http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19195543/
he needs this money for mental anguish? I can't say I have ever been that distressed over a lost pair of pants lol.
Printable View
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19195543/
he needs this money for mental anguish? I can't say I have ever been that distressed over a lost pair of pants lol.
If you read the story, he says he will use the rest of the money - after paying his legal costs - to educate people on their rights as consumers.
Not that this justifies his request, but he's not claiming that much in mental anguish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karen
$2 million is not much for "mental anguish" over a pair of pants?
and do you think this mom and pop shop has the money for the amount he wants to "educate" people?
I think he's just being a pompous horses butt :D to put it nicely lol
Pearsons only after a quick dollar....nothing more and nothing less.
Wom
and he's pretty well killed his career too. he appears to be a nutjob with a mean streak
I think the Judge had every right to sue over this. This incident probably
got on his last nerve. (He had been having family & financial problems at the
time & couldn't afford to lose any clothes). At least, that's the way the
article sounded to me.
thats how I read it too... I know what its like to have nothing to very little & when the tiniest thing is stolen, it feels like the end of the world, because you cannot replace it.. even if its only 50.00...Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
To me right now 50.00 is a LOT of money & if anything was stolen from me, I would he hard up & my anxiety would get really bad...
This man is under a lot of stress & the loss of the pants more then likely did cause a lot of mental stress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by king2005
That's right King. You have to have experienced it yourself to know what
it feels like. :(
I agree with you. This story has irked me since it came out. He was originally suing for $65 million and there was NO mention of him using any of the money to "educate" people until the ATA wanted to get him disbarred and that there was a public outcry over his greediness.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparks19
"Under cross-examination, Pearson said the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act, under which he is suing Custom Cleaners, should grant a customer whatever he or she wants if there is a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign."
Satisfaction Guaranteed doesn't mean wait on them hand-and-foot. There are a lot of things you won't get even with a Satisfaction Guaranteed sign. Think about it - what if he wouldn't be 'satistified' until a pair of pants that were size 2 fit him and he's a size 10 for example? "Satisfaction Guaranteed" has a lot of loopholes depending on the business.
The American Tort Association were trying to get him disbarred. I don't know how they are coming along with that now that he's changed his tune a bit but I wouldn't be upset if they did.Quote:
Originally Posted by joycenalex
This article didn't mention that the drycleaners tried to settle with three times for up to $12,000 if I'm not mistaken. And as for having only $1,000 to his name? Good for him! I DON'T have $1,000 to my name. My husband and I live paycheck-to-paycheck. I don't want to blast my finanical situation over the internet but just let me say if I had "$1,000 - $2,000" right now, I'd think I was rich and might have to get a little snotty on people :pQuote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
We've been in the position this man claims he's in - heck, we've been - and are - in worse positions. I've cried myself to sleep over money before when Mike was out of a job and we were surviving on his unemployment but we never sued anyone, especially over a pair of lost pants. When Mike was unemployed, our car was dying. We needed a new car badly; we didn't get one. Instead, we took it to a mechanic and they did the best they could. Was I "satisfied"? Well, according to that judge's standards - no. My 1994 Mitzi wasn't running like a 2007 Mustang which would have been preferrable. But I didn't sue them over it. We said thanks for doing your best, paid, and then prayed it would last until we could get a new one.
They ended up finding the pants.... he got the pants back. And if I was in dire straits financially I would have taken the settlements.... no sense putting a mom and pop out of business and putting them into my financial situation. and for the record I have struggled financially..... I understand it sucks to not be able to buy new clothes and barely be able to pay the bills.... but I am not going to make someone else pay for my misfortunes. But I definately wouldn't say that any of my "mental anguish" over bill payments or clothes was worth that much money. But I guess that's a great lesson for people to live by .... "if you are struggling just sue the pants off someone" (no pun intended) if only all those single mothers and families living in complete poverty had thought of that sooner.... we would have no mom and pop shops but we would all be millionaires.
I hope his $50 some million dollars makes him very happy :rolleyes: Even if it puts the owners of that business on the street.
Pants? :confused:
Tort Reform now, please. :mad:
Oh my..... thats why I use Dryel! :p I can't run the risk of losing the few good peices of clothing I have at the drycleaners, so I just take care of it myself.
Hmmmmm... can I sue my dryer's manufacturer for all my missing socks? I'm sure a lot of people would join me in a class action suit there! :rolleyes:
Lady Zana.Quote:
Originally Posted by lady_zana
What a VERY excellent post.
I am so glad that here in Australia, we don't have the kind of stupidity that is now so commonplace in the USA.
Thankyou for that read....it's nice to know that SOME Americans are for real.
