Judge who sued over trousers aims to do it again


  • Someone please disbar the man and exile him. We have no use for scum like this here in the states.

    U.S. man suing over trousers aims to fund more cases By Andy Sullivan
    Thu Jun 14, 10:43 AM ET

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The judge who sued his dry cleaning shop for $54 million over a lost pair of trousers said as the trial wrapped up on Wednesday that he would use any winnings he might get to encourage others to follow suit.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Roy L. Pearson, an administrative judge for the District of Columbia, said he only needed $2.5 million for himself to cover the emotional distress he suffered after Custom Cleaners misplaced a pair of pants he brought in for alteration.

    The remainder, he said, would be used “as an incentive for other attorneys in private practice to take on these kinds of cases.”

    District of Columbia Judge Judith Bartnoff said she would issue a written decision within a week in the case.

    Pearson’s lawsuit has drawn international ridicule. It also drew plenty of chuckles from spectators who crowded into the stuffy municipal courtroom.

    Even Bartnoff had a hard time keeping a straight face as Pearson, wearing a gray pinstripe suit and a stained lavender tie, wielded a 6-inch-thick (15-cm-thick) binder of laws and court decisions that he said bolstered his case.

    Shop owner Soo Chung, an immigrant from        South Korea, was not so amused.

    “Economically, emotionally, and health-wise as well, it’s been extremely hard for us,” Chung said through an interpreter as she broke down crying. It has cost tens of thousands of dollars to defend against the lawsuit, with a quarter of that covered by donations, a spokeswoman said.

    Pearson claims a “satisfaction guaranteed” sign at the dry cleaning shop violates a consumer-protection law because he was unsatisfied with the response of Chung and her husband and son when they misplaced his pants in 2005.

    The Chungs say they located the pants a few days later, but Pearson said they were not his.

    The pants in question – gray, with cuffs – hung by the witness stand as the Chungs’ attorney questioned whether Pearson’s interpretation of the sign was reasonable.

    “Does the sign read: ‘If you are not satisfied with our service, you the customer can ask for whatever you want, including $67 million, and you will receive it’?” attorney Chris Manning asked.

    Pearson, who reduced an original demand for $67 million to $54 million last month, arrived at the figured based on fines accruing for the four years allowed under the statute of limitations and other costs, such as $15,000 to rent a car to use another dry cleaning shop.

    Bartnoff seemed skeptical as well, poking holes in Pearson’s legal reasoning on many occasions.

    “This is a very important statute to protect consumers of the District of Columbia. It’s also very important that statutes like this are not misused,” Bartnoff said.

    Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070614/od_nm/usa_trousers_dc;_ylt=AiKpgWuVjYmtQXEnB87VEdXtiBIF


  • They should force this judge to pay for wasting the courts time in hearing such rubbish and then drop him out of a plane on the southern tip of Argentina with no parachute tied to a dry cleaning machine wearing only grey pants like the ones hes suing for. ILL have the owners of the cleaners be the ones who get to push him out.


  • @Imperious:

    They should force this judge to pay for wasting the courts time in hearing such rubbish and then drop him out of a plane on the southern tip of Argentina with no parachute tied to a dry cleaning machine wearing only grey pants like the ones hes suing for. ILL have the owners of the cleaners be the ones who get to push him out.

    This is the fundamental problem with the US civil justice system.  Plaintiffs do not have to pay defendants if they lose their lawsuit.  In almost every other common law jurisdiction (Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand…), if you sue someone and do not succeed in proving your claim you can be responsible to pay the defendants their costs, sometimes based on a tariff that ends up reimbursing the defendant for 20 to 25% of the total costs right up to solicitor and client costs which would see the defendants compensated in full for successfully defending the case.

    In the US, the plaintiff does not bear any of the risk of failure, thus there is no disincentive to bring a frivilous law suit.  The only tort reform you need in the US is to make plaintiffs pay the defendant costs if they do not prove their case and to not let the case proceed if the plaintiff does not have the means to pay a costs judgment should one be awarded.

