By LUBNA TAKRURI, Associated Press Writer 41 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - A judge ruled Monday in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants.
ADVERTISEMENT
The owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's consumer protection law by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store window, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled.
"A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands" or to agree to demands that the merchant would have reasonable grounds for disputing, the judge wrote.
Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung.
Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs, claiming they lost a pair of trousers from a blue and maroon suit, then tried to give him a pair a pair of charcoal gray pants that he said were not his. He arrived at the amount by adding up years of alleged law violations and almost $2 million in common law fraud claims.
Bartnoff wrote, however, that Pearson failed to prove that the pants the dry cleaner tried to return were not the pants he taken in for alterations.
Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.
The court costs amount to just over $1,000 for photocopying, filing and similar expenses, according to the Chungs' attorney. A motion to recover the Chungs' tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be considered later.
Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, praised the ruling, which followed a two-day trial earlier this month.
"Judge Bartnoff has spoken loudly in suggesting that, while consumers should be protected, abusive lawsuits like this will not be tolerated," Manning said in a statement. "Judge Bartnoff has chosen common sense and reasonableness over irrationality and unbridled venom."
Pearson did not immediately respond to a call and an e-mail seeking comment.
Fuck yeah, and the prick had to pay some of the court-costs as well, though I really hope they end up charging him for the costs of the Chungs' attorney too.
Gaian Paradigm: Because not all fantasy has to be childish crap. Ephemeral Pie: Because not all role-playing has to be shallow. My art: Because not all DA users are talentless emo twits. "Phant, quit abusing the He-Wench before he turns you into a caged bitch at a Ren Fair and lets the tourists toss half munched turkey legs at your backside." -Mr. Coffee
To be honest, the filing of such blatantly abusive lawsuits should be made into a criminal offense. Even ordering the bastard to pay attorneys' fees isn't enough IMO. This kind of shit has got to stop.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Here's hoping that asshole has to pay for the whole thing.
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest "Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
Flagg wrote:I can understand suing over the pants in small claims court. If he honestly believes those are not his pants, then he has every right to do so.
It's not the fact that he sued. It's the fact that he sued for an obscene amount, was offered compensation multiple times and still continued to sue for an obscene amount. The judge was a greedy hatfucker who didn't know when to give up.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Flagg wrote:I can understand suing over the pants in small claims court. If he honestly believes those are not his pants, then he has every right to do so.
It's not the fact that he sued. It's the fact that he sued for an obscene amount, was offered compensation multiple times and still continued to sue for an obscene amount. The judge was a greedy hatfucker who didn't know when to give up.
Oh, I know. The guy is a fucking tool and he needs to be disbarred.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Starglider wrote:
It works well here. The US would be far better off with such a system.
Indeed. The fact that this thing even got to court without being laughed out of the claims office is pretty dismal. I've heard stupid cases thrown out without even so much as an opening statement over here, because the judge presiding had better things to do.
Flagg wrote:I can understand suing over the pants in small claims court. If he honestly believes those are not his pants, then he has every right to do so.
IIRC, he *was* given back the right pants. There was a mistake and the first pants given back weren't given back. Then he decided to sue for several million because the dry-cleaners didn't perform to the 'same-day service' advertised at their store. He came to the figure by some absurd equation, IIRC, that involved multipying the average fraud claim with the number of hours of lost wages because he allegedly didn't have his pants back when he 'reasonably' expected them to be.
Gaian Paradigm: Because not all fantasy has to be childish crap. Ephemeral Pie: Because not all role-playing has to be shallow. My art: Because not all DA users are talentless emo twits. "Phant, quit abusing the He-Wench before he turns you into a caged bitch at a Ren Fair and lets the tourists toss half munched turkey legs at your backside." -Mr. Coffee
My only real concern with "loser pays" laws is that they may only deter the poor from filing lawsuits. While getting rid of the frivilous suits would be a good thing, I worry that people who have good cause to sue may not for fear of losing and having to pay exhorbinant amounts of money for defense counsel. I think there should be some way of making the determination of whether or not a suit is in fact frivilous. Otherwise I envision poorer people filing a suit with merit against some massive corporation, losing because the company has 20 skillfull attorneys, and then being saddled with millions of dollars in defense fees.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Flagg wrote:I can understand suing over the pants in small claims court. If he honestly believes those are not his pants, then he has every right to do so.