Wom
Sure, the fantastic sounding nature of the suit IS an attention grabber. But, you have to look past that to understand the legal system. He is suing under the consumer sales practice act (what it is called in OH, I imagine each state might call it something different) for a couple of reasons (aka, 'theories). It isn't the AMOUNT of money that he is suing for that makes the conduct actionable, it is the theory. So, strip aside the money, and you have to here, as the value of the pants is minimal. If he would have said that his damages were strictly limited to the value of his pants, the case would have been over long ago- the defendant could have confessed judgment, paid the money into escrow(presuming the plaintiff wouldn't have taken it), and the case would have been dismissed.
The guy is suing because he can. Many people can't. Either the system is unaffordable to them, they don't have the staying power to finish, they just don't understand their rights, or, they feel 'bullied'. The Judge will make the determination as to the amount of damages (even if the Jury makes a determination). So, the dollar amount is simply a way to make these people wake up.
I imagine none of us know all the facts. Maybe these dry cleaners have gotten by a long time on this sort of practice. I dunno, and neither does anyone else.
But, to simply say the guy is an a$$ because of the amount of money he is suing for, or, WHY he claims he is suing isn't right. There are lots of cases that I see, weekly, that I say, "WTH?", BUT, my determination of worthiness isn't really the ONLY determination of worthiness.
I don't want anyone else determining just what in my life is worthy to persue. That is a slippery slope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataholic
Thanks for explaining this much better than I could.There are probably
many people who could recount their own horror stories about dry cleaners
and their "take it or leave it" attitude.
;) Thank you Kim.. Hey I cant afford the Dry Cleaning bill let alone the cost of cloths that have to go to the cleaners.. I am a big fan of Drye myself too.. The whole thing just Disgust me to no end.. Fine example this Judge is making to the public.. AAAAA Wipe ..Quote:
Originally Posted by catnapper
As I drove back from court this morning, I thought of an example that might drive home my point.
Many of us on this board, myself included, put no limit on the value of our pets' lives. No amount of money could 'make me whole' if I lost one of my beloved animals to the negligence of another. The justice system, in many states, DOES place a value, sadly, usually at the cost of the pet. I think this is wrong. Very wrong, and needs to be changed (an example of 'tort reform').
But, there are more people out there that have the 'get over it, it was just an animal' attitude. So, is their valuation of my 'loss' right? Not in my eyes.
So as to this situation. The slight twist here is that this guy is trying to send a message, and had this been a big chain retailer/manufacturer (uh, how about Iams, for example?), this would have been applauded by some, I imagine.
This truly is not about the value of the pants.
No, sadly it isn't !!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataholic
It's about an Administrative Law judge who knows the system, what he can get away with, by using the very laws in which he is proficient, and because of that he can unjustly enrich himself.
And why ???? Because he is upset about losing his pants ????
Come-on on now CH !!!!! This whole case reeks of unjust enrichment. To sue people and ruin their whole lives because of what probably was Honest Mistake is unimaginable.
What value do you put on someones hurt feelings???? $65 mil ????
How many times have you made mistakes in your life ???? And were those mistakes because of plain old stupidity ??? Or were they honest mistakes ???
And do you think for one moment that you should have lost everything you have ever worked for because of that ????
Wombat
Yeah!
This means that I can sue the movie studios after they advert a movie as being 4 stars!
Especially anthing with Robin Williams in it!
I'm offended Richard !!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
I believe movies should have a maximum of 3 stars in them.
Because of your comment....my quality of life has been ruined !!!!
Ohhhhhhhh...the HURT I am experiencing right now.
I'm suing.....for 85 million !!!! (We could of course....settle out of court for 75 cents) :rolleyes:
Wom
I read the article, but did not read through all of the posts.
My parents have owned a dry cleaners for almost 40 years....longer than I've been alive. If (and when...it has happened) they loose an article of clothing they would ask the customer to supply a receipt, or purchase a new like item and bring in that receipt and they would reimburse them for it. Sometimes people would claim an article of clothing was way more expensive than it was. That's why they request a receipt of some kind.
My dad has been sued before. I can't remember the details of the case, but I remember him having to go to court.
So it just seems to me this guy was angry at his own life situation and decided to take it out on someone else. I also don't understand why the owner of the cleaners didn't try to settle out of court. A $50 pair of pants doesn't seem worth going to court over, from the cleaners perspective. It'd be cheaper to pay the money for the pants than the amount the man is suing for. Like I said, maybe they didn't have the option to settle out of court???
Yes, there are people who will say 'it's just an animal; get another one' but I think most people would understand that while you could get another pet, it still wouldn't *be* your pet back. If one of my cats passed away, I could adopt another and I know I would love her as much as my old one but she still wouldn't be Grey Girl or Eepie, or any of my others. I think most people understand that animals have faces, and feelings, and souls. They aren't actually material objects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataholic
Pants are pants. You can replace pants. They are material objects. And none of the articles I read about mentioned that these pants had any other value, sentimental or otherwise, than any other pair of pants you could buy off the rack.
