Cleaners Lose Pants, Sued for 67 Million
Real money, too. Link!
His dispute began in 2002, when Roy Pearson took a pair of trousers into Custom Cleaners in Fort Lincoln. They were lost. The owners, Jim and Soo Chung, offered $US150 in compensation, which was accepted. That incident is not part of the writ.Relations were patched up and three years later, soon after being appointed a tribunal judge, Judge Pearson took in a pair of trousers and asked them to be let out a few centimetres. In court papers, he claims they too were lost. The Chungs vow they were found a week later and say they have the stub to prove it.
Judge Pearson's first letter of complaint to the Chungs sought $US1150 so he could buy a new suit. Then lawyers got involved. The Chungs offered Pearson $US3000, then $US4600 and, finally, said their lawyer, Chris Manning, $US12,000 to settle.
But Judge Pearson, who sits on US Government tribunals, refused to back down. He based his writ on the cleaners' failure to fulfil two signs in their window: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service".
He reached the figure of $US67,292,000, citing Washington's consumer protection law, which provides for damages of $1500 per violation per day. Judge Pearson started multiplying: 12 violations over 1200 days, times three defendants (the Chungs and their son), as well as other claims.
These include $US15,000 to rent a car every weekend for 10 years to drive to a cleaner in another area. He also seeks $US500,000 in emotional damages and $US542,000 in legal fees, although he is representing himself.
Judge Pearson has set the Chungs and their lawyers several questions, which include: "Please identify by name, full address and telephone number, all cleaners known to you on May 1, 2005 in the District of Columbia, the United States and the world that advertise: 'SATISFACTION GUARANTEED'."
The Chungs have removed the signs upon which Judge Pearson's case rests.
"This case shocks me on a daily basis," said their lawyer, Mr Manning.
"Pearson has a lot of time on his hands, and the Chungs have been abused in a ghastly way. It's going to cost them tens of thousands to defend this case."
Xbox Live: StaatsM
This sort of case makes me wonder if the judge involved is trying to fulfill a larger agenda. If he is willing to risk a disbarrment for any number of abuses, it makes me think that he is looking to make a political point. I am, at this point, very curious what his background and reputation is.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
Maybe he had a $67 Million bill in his pocket?
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"If ads put your sanity to the test
come on down to Rat Boy's nest!
light up a stogie, and soon you'll see
how rock can be commercial-free!
'I'd hit it!'" - HP Lovesauce
Well, I love your optimism, but I suppose there'd be a better way without f*cking up a family's life.
I think he's just a dick and it's really bad that he's a judge.
The man wears a bucket of KFC on his head. I wouldn't expect anything less. - Pred
This is what's wrong with the legal system.
People who sue for frivolous bs like this need to feel repercussions.
Bear wrote:
Xbox Live: TheWalt2
And luckily, there are plenty of protections against suits like this built into the system. If this actually goes to trial, this guy is going to get laughed out of the courtroom. The cleaners have made multiple attempts, beyond normal reason, to settle this, and he's refusing it in lieu of pursuing unconscionable terms.
Personally, I look at stuff like this(I'm looking at you, SCO), less as a failure of the legal system and more of a failure on the part of individuals.
Coldstream wrote:
Welcome to the "Jack Tompson" of the dry cleaning world...
A blog: by me!
EGGmen - A European gaming blog *Podcast episode 2 now live*
Lose someone's pants, and your shirt will soon follow.
Whenever this happens, please update this thread. I hate hearing about McDonalds getting sued for $12 million dollars by a lady who spilled coffee on her lap and not hearing that the decision was thrown out in an appeals court (which I *think* is the case, but could be wrong).
When something crazy happens in court (frivolous lawsuit), you hear about it in the press. When something that makes sense happens in court (frivolous lawsuit thrown out), it's not a news story...
Bear wrote:
Xbox Live: TheWalt2
If I were the cleaners, I'd be thrilled. It'll take a while, and a short-term loss, but you'll make back your legal expenses, plus quite a bit when you counter-sue. Plus, it would be fun to be the cause of a judicial disbarment.
That's assuming that a small cleaners' business can survive that short-term loss. If not... well, I have no doubt there would be plenty of good lawyers willing to work free, in lieu of a cut of the winnings of a counter-case. If the store goes under, well... that's going to be quite the counter-suit indeed.
"PEACE ON EARTH. GOOD WILL TO MEN. PUBLIC SHELTER. ADMISSION 50¢"
Although, he is following the law accordingly. $X per day, over 1200 days. This guy is a serious tool, though. I think the McDonald's settlement was thrown out, as well as some of those cigarette company judgments. Stupid American people.
MaxShrek .. Do it first, do it yourself, and keep on doing it.
Horror Vacui
The Mcdonalds judgement wasnt exactly thrown out. The fine was lessened to something like $4-500K.
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
The McDonald's case wasn't stupid like this one either. From what I see, this guy was looking for an excuse. Like I said earlier, he refused reasonable terms of settlement, or at least reasonable in my eyes. Requesting compensation for renting a car to go to another cleaner? Please.
With the McDonald's case, it was far, far more than just a simple case of 'oh, I spilled hot coffee and scalded my legs'. It was a case of 'I spilled boiling hot coffee on my legs and got second degree burns'. There's a huge difference there, and the difference amounts to negligence on part of the staff at that particular Mickey D's.
Coldstream wrote:
I thought that was particularly rich. Is there a Constitutional right to easy access to dry cleaning? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of super-fine pants?
