"The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever," Judge Judith Bartnoff has ruled in response to Roy Pearson's notorious $54 million lawsuit over a pair of temporarily misplaced suit pants. Pearson will have to pay his dry cleaners' court costs, may have to pay their legal fees, and could be out of his job as a D.C. administrative law judge. Unlike Pearson's transaction with the cleaners, the outcome of this case is pretty satisfying.
Suitable End to Suit Suit
Comments to "Suitable End to Suit Suit":
Pro Libertate | June 25, 2007, 1:31pm | #
Off with his head!highnumber | June 25, 2007, 1:34pm | #
I wonder how things are for Lamar and his cleaner these days.Wow, a plaintiff finaly gets nailed for a frivolous lawsuitt. Bottoms up!
Ken | June 25, 2007, 1:39pm | #
"Wow, a plaintiff finaly gets nailed for a frivolous lawsuitt. Bottoms up!"Shit, this is the NORM brother, if you have evidence otherwise, PRODUCE! The news report every crazy lawsuit in order to induce the mindset "boy, those couts are crazy" and then soft-peddle the dismissals, which are inevitable. Jesus, research and read a little before you have a fit!
Dave W. | June 25, 2007, 1:40pm | #
Today my patent law blog has the interesting story of a patent lawyer who got his license yanked for basically trying to clean up a previous patent lawyer's malpractice mess:http://fedcirpatentcaseblurbs.blogspot.com/2007/06/21-june-07-precedential.html
Worth a read for all of you caveat emptor fans out there.
Also worth a read for those who think that mandatory bar memberships are nothing but meaningless barriers to entry.
also worth a read for those concerned that the law is more concerned with instilling respect for authoritah than with real harms to the public.
Interesting case all 'round really.
emmajane | June 25, 2007, 1:41pm | #
Not bottoms up--he's not wearing any pants!!I think he should have to pay the cleaner restitution.
J sub D | June 25, 2007, 1:45pm | #
Shit, this is the NORM brother, if you have evidence otherwise, PRODUCE! The news report every crazy lawsuit in order to induce the mindset "boy, those couts are crazy" and then soft-peddle the dismissals, which are inevitable. Jesus, research and read a little before you have a fit!http://www.legalzoom.com/articles/article_content/article11331.html
Bot, that didn't take long!
jet | June 25, 2007, 1:45pm | #
I'm glad the case is over so that I don't have to read any more clever (and no so clever) headlines about dry cleaning. I was about ready to suit myself.D.A. Ridgely | June 25, 2007, 1:45pm | #
That's what he gets for pressing his own suit.Jake Boone | June 25, 2007, 1:51pm | #
I find the outcome of the case quite suitable.Jake Boone | June 25, 2007, 1:52pm | #
That's what he gets for pressing his own suit.I retract my previous comment. D.A. Ridgely wins the thread. I can't compete with that.
J sub D | June 25, 2007, 1:53pm | #
That's what he gets for pressing his own suit.Or not pressing his own suit.
mk | June 25, 2007, 1:55pm | #
I think he should have to pay the cleaner restitution.Indeed. Those cleaners should take him to the cleaners.
Isaac Bartram | June 25, 2007, 2:03pm | #
Hallelujah!!!Yes, I realize that we only get to hear the Page One story about the filing of frivolous lawsuits but rarely hear the Page Twenty-six story about its usually satisfactory outcome But this sounds good to me.
Someone should have mentioned Seinfeld's classic skit on dry cleaning.
jet | June 25, 2007, 2:07pm | #
It was a pants suit, not a suit suit.ed | June 25, 2007, 2:09pm | #
"Satisfactory" outcome?When he has remitted court costs, paid the cleaners' legal fees, then is run over by a bus.
Marcvs | June 25, 2007, 2:11pm | #
So why didn't he take the settlement?Because he's a fucking lawyer.
VM | June 25, 2007, 2:12pm | #
He can always switch to URKOBOLD's Cleaning and Drop Off Service (hier)Dave W. | June 25, 2007, 2:25pm | #
Since I started following Hit'n'Run, I can think of three litigations that were basically reported here as frivolous:1. this lawsuit
2. the suit against KFC for allegedly faulty transfat labelling.
3. the suits against MERCK for VIOXX.
I would say that in all three instances, the courts have basically gotten it right. Maybe someday there will be a new lawsuit that is both: (i) actually frivolous; and (ii) actually hurts somebody other than the bringer of the frivolous suit.
But maybe they would get better if we applied a little stain-stick to them.
M | June 25, 2007, 2:31pm | #
How ironical. How fitting. I hope he's solvent.Hannibal Lecter | June 25, 2007, 2:34pm | #
He can always switch to URKOBOLD's Cleaning and Drop Off Service (hier)Putting profits before people again, eh, Urkobold? That is something I never do.
