Plaintiffs are sooooo meaningless in class actions.

They’re really just there for show – you’ve got to call the case something.

You’d think people would realize that by now, but apparently they don’t.

Case in point: Jason Tomczak. Try Googling Jason Tomczak. We just did it and came up with 86,500 results.

No, we didn’t read all of the web items about Tomczak. But we read enough to realize that almost all of them (at least on the first four pages of the list) were about the class action lawsuit Tomczak reportedly filed against Apple Computers over Nano iPods that supposedly get scratched too easily.

All of the stories we read said that Tomczak, the plaintiff, not the lawyers, filed the suit. A lot of the people on those websites thought this Tomczak person, not his lawyers, did a bad thing. Some of them called him names.

We don’t know whether filing a class action over scratches on tiny screens is a good thing or not. What we do know that is that Tomczak didn’t file the suit – the lawyers did.

How do we know?

Well, strictly speaking, we don’t, but we think we know because another lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jason Tomczak in Los Angeles Superior Court the other day against the lawyers who filed the Jason Tomczak Apple suit.

Said the latest suit: “(T)he first time that Defendants attempted to enter into a retainer agreement with Plaintiff was two days after the complaint was filed…. Plaintiff never had any intention or desire to sue Apple.”

OK, we know what you’re thinking – it’s just as possible that the Jason Tomczak in the second suit is fictional or the Tomczaks in both suits are fictional or a real Tomczak knew about the first suit but not the second. Actually, you probably weren’t thinking those things, but we like to lay out all the possibilities because we think of them.

Let’s assume for a moment that the second lawsuit is legitimate. What lessons can be learned here?

First off – listen up, journalists – never judge a lawsuit by its plaintiffs. It’s a good bet the plaintiffs have no clue what they sued for or even if they did sue.

Second – listen up, class action lawyers – remember to mention the suits to the people you’re using as plaintiffs. Sure, they’re not important and they won’t get much of anything out of the suit, but they do become famous. At the very least, they should get the chance to set up their own fan websites before all the fuss starts.

Third – listen up, potential plaintiffs – if you’re going to be part of a class action, make sure you believe in it and know a little something about it. You don’t want 86,000 bloggers calling you an idiot (which they may do anyway).

Fourth – listen up, legislators – it’s clear real plaintiffs are unnecessary for class action litigation. So why require them? Let lawyers sue whomever they want – and then require them to turn over anything they win to whatever class they claim to have been fighting for.

Litigation is so much easier when you don’t have clients getting in the way.

            HE JUST WANTED TO DIRECT. The following is from Stapp v. Worldwide Red Light District, a complaint filed in federal court in Los Angeles in which the former lead singer of Creed says a sex video of him and Kid Rock was stolen from his safe:

            “While on this tour in Florida, Stapp arranged for, produced and directed the Subject Works.

            “With regard to the Subject Works, Stapp arranged for someone to hold the video recorder to record private sexual activities at Stapp’s direction.”

And you thought there were no more film auteurs….