Legal Question: The Case of Snoop and the Stolen Gin & Juice

This question comes from Aaron:

“In the song Gin and Juice, Snoop Dogg claims that ‘I got me some Seagram's Gin, everybody got their cups but they ain’t chipped in.’ What steps would he have to take and what would be his burden of proof in order to recoup his money from them in court?”

Excellent question, Aaron. I think this one is particularly relevant given that we are close to New Year’s Eve, a time for partying and revelry. It’s also a time for fools to roll through parties with empty cups and no funds to chip in.

Your question is really two-fold, so we’ll address each part in turn. First, let’s talk steps Snoop has to take to recoup his money.

When you sue someone, you have to choose the proper venue. We discussed this a little bit in regards to The Santa Clause. Let’s assume that everyone involved in this incident is located in the LBC, or Long Beach, California, where Snoop would likely be hosting the party. Long Beach is located in Los Angeles County, California, so that county is where he would sue. 

Next, he has to decide which court is proper. Though Snoop probably throws major blowouts, I'm going to assume that the amount of Seagram’s at issue is worth less than $10,000. California has two venues for individuals to resolve small disputes of less than $10,000: Small Claims Court and Limited Civil Courts. For several reasons, including fewer rules, no lawyers, and all partygoers being located in California, Snoop may want to sue them in Small Claims to make things easier. However, under California law, he would not be able to do that.

Snoop is asking a judge to determine the rights and obligations of the parties - Snoop’s right to recoup money and the gin-drinkers’ obligations to pay for the gin - meaning he would be required to file in Limited Civil Court. Because the Limited Civil Court requires the parties to follow procedural rules and rules of evidence, I would advise Snoop to hire a lawyer to help navigate the system.

Before filing the suit, Snoop should make a written demand the money from those who took the gin then document his demands. This is usually done through letters, sent certified mail, return receipt requested, to prove that the letters were delivered to the intended recipients.

For efficiency’s sake, Snoop would not want to sue each cup-holder individually. He would have his lawyer pursue one lawsuit and join together several defendants. This is permissible under California law since the suit is “arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and because “question[s] of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action.”

He would also be unsure until all the facts were proven at trial as to who drank what and how much. In that case, the California Code of Civil Procedure would also permit him to join defendants together since Snoop “is in doubt as to the person from whom he is entitled to redress.” Since he is unsure, Snoop “may join two or more defendants, with the intent that the question as to which, if any, of the defendants is liable, and to what extent, may be determined between the parties.” This is something he would have to ask the court’s permission to do.

When filing the suit, Snoop’s lawyer could sue on several counts:

(1) breach of an oral contract - he was to provide gin, and they were to provide cash in exchange;

(2) “unjust enrichment” which requires him to prove (a) defendant’s receipt of a benefit, i.e., gin, and (b) unjust retention of the benefit at the expense of another, i.e., they never paid Snoop; and

(3) conversion - the civil action for theft. For conversion, Snoop would need to prove that (1) he owned the gin; (2) the drinkers interfered with his ownership by knowingly or intentionally taking it/destroying it (by drinking it); (3) that Snoop did not consent to their drinking it; (4) that Snoop was harmed by the taking of his gin; and (5) that the drinkers’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Snoop’s harm. 

 Before the trial, Snoop and the defendants would then exchange information and answer questions posed by each side in a process called “discovery.” The court will also make them attend a mandatory pre-trial settlement conference, in order to see whether they could work out their problems before trial.

After the pretrial steps, if Snoop and his lawyer still want to sue these avaricious gin guzzlers, he has the burden of proving the elements of the above claims and all the related facts, including who drank what and how much. This brings us to the second part of Aaron's question - Snoop’s burden of proof.

California Civil Jury Instruction Number 200 is particularly helpful for this question. In plain terms, Snoop would have to prove to the jury that the facts of his case are “more likely true than not true.”

This standard of “more likely true than not true” is known as the “preponderance of the evidence.” This is a much lower standard than in criminal cases where the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Some lawyers explain “preponderance of the evidence” as having to prove something was 51% probable, as in, if it is 51% more likely that something happened based on the evidence presented at trial, Snoop should win. That's a pretty low standard. Snoop would likely be able to prove his case with plenty of evidence given that, according to the song, “This type of shit happens all the time.”

And if he wins, he can ask the judge to make the other side pay his court costs and attorneys’ fees, making those some pretty costly cups of gin and juice.

I hope that answers the question. Thanks, Aaron!

Got a question? Submit it here. They can be legal what-if questions like the one above, or questions about the legality of actions in TV shows or movies you’ve seen. I never ever want to answer your personal legal questions, so don't send those. Love you, but I don’t do that.

Got a question? Submit it here. They can be legal what-if questions like the one above, or questions about the legality of actions in TV shows or movies you’ve seen. I never ever want to answer your personal legal questions, so don't send those. Love you, but I don’t do that.

***

This piece first appeared in Sunday Morning Hot Tea. Subscribe so you don’t miss another piece.