Chucklehead | June 25, 2007, 2:49pm | #
The plaintiff Shout(ed) while the defendants Cheer(ed). This is indeed a new Era.Chucklehead's gofer | June 25, 2007, 2:55pm | #
And the Tide is turning.It ain't over until Snuggles the Fabric Softening Bear has his way with him!
M | June 25, 2007, 4:20pm | #
The judge was worsted in the suit because he didn't try it himself.gorgonzola's foil | June 25, 2007, 4:47pm | #
This should perc up their spirits at the cleaners. They should stay financially solvent in the future from all this exposure.(unfortunately I couldn't figure out a suitable pun re: perchloroethylene and perjury or perp-walk for the judge in question... this was the best I could do)
Toxic | June 25, 2007, 5:12pm | #
Even if the judge coughs up all the legal fees and such that he is supposed to pay, I'm pretty sure, nay postive, the Chungs would rather have not had to deal with this bullcrap at all. So they are still hurt by this lawsuit. And he can probably still appeal, though that won't go anywhere.As to why he didn't take the settlement--- dude's crazy. Simple as that. Think Ahab, but replace the arm with a pair of pants and the great white whale for a small business.
Toxic | June 25, 2007, 5:16pm | #
Also, the untold story about the Mcdonald's coffee lady is that the coffee was super hot, like far beyond what hot coffee is served at and into boiling temperature.So, while she shouldn't have been opening it in her lap, the coffee shouldn't have been able to create 3rd degree burns either. So that case actually has some meat too it, I wouldn't say it was totally frivolous.
Not saying the legal system is perfect, cause its not. But more often than not things work out in at least a defensible way.
VM | June 25, 2007, 5:26pm | #
"So that case actually has some meat too it"yes - medium-well meat...
*ambles off
NaG | June 25, 2007, 6:42pm | #
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that Pearson will be able to pay the Chung's legal bills. He became an administrative law judge in April 2005, and was pretty much maxed out on his credit cards and nearly broke at that time.At one point, the Chungs offered $12,000 to settle this case. Why anyone would offer that much over a pair of pants from a $1000 suit makes me wonder whether there is real credence to the allegation that the pair of pants presented as The Missing Pants at trial really were not, in fact, Pearson's. He may have been entitled to, say, $500 or so. But instead he was such a moron that I am quite pleased with him not only getting nothing, but likely being sanctioned in a plethora of ways to boot. He can say goodbye to his ALJ position, and very likely may lose his law licenses too, all in addition to paying the Chungs attorneys fees and potential sanctions for filing frivolous claims.
Dr. K. | June 25, 2007, 6:51pm | #
Also, the untold story about the Mcdonald's coffee lady is that the coffee was super hot, like far beyond what hot coffee is served at and into boiling temperature.You're aware coffee is made by pouring boiling water over ground-up roasted coffee beans, right? It's supposed to be near-boiling hot.
M | June 25, 2007, 6:55pm | #
I still don't understand why the court didn't test the pants for his DNA. There was a lot of $ at stake. (Insert deep-pockets joke.)Seamus | June 25, 2007, 7:24pm | #
Also, the untold story about the Mcdonald's coffee lady is that the coffee was super hot, like far beyond what hot coffee is served at and into boiling temperature.It was served at about 185 degrees F, which seems about right, given that people who care about coffee say it should be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees F:
http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/1thebasics.html#besttemp
M | June 25, 2007, 9:36pm | #
In the summer a dog wears a coat and pants.= My favorite joke since third grade.
Toxic | June 26, 2007, 11:49am | #
Yeah, I know coffee is made very hot; they served it far hotter than normal.Hell, I'm just regurgitating what my torts professor said, wtf do I know.
This is great. I'm not pissed at Pearson for suing the dry cleaners. They acted like sleazy f*cks. But nothing makes me happier than seeing a plaintiff turn down a reasonable settlement offer (or, in this case, 20x a reasonable offer) then get nothing. While I find it sad that so many sympathize with liars, cheaters and fraudsters, Pearson went way overboard. I sympathize with Pearson to the extent that he sued the dry cleaners for attempting to defraud him and probably any other customer in his situation. But this wasn't a simple lawsuit. Pearson tried to shut these people down. That's not something he was entitled to do unless he can prove a huge string of frauds. He lost my respect the second he thought he was entitled to more than, say, the cost of a replacement suit and maybe a few cab rides. Highnumber, thanks for the concern. I haven't gotten dry cleaning since I stopped working to focus on my move to FL. I stopped showering too, but that's a separate issue.
dj of raleigh | June 27, 2007, 2:02am | #
He'll appeal