Xbox Live: StaatsM
When someone sues you for $67m over a pair of pants, you should be able to cut their head off and put it on a pike for public display. I strongly support a constitutional amendment to make this the law of the land.
That's right. IIRC, she needed skin grafts.
Yup, here's the wiki.
Hyperbole - THE BEST THING EVER
I think you've f*cked your legal system a bit because it's like, when something bad happens, you try to make laws so that "THIS SHALL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN!". And it's cool, and it drove you above other countries for a long time, being better than most. But many things in life are just uncontrollable... And lately it seems that your judicial system is getting raped from people with a desire to become rich because they fell from a wet floor.
The korean dudes did the right thing offering up to 10,000 bucks, but that judge is just a dick who wants to shut them down. For a f*cking pair of pants, man.
The man wears a bucket of KFC on his head. I wouldn't expect anything less. - Pred
Not to mention that the plaintiff never asked for that much money until after they treated her like crap.
The lawsuit was for her medical bills to the penny, and nothing more. The jury was the one who added the punitive damages in the millions, once it was clear that they were refusing to pay her medical bills and were so publicly indifferent to her well-being.
I really feel sorry for that woman. I've heard too many people over however long it's been vilifying her because she just wanted to get her body fixed to where it was before the incident and nothing more.
"Time traveling terrorists are no laughing matter, Malor." - *Legion* quote #30201
XBox Live: Novopain
I think the judge needs to realize that "Satisfaction Guaranteed" means the customer actually has to be reasonable.
If your not happy with one, find one of the other 50,000 dry cleaners around here. I use Zips... there are about 5 of those alone around here. At least 3 are metro accessible, making the car rental completely unnecessary. I just don't see how he could throw that in there with a straight face, especially in this area, with as much public transportation as we have. His pants are not so important that they need their own car.
What I don't understand (besides how this idiot became a judge), is how he got the 1200 days. The time line doesn't add up.
A) In 2002, they lost the first pair. This incident is, according to the article, not part of the lawsuit.
B) Three years later (Approx. 1095 days), they lose the second pair. Time should start here, as the first incident was settled, and he was continuing to use their services without complaint.
C) Even if B were to take place on 1January2005, that would only put us at around 875 days to today.
D) Given that the lawyers ask Pearson for the names of all dry cleaners with "Satisfaction Guaranteed" advertised on 1May2005, I'm assuming that was the day of the incident. That would put us around 736/737 days.
On top of this, how is he able to sue three people for one issue. I thought you could either sue the business, or the person responsible for the business. The way he's doing it is like suing every person in a hospital because the receptionist punched you.
IronClad Online: PurEvil
That's also how he gets the 1200 days; it's 400 days of dissatisfaction applied to 3 different people. It's pretty much ridiculous.
Coldstream wrote:
No, if that were the case, he'd be quite a bit short.
So...
Damages = $1500 per violation per day.
Violations = 12.
Days = [3 x 400] = 1200.
[12 x 1500] x 1200 = $21,600,000.
If you multiply this by 3 defendants, you get $64,800,000. It's still about $2.5million short, but that's a lot closer. Either he figured it for 3 extra people that don't exist, or he included about 500 days of satisfied service. Neither way is legal.
IronClad Online: PurEvil
Good point. That just makes it more retarded than I had previously thought. It also means I was cutting him slack he clearly didn't deserve.
Coldstream wrote:
you forgot to add the 'fluff'
So with that there is 52 weeks in a year so $15,000 x 52 = $780,000 + $500,000 + $542,000 = $1,822,000.00
Giving you a grand total of $66,622,000.00 and still leaving $670,000.00 left to factor in. So that still doesn't add up. Where is he getting his math from.
Fathgar - Feathermoon
wordsmythe - "Jesus would drive a Hummer and burn as much oil as possible, since the dinosaurs it's made out of seem to be confusing people.
Yeah, I figured there could possibly be a couple million of fluff (as stupid as this is so far), but not $46million.
And honestly, I must have skimmed over the fluff section. 10 years of rental car use means nothing when the only relevant incident to the case happened 2 years ago. It's a service he was using outside the influence of whether or not he needed his clothing dry cleaned. At this point, I'm surprised he didn't throw his rent on there... obviously he needs to live in this area to use their services...
$500k in emotional damage? It's a pair of f*cking pants. If I were the judge in this case, I wouldn't even give $500k if the cleaner had stabbed him.
I'm starting to believe that Pearson is mentally ill. It's the only explanation that makes any kind of sense.
IronClad Online: PurEvil
Especially considering he's a judge. The freaking robe covers everything. It wouldn't matter if he were freeballing it. No one would notice.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
MSNBC article about it.
There's a lot of people calling for his disbarment. Others are working to make sure his appointment isn't renewed.
He's blown this so far out of proportion that it's unlikely he'll get anything.
Hope the pants were worth it.
IronClad Online: PurEvil
This judge needs a good beat-down.
Fedaykin98 wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
Go vote here: Does this suit have a leg to stand on?
I'm not lost. I'm locationally challenged.
Spore Profile
fixed
Warrior Asherr
Hunter Ghorin
I like how there's a 100.4% response to the poll, with 98% responding in the negative and 2.4% in the positive.
Coldstream wrote:
Perhaps his vengeful bitterness comes from inferring there would be a "happy ending" included?
RIP ChronicNecrosis