HEY Edward

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I see you hanging around whining about being worried about your constitution rights--and rather them contaminate others threads thought I'd ask you if this was one of your rights your speaking of--

April 26, 2007, 11:36 am
Judge Sues Dry Cleaners for $65 Million
Posted by Peter Lattman
A few years back, Washington D.C. administrative law judge Roy Pearson sued his neighborhood dry cleaners for misplacing his pants. He?s asking for $65,462,500. The alteration work on his pants cost $10.50. Here?s the story from the WaPo and an item from the DCist.

Pearson reportedly says he deserves the money for litigation costs, for ?mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort,? for the value of his time spent on the lawsuit, and for a replacement suit, according to court papers. 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.

How did he get to $65 million? D.C.?s consumer protection law provides for damages of $1,500 per violation per day. So he computed 12 violations over 1,200 days times three defendants. In the words of WaPo columnist Marc Fisher, ?A pant leg here, a pant leg there, and soon, you?re talking $65 million.?

Chris Manning, attorney for Custom Cleaners, told the DCist that the case was, ?possibly the most amazing example of frivolous and ridiculous litigation.?

A major point of legal contention: At the time it lost his pants, Custom Cleaners had two signs on its walls ? ?Satisfaction Guaranteed? and ?Same Day Service.? The judge says he relied on these signs. According to the story, the Chungs have since removed the signs.

P.S. saw on news that cleaners in near buckruptcy from legal bills in defense--

So as in most situations we have one loser regardess of outcome--the laundry and the consumer--and at least one winner--maybe two--but doubt in in this case unless it's appealed in the 9th district

 

[The Sponge]

You never had a favorite pair of pants?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

update--now if they just make this guy pay for the cleaners legal defense i will say justice.
who does this sound like--

'During the trial, Pearson testified that he wanted only $2 million in damages for himself -- for his mental anguish and inconvenience -- plus $500,000 in attorney's fees for representing himself. Any additional money that the judge might award would go into a fund "to educate people of their rights under the consumer protection act," he said."





Judge Says No Pants Are Worth $54 Million, Rules in Favor of Dry Cleaner
Monday , June 25, 2007

A judge ruled Monday that no pair of pants is worth $54 million, rejecting a lawsuit that took a dry cleaner's promise of "Satisfaction Guaranteed" to its most litigious extreme.

Roy L. Pearson originally sought $67 million from the defendants, 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.

Pearson arrived at the amount by adding up years of alleged law violations and almost $2 million in common law fraud claims. He then lowered the amount he was seeking to $54 million.

But District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store window.

"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 wrote that Pearson, an administrative law judge, failed to prove that the pants the dry cleaner tried to return were not the pants he took in for alterations.

Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung. 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 respond to a call and an e-mail seeking comment. Manning, the Chungs' lawyer, said he expected Pearson to appeal.

During the trial, Pearson testified that he wanted only $2 million in damages for himself -- for his mental anguish and inconvenience -- plus $500,000 in attorney's fees for representing himself. Any additional money that the judge might award would go into a fund "to educate people of their rights under the consumer protection act," he said.

The case garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform.

"This case was giving American justice a black eye around the world, and it was all the more upsetting because it was a judge and lawyer who was bringing the suit," said Paul Rothstein, a Georgetown University law professor.

Rothstein said Monday's ruling "restores one's confidence in the legal system."

 

[smurphy]

A judge ruled Monday that no pair of pants is worth $54 million

I'm not so sure about that. Paris Hilton's prison pants might fetch that much on the open market.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

I"m sorry I haven't been able to respond. No time as I'm heading down to Bowling Green, Kentucky to try and sign up, excuse me, help the victims of the bus crash. Can I stay at your place?

Ed

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Yep You certainly may--but don't know if you'll like atmosphere--Church about a block away--won't hear any traffic-gunshots-sirens ect at night--just wind blowing in trees and crickets.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

You forgot the hot tater pie cooling in the open window of Grandma Crabtree's house on Main Street and Andy strummin some geetar on the porch with ole drunk, black Amos stumblin down da street singing Swing Low Sweet Chariot.

Eddie