Was crying hysterically in court today over how much pain and suffering he has been through since he lost his favorite fucking pair of pants - I hope the judge overseeing this case awards him $50 for the pants and awards the defendants all attorney's fees they've paid from the point they offered to settle (it's well over 100k) - and by settle, I mean an offer to buy him a new pair of pants - and then this judge should be turned over to the bar association.
$65M lawsuit over lost pants
<!-- SPACER DIV FOR SPECIAL ASSOCIATED STORY MUST REMAIN EMPTY-->
<!-- LANDSCAPE IMAGE FOR THE ARTICLE--><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> var imageL= '221601_3.JPG' if(imageL) { document.write('
'); } else{ document.write('
'); } </SCRIPT>
Jacquelyn Martin / AP Photo
Jin Nam Chung and Ki Chung, owners of Custom Cleaners in Washington, have offered a customer $12,000 in compensation for a pair of lost pants.
<!-- ARTICLE TOOLBOX -->
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> document.write('Email story'); </SCRIPT> Email story
Print
Choose text size
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> document.write('Report typo or correction'); </SCRIPT> Report typo or correction
Tag and save
<!-- SUB TITLE 1 -->Washington judge suing after store lost trousers taken in for alterations
<!-- PUBLISH DATE -->
May 04, 2007 04:30 AM
<!-- AUTHOR 1 -->Lubna Takruri
<!-- CREDIT 1-->ASSOCIATED PRESS
<!-- ARTICLE CONTENT-->
WASHINGTON–A missing pair of pants has led to one big suit.
A customer got so steamed when a dry cleaner lost his trousers that he sued for $65 million (U.S.). Two years later, he is still pressing his suit.
The case has demoralized the South Korean immigrant owners and brought demands that the customer – an administrative law judge in Washington – be disbarred and removed from office for pursuing a frivolous and abusive claim.
"They're out a lot of money, but more importantly, incredibly disenchanted with the system," said Chris Manning, lawyer for the owners. "This has destroyed their lives."
The customer, Roy Pearson Jr., who has been representing himself, declined to comment.
According to court documents, the problem began in May 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alterations to Custom Cleaners in Washington. A pair of pants from one suit was missing when he requested it two days later.
Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than $1,000.
But a week later, the owners said the pants had been found and refused to pay. Pearson said those were not his pants and decided to sue.
Manning said the cleaners have made three settlement offers to Pearson: $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000.
But Pearson was not satisfied and expanded his calculations beyond one pair of pants. Because he no longer wanted to use his local dry cleaner, he asked in his lawsuit for $15,000 – the cost of renting a car every weekend for 10 years to go to another business.
The bulk of the $65 million demand comes from Pearson's strict interpretation of Washington consumer protection law, which imposes fines of $1,500 per violation, per day. Pearson counted 12 violations over 1,200 days, then multiplied that by three defendants.
Much of Pearson's case rests on two signs Custom Cleaners once had on its walls: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service." He claims the signs amount to fraud.
The case is set for trial June 11.
Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association, an organization that fights what it considers abusive lawsuits against small businesses, has asked that Pearson be denied a renewal of his 10-year appointment. The association has also offered to buy Pearson a new suit.
Chief Administrative Judge Tyrone Butler had no comment on Pearson's reappointment prospects.
Melvin Welles, former chief administrative law judge with the National Labour Relations Board, wrote to The Washington Post to say that if he were the judge in the case, he would throw out the lawsuit and order Pearson to pay the dry cleaners for their legal expenses and their mental suffering. He also called for Pearson's ouster and disbarment.
"The manifest absurdity of it is too obvious to require explanation," he wrote.
<!-- SPACER DIV FOR SPECIAL ASSOCIATED STORY MUST REMAIN EMPTY-->
<!-- LANDSCAPE IMAGE FOR THE ARTICLE--><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> var imageL= '221601_3.JPG' if(imageL) { document.write('
Jin Nam Chung and Ki Chung, owners of Custom Cleaners in Washington, have offered a customer $12,000 in compensation for a pair of lost pants.
