Judge sues cry clearners for 67 million for lost pair of pants.

[sunnyflorida]

<p>OK, I just can’t believe the ridiculousness of this case.<br>
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/us/13pants.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/us/13pants.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;

Roy L. Pearson Jr. wanted to dress sharply for his new job as an administrative law judge here. So when his neighborhood dry cleaner misplaced a pair of expensive pants he had planned to wear his first week on the bench, Judge Pearson was annoyed.</p>

<p>So annoyed that he sued — for $67.3 million.</p>

<p>The case of the judge’s pants, which opened for trial in a packed courtroom here on Tuesday, has been lampooned on talk radio and in the blogosphere as an example of American legal excess. And it has spurred complaints to the District of Columbia Bar and city officials from national tort reform and trial lawyer groups worried about its effect on public trust in the legal system.</p>

<p>“I don’t know of any other cases that have been quite this ridiculous,” said Paul Rothstein, a professor of law at Georgetown University.</p>

<p>…Later, while recounting the day he says the cleaners tried to pass off a cheaper pair of pants as his, Judge Pearson began to cry, asking for a break and dabbing tears as he left the courtroom. </p>

<p>The lawsuit dates back to spring 2005. Mr. Pearson, a longtime legal aid lawyer, was appointed to a new job as a District of Columbia administrative law judge.</p>

<p>Judge Pearson says in court papers that he owned exactly five suits, all Hickey Freemans, one for each day of the workweek. But the waistlines had grown “uncomfortably tight.” So he took the suits to Custom Dry Cleaners, in a strip mall in gritty northeast Washington, for alterations.</p>

<p>When the owners, Korean immigrants who came to America in 1992, could not find one pair of pants, Judge Pearson demanded $1,150 for a replacement suit. The owners did not respond; he sued.

</p>

<p>

He has rejected three settlement offers, the latest, in March, for $12,000. Last week, Judge Pearson revised a few claims and lowered his damages request to $54 million.

</p>

<p>

The defendants’ lawyer, Christopher Manning, told the judge that his clients were the victims. He characterized Judge Pearson as a man embittered by financial woes and a recent divorce, who had nursed a grudge against the Chungs since a spat over a different pair of pants in 2002.</p>

<p>“The plaintiff has decided to use his intimate knowledge of the District of Columbia laws and legal systems to exploit non-English-speaking immigrants who work in excess of 70 hours per week to live the American dream,” Mr. Manning says in court papers

</p>

<p>Edited to add: the title is a slip, meant to be dry cleaners not cry cleaners. Although the judge did cry on the stand over it…</p>

[sunnyflorida]

<p>Here is more:

The best detail: He’s asking the cleaners to pay him $15,000 for leasing a car every weekend for 10 years. Why? Because he must find another cleaner and since he doesn’t have a car, he says he has to rent one to get his clothes cleaned.

<a href=“http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/04/26/judge-sues-dry-cleaners-for-65-million/[/url]”>http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/04/26/judge-sues-dry-cleaners-for-65-million/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502763_pf.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502763_pf.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[berurah]

<p>What the heck kind of lawyer would take a case like THAT?? Is he representing himself? </p>

[audiophile]

<p>

What the heck kind of lawyer would take a case like THAT?? Is he representing himself?

</p>

<p>Reminds me of the old joke:
Q: “What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 80?”</p>

<p>A: “Your honor”</p>

[soozievt]

<p>I haven’t read the articles but this judge who is suing is taking these people to the cleaners!!! Sorry, could not resist, LOL. </p>

<p>I can’t imagine a suit that goes anywhere beyond the cost of replacing the suit (the clothing suit!). I am not up on legal matters but from watching a few episodes of those shows like Judge Judy and People’s Court (I know, I know), it seems like a small claims type of thing…where you can get the cost of the item back and had he had to miss work or something else like that, compensation. I don’t think leasing a car to go to another cleaners would count. I can’t imagine a court even hearing such a ridiculous suit for an outrageous amount like this.</p>

[sunnyflorida]

<p>

What the heck kind of lawyer would take a case like THAT?? Is he representing himself?

