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

[WashDad]

<p>

@kluge

My prediction: the ultimate outcome will be reasonably just.

</p>

<p>Sand? Up to the neck? Fire ants?</p>

[janejersey]

<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_re_us/67_million_pants[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_re_us/67_million_pants&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Can any of the attorneys in the Parent Cafe tell us if this poor couple has any recourse to recoup their legal expenses (and I’m guessing they may also have lost income bkz of having to be in court…) ?</p>

<p>I do like WashDad’s idea.</p>

[sunnyflorida]

<p>UPDATE–oops we posted at the same time</p>

<p>The defendant cleaners “won” the lawsuit, and the plaintif, the judge that sued, will be responsible for their legal fees.<br>

Delivering her decision in writing, Judge Judith Bartnoff wrote 23 pages dissecting and dismissing Pearson’s claim that he was defrauded by the owners of Custom Cleaners and their “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign.</p>

<p>“A reasonable consumer would not interpret ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’ to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer’s unreasonable demands or to accede to demands that the merchant has reasonable grounds to dispute,” the ruling said. " . . . The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever."</p>

<p>It was a pointed rebuke of Pearson’s claim, and came with an order to pay the cleaners’ court costs. But even bigger troubles may loom for Pearson. Financially, he could soon be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees incurred by the owners of Customer Cleaners. Attorneys for the Chungs have said they will seek such payments, as well as sanctions against Pearson for bringing the lawsuit. Bartnoff said in her ruling that she would decide those issues after both sides have filed their motions, counter-motions and legal briefs.

<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500443.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500443.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[THXZPI636]

<p>Judge Roy Bean would beat the crap out of Judge Roy Pearson if they ever went at it.</p>

<p>636</p>

[originaloog]

<p>I wished judges regularly made plaintifs responsible for defendants legal fees in cased bordering on the frivilous or over reaching in terms of damages in the filed case.</p>

<p>This certainly would drastically reduce suits because of concerns of the plaintiff and the defendant’s attorney taking the case on contingency.</p>

[LakeWashington]

<p>Pearson was a fool but compelling him to pay ALL of the defendant’s legal fees could be a perilous precedent.</p>

[marite]

<p>It could be, but these poor folks must have astronomical legal costs plus expenses related to lost business. His fault, not theirs.</p>

[binx]

<p>Germany already makes the “loser” pay the "winner"s costs. Court fees and lawyers aren’t as expensive as here. But Germans supposedly (I heard it on TV there) have the highest rate in the world of suing each other. They do not sue big business, because they can’t afford to pay the costs if they lose. So big business gets away with disgusting practices, while the common man entertains himself by taking his neighbor to court because he mowed his lawn on Sunday, or his dog barked during quiet hours, or he had more than the alloted number of barbecues (I think it’s 3 per year - can’t remember.)</p>

<p>Be careful what you wish for.</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<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>

<p>I think HK is similar to England in this regard. Not a surprise since HK used to be UK’s colony.</p>

[Chedva]

<p>In Federal court, and in most state courts, attorneys’ fees can be awarded for frivolous suits by court rule. In addition, attorneys themselves can be hit with sanctions for filing frivolous suits or motions.</p>

<p>That’s why the issue is still open in this case.</p>

[kluge]

<p>Chedva is right about fees. It must be an extraordinary situation, but sanctions are available in most jurisdictions for abusive practices. Originaloog - the courts are slanted against people seeking compensation for their losses already. Bankrupting people who get steamrolled by a deep-pocketed corporate defendant won’t help matters much. This case was an abberation - that’s why it is newsworthy.</p>

<p>I wouldn’t assume that the cleaners paid their own lawyers, though. My guess sis that their defense costs were covered by insurance.</p>

[Princedog]

<p>That could be, I’m not positive, but this is a local story and a few months ago I read an article that quoted them as saying they’d paid a lot (I don’t remember what) to fight this. This was like his second round…first he tried to sue for “damages” related to losing his pants and that didn’t pan out, so then he tried to sue because they had a “satisfaction guaranteed” sign and he said it violated BBB principles or something because they lost his pants. So even if insurance covered some of it, I was under the impression they’ve lost a fair amount.</p>

[LakeWashington]

<p>And I want to hear a lot more facts before I’d agree with exacting such a severe sanction on the losing plaintiff. He certainly had a grievance against the dry cleaners [but certainly no damages equivalent to his claim]. Am I correct to understand that the business owners ignored his complaints for quite a while until he initiated litigation?</p>

[Chedva]

<p>The problem is not that the plaintiff sued. The problem is that the damages sought were so disproportionate to any negligence. The plaintiff virtually guaranteed a trial on the issue, and negated any possibility of settlement. This should have been litigated in small claims court (even if the owners had ignored him).</p>

[marite]

<p>

Mrs. Chung said she found his pants a few days after they were lost. But Judge Pearson claimed they were a cheaper gray pair she had tried to substitute for his pinstriped Hickey Freemans. In her verdict Monday, Judge Bartnoff said she found Mrs. Chung more credible than Judge Pearson.

<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/us/26trousers.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/us/26trousers.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The incident happened in 2005. At one point, the Chung offered Judge Pearson $12,000, about 200 times the cost of the original trousers. He refused. It is believed he will appeal the verdict.
BTW, no one has commented on the typo in the thread title, but “cry cleaners” is particularly apt.</p>

[sunnyflorida]

<p>Yah, I noticed the typo about a minute after I could correct it?! </p>

<p>And the owners tried hard to make this go away, even offering the $12,000 settlement. The plaintiff refused to let this go.</p>

[northeastmom]

<p>

The problem is not that the plaintiff sued. The problem is that the damages sought were so disproportionate to any negligence.

</p>

<p>This is what scares me. I wonder how often people sue, perhaps have minimal damages (or no case at all), but try to extract thousands from defendants. Those stories are not published, because a judge is not involved, the amount that people are suing for is relatively small, but still could be a very nice sum (perhaps 30,000, 100,000 or even 250,000+). Defendants need to spend a small fortune to put on their defense, or are forced to settle if the plaintiff is willing to grab a smaller amount of money. It is really sad.</p>

[Billy_Pilgram]

<p><a href=“http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/08/first_pants_man_loses_case_nex.html[/url]”>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/08/first_pants_man_loses_case_nex.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>*First, Pants Man Loses Case. Next, His Job</p>

<p>By the middle of next week, Roy Pearson, the D.C. administrative law judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaners for $54 million and lost, will receive a letter that starts the process of putting him out of a job.</p>

<p>City sources tell me that a marathon meeting of the commission that reviews the performance of administrative law judges (ALJs) ended last night with unanimous agreement to meet again next Monday to revise and finalize the wording of a letter that will state the panel’s doubts about granting Pearson the 10-year reappointment that he has been seeking throughout the last months of his battle against Custom Cleaners and its owners, the Chung family.*</p>

[Chedva]

<p>As well he should. A man without perspective has no business being any kind of judge.</p>

[midwesterner]

<p>And his actions and notoriety made him the subject of close scrutiny by many, you can be sure.</p>