NationStates Jolt Archive

He lost, and even better, (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_fe_st/67_million_pants;_ylt=AquAY3nRsBRiaQ61eXVJpHis0NUE) he has to pay the legal fees of the guy he sued.
WASHINGTON - A judge on Monday ruled in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants in a case that garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform.

District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the Korean immigrant owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign that was once placed in the store window.

"Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr.," the ruling read.
Not only did the system work, apparently, but the judge who filed the suit hopefully learned that you can't always bully people and get away with it. Good news.

Serves the eejit right.

Cheers for keeping us up to date Nazz.

ha ha

Huzzah, another ridiculous lawsuit dealt with. Hopefully this will deter people from running for a lawyer every time something doesn't go their way.

Yeah occasionally a frivolous law suit is avoided. Now watch him sue the judge who made the ruling for emotional distress.

Yeah occasionally a frivolous law suit is avoided. Now watch him sue the judge who made the ruling for emotional distress.

And with any luck he'll have to pay the judges fees too. And who's going to know where to find the most expensive lawyer, if not a judge?

Do the cleaners get anything from this at all?

Do the cleaners get anything from this at all?

They don't have to pay their lawyers and they get something to laugh at for years to come.

Do the cleaners get anything from this at all?

Publicity?

Do the cleaners get anything from this at all?

Covers their legal fees, which are probably sizable by now.

Covers their legal fees, which are probably sizable by now.

Can't they claim for the stress, etc this has put them through?

Can't they claim for the stress, etc this has put them through?

I'm going to pretend no, because it's good for my ickle brain.

He lost, and even better, (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_fe_st/67_million_pants;_ylt=AquAY3nRsBRiaQ61eXVJpHis0NUE) he has to pay the legal fees of the guy he sued.

Not only did the system work, apparently, but the judge who filed the suit hopefully learned that you can't always bully people and get away with it. Good news.
It's a shame it wasn't dismissed as frivolous at the start.

If we did have a loser-pays system, as I've advocated forever, I think we would see far fewer people trying for a jackpot award on a flimsy case.

Can't they claim for the stress, etc this has put them through?

I think--and I could be very wrong on this--that that would require a countersuit at the time of the original suit. Better to wait for one of the lawyer types to comment on it.

Yeah occasionally a frivolous law suit is avoided. Now watch him sue the judge who made the ruling for emotional distress.

except you can't.

He should have been taken to the cleaners for this...

I think--and I could be very wrong on this--that that would require a countersuit at the time of the original suit. Better to wait for one of the lawyer types to comment on it.
In construction, and similar work, it's very common to have a counter-claim entered.

Say we do some work for X. X isn't happy with what we've done, even though it satisfies a contract. X doesn't pay us. We sue X for non-payment and then X sues us for failure to produce what we promised.

I suppose this could carry over into any service type business.

I think--and I could be very wrong on this--that that would require a countersuit at the time of the original suit. Better to wait for one of the lawyer types to comment on it.

i cant imagine they would want to spend even another hour in court even if it was something they could win.

It's a shame it wasn't dismissed as frivolous at the start.

If we did have a loser-pays system, as I've advocated forever, I think we would see far fewer people trying for a jackpot award on a flimsy case.

I agree- this should have been dealt with immediately and harshly.

I feel its a disgrace-This plaintiff has knowledge of the system and the reprecussions of his action. He should be penalized.

I think it was abuse of the system on his part for the sole purpose of some half assed notoriety and attention.

Next week,he'll try a finger in the chili stunt.

I think--and I could be very wrong on this--that that would require a countersuit at the time of the original suit. Better to wait for one of the lawyer types to comment on it.

No, not exactly. Or at least, I'm assuming not, assuming state law roughly mirrors federal civil procedure laws (which they typically do).

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 13(a), which deals with compulsory counter claims states:

A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.

Which is to say the counter claim would only HAVE to be brought at the time of the original filing IF the matter for which they counter claimed was directly related to the matter for which the original claim was brought. The original claim had to do with the loss of the pants, so the only compulsary counter claims that HAD to be brought at that time would relate to that particular matter.

Rule 13(b) states that

A pleading may state as a counterclaim any claim against an opposing party not arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim.

It says MAY state, doesn't have to. Counter claims for things of that nature, not directly related to the matter for which the original suit was brought are permissible, but not compulsory, it's not a "do it or lose it" situation like compulsory counter claims. He COULD have brought it, but he didn't have to at that time. He has until the statue of limitations for that particular claim runs out to file suit.

He lost, and even better, (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_fe_st/67_million_pants;_ylt=AquAY3nRsBRiaQ61eXVJpHis0NUE) he has to pay the legal fees of the guy he sued.

Not only did the system work, apparently, but the judge who filed the suit hopefully learned that you can't always bully people and get away with it. Good news.

good :D

No, not exactly. Or at least, I'm assuming not, assuming state law roughly mirrors federal civil procedure laws (which they typically do).