    SS


  • On both counts your not entirely correct:

    1. a party which is issued a court judgment can then file an abstract of judgement and attach this to articles of real property and create a hold on the ability of the owing party to sell or refinance those properties. Eventually the sheriff can actually got to the bank under court order and remove funds from bank accounts.

    2. This is not true either… the other party can file a new lawsuit if the first one is proven to be overly punitive and attach some special hardship monies if it can be proven that the first lawsuit damaged the reputation or business long term standing.


  • @Imperious:

    On both counts your not entirely correct:

    1. a party which is issued a court judgment can then file an abstract of judgement and attach this to articles of real property and create a hold on the ability of the owing party to sell or refinance those properties. Eventually the sheriff can actually got to the bank under court order and remove funds from bank accounts.

    2. This is not true either… the other party can file a new lawsuit if the first one is proven to be overly punitive and attach some special hardship monies if it can be proven that the first lawsuit damaged the reputation or business long term standing.

    I think you misunderstood my point.  Until you have a system that penalizes the plaintiff (as opposed to enforcing a judgment against a defendant), frivolous lawsuits will be encouraged.  If you’re the defendant and are not claiming anything against the Plaintiff and you win at trial all that happens is the plaintiff’s case gets dismissed.  So, I’m not talking about enforcing a judgment against a defendant.  I’m talking about enforcing a claim for legal costs against an unsuccessful plaintiff.

    As for your second point, why should it be necessary to prove that there has been damage to business reputation.  If a lawsuit if completely frivolous, the party defending it should get paid its costs regardless of whethere there has been any damage to its business reputation.


  • Indeed a sliding scale of some kind should be in order…

    Plantif Case “Proven Percentage” (the amount of validity in the plantiff’s argument):

    0-10%    Plantiff pays 100% of defendent cost
    10-20%  Plantiff pays 50% of defendent cost
    20-30%  Plantiff pays 25% of defedent cost
    30-50%  Plantiff pays 0% of defendent cost
    51-100%  Plantiff wins suit

    In the first example, you see a true firvolous case, with virtually none of the plantiff points having merit.  They pay the full cost of the defense

    In the second, there are a few valid points, but they are minor and the matter should have been settled without going to court, Plantiff pays half.

    In the third, the plantiff had significant points which were proven in court and played into the matter, but overall the Defendent acted in accordance with the law, the matter should have been arbitrated or settled out of court.  Plantiff pays only 1/4 of the defence fees.

    In the fourth, the Plantiff showed that much of their case was credible, and perhaps lacked in only a few areas, or that the defendent barely managed to show a slight shift in the scales to prevent judgement against them.  VALID CASE REQUIRING AJUDICATION BY THE COURTS, no penalty to the Plantiff.

    And in the last case… Plantiff proved their case.  Judgement against the Defendent.

  • Moderator

    If I were the shopkeepers, I would have bought him a new pair of pants and shut him up…


  • @Guerrilla:

    If I were the shopkeepers, I would have bought him a new pair of pants and shut him up…

    If I remember the story right they found the pants and still offered to settle for $10K or more at one point.


  • I hope the State Bar association choses to disbar this idiot :-)

    I think that is somethign he may have left out of his personal equation…



  • LOL.  I LIKE it.

    Now, if we can jsut get hat kind of “frivolous lawsuit” penalty for EVERYONE…

  • 2007 AAR League

    HAHA!
    This judge does not mess around. I like him.


  • (nudge nudge)….The judge presiding in this case is a “her.”



  • One small glimmer of hope for our system :-)


  • yea thats great! now he gets to pay millions and he will soon be out of a job. Thats a good eye for an eye style of justice.


  • @Imperious:

    yea thats great! now he gets to pay millions and he will soon be out of a job. Thats a good eye for an eye style of justice.

    That’s actually what the euphemism “An eye for an eye” actually means. It doesn’t mean the physical retribution of removing the offending attackers’ eye, but compensation to the victim for the loss of the eye.

    'Kay, that was my 2 cents.


  • wow, what a… idiot. There is no other word to describe him.

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 4
  • 6
  • 4
  • 8
  • 26
  • 11
  • 2
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

28

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts