Tom Kirvan
Legal News, Editor-in-Chief
Legal News, Editor-in-Chief
The early returns on the 2025 season would seem to indicate that the Detroit Tigers are in a “League of Their Own,” borrowing the title of the 1992 hit movie starring Geena Davis, Tom Hanks, Madonna, and Rosie O’Donnell.
The movie, which reached No. 1 in the box office that year, is a sports classic that tells a fictionalized account of the real-life All American Girls Professional Baseball League that sprung up during the dark days of World War II.
Renowned film critic Roger Ebert gave the film high marks, highlighting its “real bittersweet charm” in depicting a somewhat overlooked chapter in America’s national pastime.
“The baseball sequences, we’ve seen before,” wrote Ebert, the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize. “What’s fresh are the personalities of the players, the gradual unfolding of their coach, and the way this early chapter of women’s liberation fit into the hidebound traditions of professional baseball.”
The movie quickly became a fan favorite and eventually immortalized the phrase, “There’s no crying in baseball,” which was uttered as part of a heated on-field exchange between Manager Jimmy Dugan, portrayed by Tom Hanks, and right fielder Evelyn Gardner (Bitty Schram).
Hanks, not surprisingly, was the star of the show for his portrayal of an alcoholic ex-major leaguer who took on the task of guiding a hodgepodge women’s team known as the Rockford Peaches.
Geena Davis, of “Thelma and Louise” fame, earned plenty of praise for her portrayal of Dottie Hinson, the team’s catcher and assistant manager.
Davis, who won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress in the 1998 movie “The Accidental Tourist,” would later star in the television series “Commander in Chief,” winning the Golden Globe Award for Best Actress.
A few years later, Davis would be involved in an all-too-real legal role as a defendant in a June 2010 case that played out in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge David Lawson, who will mark his 25th year on the federal bench August 4.
The case was brought by a pro se plaintiff from Detroit who alleged that “Ms. Davis has stalked and defamed her” in addition to committing various other transgressions.
The plaintiff claimed that Davis’s alleged misconduct “stems from the work I do in this nation which entails Evangelism and also exposing crimes of U.S. [sic] through visions, including crimes of Hollywood stars such as Geena Davis.” The plaintiff sought a restraining order against the acclaimed actress and also filed an application to have appointed counsel.
Judge Lawson, who over the course of his career has earned a reputation for rightfully giving litigants their day in court, did give the plaintiff hers – albeit briefly.
In a June 30, 2010 order dismissing the complaint, Lawson wrote that apparently the plaintiff “does not believe that Ms. Davis is in a league of her own, because she has filed similar complaints against Britney Spears, George W. Bush, Harriet Meiers, Sarah Jessica Parker, Madonna, Rosie O’Donnell, Pamela Anderson, and Jessica Simpson. Rather, it appears that the plaintiff is willing to assert her claims against just about any Thelma or Louise.”
Or perhaps any “Tom, Dick, and Harry,” to borrow another phrase that has been bandied about for centuries.
But Judge Lawson preferred to limit himself to the here and now in putting the plaintiff’s case to bed, undoubtedly much to the relief of defendant Davis.
“The plaintiff’s complaint in this case is frivolous,” Lawson wrote. “The plaintiff has provided no legal theories or facts supporting her claims and the Court finds that the conclusions the plaintiff has set forth are implausible. The allegations lack any factual moorings, and the conclusions appear to be designed to leave the reader speechless. Certainly, accidents happen, but the plaintiff’s complaint makes serious but unsubstantiated allegations of intentional conduct in a pleading that mimics other complaints filed by this plaintiff in this district against famous people, making nearly identical conclusory claims.”
In invoking the titles of four Geena Davis films to make his legal point, Lawson added two more in the form of “accidental tourist” and “commander in chief” to bring the matter to a proper conclusion.
Regrettably, if the case had been filed years later, the now senior judge on the U.S. District Court would have been blessed with even more Davis material – “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Coma,” and “The Flash” – notable works that thankfully didn’t rise to the level of “This Changes Everything.”
The movie, which reached No. 1 in the box office that year, is a sports classic that tells a fictionalized account of the real-life All American Girls Professional Baseball League that sprung up during the dark days of World War II.
Renowned film critic Roger Ebert gave the film high marks, highlighting its “real bittersweet charm” in depicting a somewhat overlooked chapter in America’s national pastime.
“The baseball sequences, we’ve seen before,” wrote Ebert, the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize. “What’s fresh are the personalities of the players, the gradual unfolding of their coach, and the way this early chapter of women’s liberation fit into the hidebound traditions of professional baseball.”
The movie quickly became a fan favorite and eventually immortalized the phrase, “There’s no crying in baseball,” which was uttered as part of a heated on-field exchange between Manager Jimmy Dugan, portrayed by Tom Hanks, and right fielder Evelyn Gardner (Bitty Schram).
Hanks, not surprisingly, was the star of the show for his portrayal of an alcoholic ex-major leaguer who took on the task of guiding a hodgepodge women’s team known as the Rockford Peaches.
Geena Davis, of “Thelma and Louise” fame, earned plenty of praise for her portrayal of Dottie Hinson, the team’s catcher and assistant manager.
Davis, who won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress in the 1998 movie “The Accidental Tourist,” would later star in the television series “Commander in Chief,” winning the Golden Globe Award for Best Actress.
A few years later, Davis would be involved in an all-too-real legal role as a defendant in a June 2010 case that played out in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge David Lawson, who will mark his 25th year on the federal bench August 4.
The case was brought by a pro se plaintiff from Detroit who alleged that “Ms. Davis has stalked and defamed her” in addition to committing various other transgressions.
The plaintiff claimed that Davis’s alleged misconduct “stems from the work I do in this nation which entails Evangelism and also exposing crimes of U.S. [sic] through visions, including crimes of Hollywood stars such as Geena Davis.” The plaintiff sought a restraining order against the acclaimed actress and also filed an application to have appointed counsel.
Judge Lawson, who over the course of his career has earned a reputation for rightfully giving litigants their day in court, did give the plaintiff hers – albeit briefly.
In a June 30, 2010 order dismissing the complaint, Lawson wrote that apparently the plaintiff “does not believe that Ms. Davis is in a league of her own, because she has filed similar complaints against Britney Spears, George W. Bush, Harriet Meiers, Sarah Jessica Parker, Madonna, Rosie O’Donnell, Pamela Anderson, and Jessica Simpson. Rather, it appears that the plaintiff is willing to assert her claims against just about any Thelma or Louise.”
Or perhaps any “Tom, Dick, and Harry,” to borrow another phrase that has been bandied about for centuries.
But Judge Lawson preferred to limit himself to the here and now in putting the plaintiff’s case to bed, undoubtedly much to the relief of defendant Davis.
“The plaintiff’s complaint in this case is frivolous,” Lawson wrote. “The plaintiff has provided no legal theories or facts supporting her claims and the Court finds that the conclusions the plaintiff has set forth are implausible. The allegations lack any factual moorings, and the conclusions appear to be designed to leave the reader speechless. Certainly, accidents happen, but the plaintiff’s complaint makes serious but unsubstantiated allegations of intentional conduct in a pleading that mimics other complaints filed by this plaintiff in this district against famous people, making nearly identical conclusory claims.”
In invoking the titles of four Geena Davis films to make his legal point, Lawson added two more in the form of “accidental tourist” and “commander in chief” to bring the matter to a proper conclusion.
Regrettably, if the case had been filed years later, the now senior judge on the U.S. District Court would have been blessed with even more Davis material – “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Coma,” and “The Flash” – notable works that thankfully didn’t rise to the level of “This Changes Everything.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