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 13(a), which deals with compulsory counter claims states:



Which is to say the counter claim would only HAVE to be brought at the time of the original filing IF the matter for which they counter claimed was directly related to the matter for which the original claim was brought. The original claim had to do with the loss of the pants, so the only compulsary counter claims that HAD to be brought at that time would relate to that particular matter.

Rule 13(b) states that



It says MAY state, doesn't have to. Counter claims for things of that nature, not directly related to the matter for which the original suit was brought are permissible, but not compulsory, it's not a "do it or lose it" situation like compulsory counter claims. He COULD have brought it, but he didn't have to at that time. He has until the statue of limitations for that particular claim runs out to file suit.

Counterclaims are most often made when the defendant answers, right?

Counterclaims are most often made when the defendant answers, right?

typically yes

If we did have a loser-pays system, as I've advocated forever, I think we would see far fewer people trying for a jackpot award on a flimsy case.

One thing though, with this system, how do you deal with those against legitimate claims against large companies who would just employ stall tactics until the plaintiff ran out of money, and then slap them with the legal bill?

Yeah occasionally a frivolous law suit is avoided. Now watch him sue the judge who made the ruling for emotional distress.

It wasnt avoided though-It WAS defeated, but not avoided.

If I'm not mistaken, I read or heard that this has dragged on for two years.

If this plaintiff had complained about one-or possibly two pairs that of pants that were allegedly lost and demanded compensation of $200.00 or $300.00, we would nver have heard about this and it likely would have been settled in small claims for $100.00 or so.
That would have been reasonable and expected. Show you suffered a loss,establish its value and get paid or settle.

The plaintiff was seeking "emotional damages" ?? Did his mother knot them from her own hair before she died?

He was also naming legal fees and was representing himself.

I wonder how much representing he did on tax-payer's time?

I imagine the defendant's business could establish that they were injured financially by this action. They most likely suffered emotional stress-anger and outrage at having to defend themselves from this type of unecessary action.

I hope they dont-I dont think we need one more stupid story being repeated over and over again on all the news outlets.

I hope business picked up for them because of it-I hope new people brought their busienss there for the absurd novelty of it.

I imagine the defendant's business could establish that they were injured financially by this action. They most likely suffered emotional stress-anger and outrage at having to defend themselves from this type of unecessary action.

I hope they dont-I dont think we need one more stupid story being repeated over and over again on all the news outlets.

I hope business picked up for them because of it-I hope new people brought their busienss there for the absurd novelty of it.

I just want them to get revenge on the plaintiff and make him suffer

I just want them to get revenge on the plaintiff and make him suffer

Read this report:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=bizarre&id=5389441


If its at all true, the cleaners made many efforts and offers to rectify this in a fair and reasonable manner.

Read this report:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=bizarre&id=5389441


If its at all true, the cleaners made many efforts and offers to rectify this in a fair and reasonable manner.

I don't understand. I'm saying I want the cleaners to punish the other guy :confused:

I imagine the defendant's business could establish that they were injured financially by this action. They most likely suffered emotional stress-anger and outrage at having to defend themselves from this type of unecessary action.

I hope they dont-I dont think we need one more stupid story being repeated over and over again on all the news outlets.

I hope business picked up for them because of it-I hope new people brought their busienss there for the absurd novelty of it.

Living in the DC area, I have heard people who started frequenting thier business because of the case. The owners were quite distressed over the matter, but I am pretty sure that they will come out as winners in the end.

He lost, and even better, (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_fe_st/67_million_pants;_ylt=AquAY3nRsBRiaQ61eXVJpHis0NUE) he has to pay the legal fees of the guy he sued.

Not only did the system work, apparently, but the judge who filed the suit hopefully learned that you can't always bully people and get away with it. Good news.

Every once in a while, justice prevails. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. :)

Just shows how flawed "justice" is.

Just shows how flawed "justice" is.

how, exactly? he lost, they won. Seems fair to me.

how, exactly? he lost, they won. Seems fair to me.

Because of their unprofessional attitude towards a customer, they lost his property. They owe him.

I don't understand. I'm saying I want the cleaners to punish the other guy :confused:

Sorry- I wasnt challenging what you said or correcting you, I was just adding to it like a conversation. I shouldnt have quoted you-Now I see it looks like a rebuttal of some sort.

Sorry about that.

Sorry- I wasnt challenging what you said or correcting you, I was just adding to it like a conversation. I shouldnt have quoted you-Now I see it looks like a rebuttal of some sort.

Sorry about that.

No problem. :)

Because of their unprofessional attitude towards a customer, they lost his property. They owe him.

right, ok. FAG does this little bit of trolling better than you, by the way.

ps: they returned his pants

Because of their unprofessional attitude towards a customer, they lost his property. They owe him.

