known a few people who ended up in either boot camp or jail that could've used that lesson a lot sooner. This should be a positive experience for the kid that lost the iPod.

[rafi @ Sep 1st 2006 1:34AM]

wow what is wrong with some people. either its just her and 5million other people or its just america gone bored now people are sewing for some stupidest stuff anyone can think of plz people lets concertrate on the important things like terrorist email me with ur comments [e-mail]

[Scabies @ Sep 1st 2006 2:04AM]

Gasp! Conspiracy theory!
This is all an elaborate ruse to get the rest of the world thinking "iPod" when they sit down to breakfast, so when Apple releases their September 12th Suprise, everyone will be listening!
"iPod Girl awarded new iPod Macro! It's smaller than the Mini, but cooler than the Nano! Sold out this Christmas, get your teen one now!"

If so, someone bail the Steves a bomb

[mentat @ Sep 1st 2006 2:17AM]

if you actually read the article the real twat is Stephanie Eick's father. He has taken no responsibility for his daughters actions (as I would and I am sure the vast majority of people with a backbone would).
Also, its in the small claims court so they wont be making a wad of money out of this, generally its just damages

[tekdemon @ Sep 1st 2006 2:41AM]

Well personally I think the Eicks should just buy a frickin' nano and deal with it. Also they should probably point out to the Derriks that the songs are still on their computer and can be put onto their new ipod, so they're not getting any $50 certificate.

Seriously, something that can be resolved with anything between $154 (1GB nano with cheapo case) to $280 (4GB nano with a good case) should never make it to court lol.

[webonics @ Sep 1st 2006 3:24AM]

Frivolous lawsuit.

But I disagree with embee that the daughter should be shunned at school. A child shouldn't be held accountable for the absurdity and malicious actions of the parent(s).

The mom brings a whole new meaning to uberbitch.

[Othello @ Sep 1st 2006 4:39AM]

Can I get that iPod? A theater employee stole my friend's sister's iPod which she bought like 2 weeks ago, and it looks like theres nothing we can do about it since there were no witnesses (even though there were no witnesses because the employee HID). Some people have no shame... If you're in Manhattan stay away from this theater:

AMC Loews E-Walk 13
247 W. 42nd St.
New York, NY 10036

I won't go so far as to name the employee, I'm just puting out a warning.