<!-- ARTICLE TOOLBOX -->
Choose text size
<!-- SUB TITLE 1 -->Washington judge suing after store lost trousers taken in for alterations
<!-- PUBLISH DATE -->
May 04, 2007 04:30 AM
<!-- AUTHOR 1 -->Lubna Takruri
<!-- CREDIT 1-->ASSOCIATED PRESS
<!-- ARTICLE CONTENT-->
WASHINGTON–A missing pair of pants has led to one big suit.
A customer got so steamed when a dry cleaner lost his trousers that he sued for $65 million (U.S.). Two years later, he is still pressing his suit.
The case has demoralized the South Korean immigrant owners and brought demands that the customer – an administrative law judge in Washington – be disbarred and removed from office for pursuing a frivolous and abusive claim.
"They're out a lot of money, but more importantly, incredibly disenchanted with the system," said Chris Manning, lawyer for the owners. "This has destroyed their lives."
The customer, Roy Pearson Jr., who has been representing himself, declined to comment.
According to court documents, the problem began in May 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alterations to Custom Cleaners in Washington. A pair of pants from one suit was missing when he requested it two days later.
Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than $1,000.
But a week later, the owners said the pants had been found and refused to pay. Pearson said those were not his pants and decided to sue.
Manning said the cleaners have made three settlement offers to Pearson: $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000.
But Pearson was not satisfied and expanded his calculations beyond one pair of pants. Because he no longer wanted to use his local dry cleaner, he asked in his lawsuit for $15,000 – the cost of renting a car every weekend for 10 years to go to another business.
The bulk of the $65 million demand comes from Pearson's strict interpretation of Washington consumer protection law, which imposes fines of $1,500 per violation, per day. Pearson counted 12 violations over 1,200 days, then multiplied that by three defendants.
Much of Pearson's case rests on two signs Custom Cleaners once had on its walls: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service." He claims the signs amount to fraud.
The case is set for trial June 11.
Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association, an organization that fights what it considers abusive lawsuits against small businesses, has asked that Pearson be denied a renewal of his 10-year appointment. The association has also offered to buy Pearson a new suit.
Chief Administrative Judge Tyrone Butler had no comment on Pearson's reappointment prospects.
Melvin Welles, former chief administrative law judge with the National Labour Relations Board, wrote to The Washington Post to say that if he were the judge in the case, he would throw out the lawsuit and order Pearson to pay the dry cleaners for their legal expenses and their mental suffering. He also called for Pearson's ouster and disbarment.
"The manifest absurdity of it is too obvious to require explanation," he wrote.
The case is being tried right now - I would imagine the judge who filed the suit gets the value of his pants and then the defendants get all attorney's fees and mental anguish - could easily be 500k - yes, the judge (plaintiff) will appeal but this case is so dispicable the appeal will fall on deaf ears and the lower court's judgment will be upheld - I'm just thinking logically so who really knows.
they may or may not get attorneys' fees. the defendants need a basis for compensation, either contractual or statutory. I doubt one exists under a contractual scenario. In California they would have one on a statutory basis if the award is less than their offer of settlement (see Crunch's Life is Over thread). No idea if DC has a similar statute, hopefully they do, but based on his refusal of their settlement offer I doubt it. He would never risk paying $100k+ in attorneys fees to try this case. He knows his damages are only $1000 at most.
In Florida it depends on who prevails in the suit - and at what point the defendant offered to settle - I am sure these people offered to settle for the cost of the pants before a complaint was even filed - so if the judge prevails on nothing more than the costs of his pants then the defendants would most likely be awarded attorney's fees from everything that occured after the offer of settlement which is over 100k - the judge represents himself and alleges he spent 1400 hours on this case - say he charges $300 per hour - that's 420k - state laws differ.
well, it isn't unreasonable to spend $1000 on a suit and if you lose the pants to a suit you can't just go to the store and replace the pants for a $1000 suit. You probably do have to buy an entirely new suit. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt on that since it is the only reasonable thing he has contended.
California has a similar statute to the one you outlined. Basically if one party makes a 998 offer (CCP section) (defendant in this case) and it is refused, the refusing party (the judge in this case) has to "beat" the 998 at trial or the opposing party (defendants) can be awarded attorneys' fees. Sounds like they offered $12k, if DC has a similar law and that offer of settlement fits within the statute, he very well should be screwed. However, as I said, he is really foolish if he is risking such a thing with an offer that much above the cost of replacing his pants/suit.