Dinner, maybe. $54 million is a bit... steep. Unless they're Jesus' pants. :p

right, ok. FAG does this little bit of trolling better than you, by the way.
I wasn't trolling.
ps: they returned his pants

PS: He believes they aren't his pants.

They owe.

Dinner, maybe. $54 million is a bit... steep. Unless they're Jesus' pants. :p

But what would have Jesus done? He probably wouldn't have sued them that's for sure.

Dinner, maybe. $54 million is a bit... steep. Unless they're Jesus' pants. :p

Jesus wore pants? :eek:

Jesus wore pants? :eek:

Sure. That's why they killed him. Pants Envy. *nod*

But what would have Jesus done? He probably wouldn't have sued them that's for sure.

Jesus wouldn't use a dry cleaner. He did his own laundry. *nod*

I hope that guy dies.

Jesus wouldn't use a dry cleaner. He did his own laundry. *nod*

He wouldn't do laundry; his laundry would magically stay clean. ;)

I hope that guy dies.

Bit harsh

I hope that guy dies.

Why? Everybody likes a toasty pair in the morning.:)

PS: He believes they aren't his pants.

They owe.

They offered, I believe, $12,000; for the pair of pants that they believed they returned; just because he wasn't happy. These people have gone to insane lengths to accomodate this b@$#ard. As far as I'm concerned, he is not owed anything. When you so stubbornly reject the incredibly generous overtures from the other party, then get your arrogant butt rejected in a court of law, you have given up your right to anything you may have once been owed.

They offered, I believe, $12,000; for the pair of pants that they believed they returned; just because he wasn't happy. These people have gone to insane lengths to accomodate this b@$#ard. As far as I'm concerned, he is not owed anything. When you so stubbornly reject the incredibly generous overtures from the other party, then get your arrogant butt rejected in a court of law, you have given up your right to anything you may have once been owed.

He,and those that bring actions similar to him, need to be penalized for wasting time and causing unecessary aggravation.

If the reports are true, the defendants in this case DID make very appropriate and reasonable efforts to rectify,on more than one occaision.

I wasn't trolling.


PS: He believes they aren't his pants.

They owe.I believe they also tried to settle the claim for $15k at one point.

They tried to reimburse him, but he wouldn't have it.

He claims they weren't his pants, that $15k wasn't enough, but that $54M was.

Why are you defending this guy? I bet it's because he's black. :p Dont' even attempt to take this last part seriously

One thing though, with this system, how do you deal with those against legitimate claims against large companies who would just employ stall tactics until the plaintiff ran out of money, and then slap them with the legal bill?
There's never going to be a solution that satisfies everyone. But let's use loser pays as a starting point and the cost rule for the overwhelming majority of cases.

For those cases that have merit and for which the parties are unequally matched financially, provide a TBD method for the court to do two things.
1. The courts must keep costs in proportion to the dispute.
2. The courts must be able to provide funding to those who do not have the means to pursue a meritorious case.

Despite the similarity that this new policy bears to the public defender system, I would apply it only to civil cases.

I believe they also tried to settle the claim for $15k at one point.

They tried to reimburse him, but he wouldn't have it.

He claims they weren't his pants, that $15k wasn't enough, but that $54M was.

Why are you defending this guy? I bet it's because he's black. :p Dont' even attempt to take this last part seriously

I think it's because the dry cleaners are Korean. Ditto for me

There's never going to be a solution that satisfies everyone. But let's use loser pays as a starting point and the cost rule for the overwhelming majority of cases.

For those cases that have merit and for which the parties are unequally matched financially, provide a TBD method for the court to do two things.
1. The courts must keep costs in proportion to the dispute.
2. The courts must be able to provide funding to those who do not have the means to pursue a meritorious case.

Despite the similarity that this new policy bears to the public defender system, I would apply it only to civil cases.

A system such as this brings up a couple of very important points:
1. What is proportional to a dispute? Would any deference be made for technical cases involving labwork, large-scale monitoring, epidemiology, etc that can cost millions?
2. How would we pay for public funding of meritorious cases? Who decides whether something is "meritorious"? If we have a completely other court system for deciding merit, how will we keep the undue influence of money from creeping into that system if we don't fund both sides, but we can't because haven't yet figured out whether the case is meritorious? How could we ever broaden liability for externalities if such a system were based on precedent?

The consumer safety that we have today is founded on lawsuits that were brought that held producers liable for the damage they caused. When they were originally brought to suit, these lawsuits had no precedent, how could anyone establish merit without going through a trial? It's easy to say that all these bogus lawsuits should be stopped, but remember that many of these sorts of lawsuits are responsible for safe food, reliable consumer products, safe cars, and a host of other goods that we take for granted. A lot of people like to complain about the added cost of consumer goods for these lawsuits. Every day, I thank god for it. That added cost is what I pay for the assurance that I won't be killed by the negligence of executives out to get rich, no matter how many people are hurt. It's the old saying "Our system is the worst in the whole world, except for all the others."