IIRC, he *was* given back the right pants. There was a mistake and the first pants given back weren't given back. Then he decided to sue for several million because the dry-cleaners didn't perform to the 'same-day service' advertised at their store. He came to the figure by some absurd equation, IIRC, that involved multipying the average fraud claim with the number of hours of lost wages because he allegedly didn't have his pants back when he 'reasonably' expected them to be.
Yeah, that's fucking ridiculous.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Flagg wrote:My only real concern with "loser pays" laws is that they may only deter the poor from filing lawsuits ... I envision poorer people filing a suit with merit against some massive corporation, losing because the company has 20 skillfull attorneys, and then being saddled with millions of dollars in defense fees.
That's always been my fear as well. Regardless, The Chungs (the drycleaners) probably aren't going to get anything back unfortunately as Pearson (the sue-happy judge) is reportedly close to bankrupt. A fundraiser is being held to support the Chungs, if anybody's interested they can donate here.
Flagg wrote:My only real concern with "loser pays" laws is that they may only deter the poor from filing lawsuits. While getting rid of the frivilous suits would be a good thing, I worry that people who have good cause to sue may not for fear of losing and having to pay exhorbinant amounts of money for defense counsel. I think there should be some way of making the determination of whether or not a suit is in fact frivilous. Otherwise I envision poorer people filing a suit with merit against some massive corporation, losing because the company has 20 skillfull attorneys, and then being saddled with millions of dollars in defense fees.
As opposed to now when the company can sure the poor people who have done nothing wrong, yet still force them to settle because settling is cheaper than fighting it ?
Do you happen to have any examples of what you describe actually happening in a country with a loser pays system ?
There are easy ways to prevent such cases. The bar setting official rates for compensation purposes is one - if you want your fancy top-notch lawyer, you get to pay the difference even if you win. The loser only pays bar rates. Property census with exceptions for the poor is another.
Flagg wrote:My only real concern with "loser pays" laws is that they may only deter the poor from filing lawsuits. While getting rid of the frivilous suits would be a good thing, I worry that people who have good cause to sue may not for fear of losing and having to pay exhorbinant amounts of money for defense counsel. I think there should be some way of making the determination of whether or not a suit is in fact frivilous. Otherwise I envision poorer people filing a suit with merit against some massive corporation, losing because the company has 20 skillfull attorneys, and then being saddled with millions of dollars in defense fees.
As opposed to now when the company can sure the poor people who have done nothing wrong, yet still force them to settle because settling is cheaper than fighting it ?
Do you happen to have any examples of what you describe actually happening in a country with a loser pays system ?
Settling would be cheaper than fighting it even if you had a "loser pays" system. I would imagine that the poor people may be more likely to settle for fear of losing and having to pay even more. I have no examples, nor have I stated that it's something that has happened, I simply related misgivings I have in a "loser pays" system.
I have no issue whatsoever with forcing someone who files a bullshit lawsuit to pay the defendants legal fees. I think that's the right thing to do, and support it 100%. But just because you file a lawsuit and lose, doesn't mean your lawsuit is frivilous. You can be on perfectly solid legal ground and lose a lawsuit for any number of reasons and I don't think you should be penalized because of that.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Netko wrote:There are easy ways to prevent such cases. The bar setting official rates for compensation purposes is one - if you want your fancy top-notch lawyer, you get to pay the difference even if you win. The loser only pays bar rates. Property census with exceptions for the poor is another.
That strikes me as perfectly reasonable.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
