By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A lawsuit alleges that Judge Mark Scarsi and his wife negligently allowed underage drinking at a party at their home, resulting in a guest, Alex Wilson, being assaulted and suffering a traumatic brain injury requiring hospitalization and potential plastic surgery. The suit claims the Scarsis are liable for failing to supervise minors consuming alcohol at their Pasadena mansion. Wilson is seeking unspecified damages, while a separate claim against the assailant, Jackson Dorlarque, and his parents is also included. The incident involved numerous underage attendees from local high schools.
Read the original article here
The federal judge in Los Angeles who oversaw Hunter Biden’s tax fraud case is now facing a lawsuit stemming from a party at his home. The lawsuit alleges significant underage drinking occurred at the party, leading to an altercation and a guest’s subsequent hospitalization. This incident, unfolding at the judge’s gated Pasadena mansion sometime in 2023, involves accusations of negligence against both the judge, Mark Scarsi, and his wife, Laura Scarsi.
The plaintiff, Alex Wilson, claims the Scarsis failed to properly supervise underage attendees from various high schools who were allegedly consuming alcohol. The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, details a fight breaking out among heavily intoxicated minors on and near the Scarsis’ property. The conflicting dates provided in the lawsuit raise questions about the timeline and specifics of the event.
The judge’s appointment to the federal bench by then-President Trump in 2020 adds another layer to the situation. This appointment, coupled with the accusations in the lawsuit, has ignited online discussions and speculation. The comments surrounding this news range from expressing outrage to questioning the severity of the situation and whether it warrants such extensive attention, especially given the lack of clear evidence implicating the judge directly in the incident.
Many comments question the timeline of the lawsuit, filed nearly a year after the alleged incident, and the lack of direct evidence suggesting the judge’s personal involvement. Some argue that sensationalizing and politicizing the case is unproductive and unfairly targets the individuals involved. There’s a concern that overreacting to this one instance of underage drinking at a party might overshadow more significant issues within the political landscape.
Some online discussion also touches upon the judge’s background as a patent and intellectual property attorney before his judicial appointment. The discussion veers into criticism of the patent system, with mentions of patent trolls exploiting loopholes for financial gain, suggesting a broader critique of potential ethical failings within various legal systems. Concerns are raised about the burden on individuals facing lawsuits related to patent infringement, often involving substantial legal costs and possible business repercussions.
The online reaction highlights varying perspectives on the situation. Some vehemently criticize the judge, drawing parallels to other instances of alleged misconduct involving high-profile individuals. Others argue that the accusations are not substantiated, pointing out the lack of evidence showing the judge’s knowledge or direct involvement in the underage drinking or the subsequent assault. They contend that the lawsuit primarily concerns the property owner’s liability for incidents occurring on their premises, suggesting it’s a standard civil suit that may be primarily focused on insurance coverage rather than criminal activity.
There’s significant debate surrounding whether the judge should face personal consequences. Many believe that the judge’s liability is mainly limited to the realm of property owner responsibility, with his homeowner’s insurance potentially covering most of the costs associated with the lawsuit and any settlements. Others, however, emphasize the judge’s public role and suggest that his actions—or lack thereof—should be subject to further scrutiny.
The case underscores the complex relationship between personal responsibility, legal liability, and public perception, especially when high-profile individuals are involved. It reveals contrasting viewpoints on how to interpret the facts, emphasizing the need for due process and cautious judgment before making definitive pronouncements on the judge’s culpability. The discussion also highlights the sensitive nature of underage drinking and the potential risks associated with unsupervised gatherings, irrespective of the individuals involved. The debate underscores the importance of distinguishing between personal liability and potential legal consequences, particularly when the case involves significant insurance coverage.