Yup. You guessed right.</p>

[berurah]

<p>

@audiophile

Reminds me of the old joke:
Q: “What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 80?”</p>

<p>A: “Your honor”

OMG. <strong><em>ROFLMAO</em></strong>!!! :D</p>

<p>

@sunnyflorida

Yup. You guessed right.

haha! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:</p>

[LakeWashington]

<p>“A man who represents himself before a court of law has a fool for a client.”</p>

[marite]

<p>I just have to wonder how this guy ever got to be a judge.</p>

[WashDad]

<p>I hope it’s a jury trial. I hope lots of people like me are on the jury.</p>

<p>“We find for the defendant and direct the plaintiff to pay all attorney and court costs. We further find for the plaintiff in the counter-suit and award $54 million to the Korean family because Mr. Pearson is a moron.”</p>

[originaloog]

<p>I am glad to see that the judge’s reappointment is in limbo. I seriously question his mental suitability to serve in a judicial position.</p>

[NYMomof2]

<p>I’m with you, WashDad!</p>

[bullwinkle]

<p>Most cases ask for ridiculous amounts in the complaint so that part is nothing new. You still have to provide proof of the damages so this is just so much nonsense. </p>

<p>I’ve been a litigator/trial attorney for about 30 years. I’ve found the common personality trait of most judges is that they are bullies and this is just a classic, albeit a ridiculous example.</p>

<p>Unlike the system in England, in this country unless a contract calls for it or there is some statuory provision that applies to the specific subject of the case, attorney’s fees are not awarded in most jurisdictions. If, as in England, the loser paid the costs/fees then I think a great number of suits would not get filed as is so cavalierly done here.</p>

[cmbmom]

<p>I know this is a free country and anyone can sue anyone but this just seems like such a waste of taxpayer money to me.</p>

[soozievt]

<p>I feel badly that the defendants have the expenses to defend themselves to this frivolous and absurd case that is over the top. </p>

<p>I truly wonder how this guy can even be a judge given this behavior. I know that judgeships involve being scrutinized for their appointments. My brother has been a judge and now oversees the judicial council and hiring of judges in his state. I can’t imagine this guy ever passing such a review to be a judge.</p>

[soozievt]

<p>Did you read that they supposedly have (found) this guy’s pants and that really should be the end of that!</p>

[BassDad]

<p>If they’ve found his pants then he must realize that his suit is hopeless. (Apologies to W.S. Gilbert.)</p>

[Princedog]

<p>This hasn’t gotten as much attention in local news as I would have thought, considering. There was like one Post story a few months ago. </p>

<p>I feel SO bad for the cleaners, who have spent so much and done so much just to try and fight this. The worst part is that they have a pair of pants that matches his ticket or something, and are his exact measurements…he just claims they aren’t his, but they probably are. Please who are we supposed to trust, does he really come out looking like the more reasonable person here? BTW I think they have had the pants since about two weeks after he complained, not even recently, before all this. They are gray pants I think, but he claims they lost ones with red and blue pinstripes. That’s all kinds of crazy there. Who has PANTS with red and blue pinstripes? For a lawyer job? Am I imagining this wrong or something? I honestly wonder if he is delusional and these pants never existed. Either that or he’s a liar, but I doubt he’s actually right. </p>

<p>In the end I hope it works out reasonably, this is really too much and makes you lose faith in humanity, so much greed. It’s hard to imagine a person could be so greedy and out of touch with reality but apparently more than one person is.</p>

[soozievt]

<p>What I don’t get is that he would really have a case if he wasn’t compensated for the lost pants to the suit but they offered him reimbursement and in fact, a significant reimbursement beyond the value of the pants in order to settle it. In my view, that is all he is entitled to and they did as one would expect them to do under such circumstances of loosing his pants. Had they refused to compensate him, that would be different. After being compensated, he could chalk it up to not being happy with their business and going elsewhere, like every other consumer on this planet! They are not responsible for the choice he made to use another cleaners and the transportation to get there. Once compensated, he COULD keep using them or CHOOSE to go elsewhere. He was not forced to go elsewhere.</p>

[kluge]

<p>First, an “Administrative Law Judge” isn’t a “judge” in the conventional sense (at least here in California) They used to be called “referees” and they generally handle technical and obscure hearings over things like wage claims, unemployment insurance, and the like.</p>

<p>Next, yeah - there are nice suits with colored pinstripes - they are subtle.</p>

<p>Finally - goofy lawsuits like this are almost always filed by some moron who can’t get a retained attorney to represent him - just like this one. The system isn’t perfect, but it actually works pretty well if you consider a human margin of error.</p>

<p>My prediction: the ultimate outcome will be reasonably just.</p>