I know I am not a sentimental person; there are things in my house that if they got lost or stolen, I'd be upset over but nothing to the degree this man has went to over a pair of pants. I tried to think of something that meant that much to me and I couldn't. Even my wedding dress, if it got stolen or lost, I'd be sad over for a bit but then I'd be fine. I'm not the sort of person who needs the object to keep the memories. (Then again, if someone stole my metal Kingdom Keyblade, I'd have to come after them! :p )
Also, Iams is a large corporation; they have the money to defend themselves. Not that I mean you should never sue a mom-and-pop business but in this case, this man has deliberately ruined a family who had came to America trying to live the American Dream. There are things Iams should have done to protect the consumer and there are things this dryer cleaner should have done to protect the consumer. But Iams has literally thousands of people who let the ball drop, not a little family trying to make their rent.
This article doesn't mention it but the dry cleaners did try to settle out of court three times, the final time for around $12,000. The judge who is suing them refused to settle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taz_Zoee
Thank you, wombat. I'm glad to hear from you; I always enjoy your posts, especially the jokes you post. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
$54 million lawsuit over misplaced pair of pants goes to trial in Washington
WASHINGTON: Roy Pearson Jr. wanted to dress sharp for his new job as an administrative law judge here. So when his neighborhood dry cleaner misplaced a pair of expensive pants he had planned to wear his first week on the bench, Pearson was annoyed.
So annoyed that he sued - for $67.3 million.
The case of the judge's pants, which opened for trial in a packed courtroom here Tuesday, has been lampooned on talk radio and on the Internet as an example of American legal excess. And it has spurred complaints to the District of Columbia Bar and to city officials from national tort reform and trial lawyer groups worried about its effect on public trust in the legal system.
"I don't know of any other cases that have been quite this ridiculous," said Paul Rothstein, a professor of law at Georgetown University.
The trial, laced with references to inseam measurements, pants cuffs and designer labels, got off to a rocky start. Judge Judith Bartnoff of District of Columbia Superior Court limited Pearson's last-minute bid to broaden aspects of his case and cut short his efforts to portray himself as a "private attorney general" championing the rights of every Washington consumer.
"You are not a we, you are an I," Bartnoff said in one of several testy exchanges with Pearson, 57, who is representing himself. "You are seeking damages on your own behalf, and that is all."
Later, while recounting the day he says the cleaners tried to pass off a cheaper pair of pants as his, Pearson began to cry, asking for a break and dabbing tears as he left the courtroom.
The lawsuit dates to the spring of 2005. Pearson, a longtime legal aid lawyer, was appointed to a new job as a District of Columbia administrative law judge.
Pearson says in court papers that he owned exactly five suits, all Hickey Freemans, one for each day of the workweek. But the waistlines had grown "uncomfortably tight." So he brought the suits to Custom Dry Cleaners, in a strip mall in gritty northeast Washington, for alterations.
When the owners, Korean immigrants who came to the United States in 1992, could not find one pair of pants, Pearson demanded $1,150 for a replacement suit. The owners did not respond; he sued.
Using a complicated formula, Pearson argues that under the city's consumer protection law, the owners, Soo and Jin Chung and their son, Ki Chung, each owe $18,000 for each day over a nearly four-year period in which signs at their store promised "Same Day Service" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed."
In opening statements, Pearson cast himself as a victim of fraud on a historic scale, perpetrated by malicious business owners who had no intention of delivering on those promises.
"You will search the D.C. archives in vain for a case of more egregious or willful conduct," he told the court. He called a series of witnesses who complained of rude or unresponsive treatment at Custom Dry Cleaners.
The defendants' lawyer, Christopher Manning, told the judge that his clients were the victims. He characterized Pearson as a man embittered by financial woes and a recent divorce who had nursed a grudge against the Chungs since a spat over a different pair of pants in 2002.
Manning said there was no mystery about the whereabouts of the pants: They have been hanging in his office closet for a year. Pearson, however, has said that those are "cheap" knockoffs the Chungs had substituted for his pinstriped Hickey Freemans.
He has rejected three settlement offers, the latest, in March, for $12,000. Last week, Pearson revised a few claims and lowered his damages request to $54 million.
Pearson's future as an administrative law judge is in limbo. His two-year term expired on May 2, and a panel has yet to decide on his reappointment. In the meantime, he remains on the city payroll as an attorney adviser to the Office of Administrative Hearings, at a salary of $100,512.
OMG....haven't the courts in USA enuf REAL issues to handle ????
The world is watching.......and LAUGHING !!!!!!!
Wom
quote:
"OMG....haven't the courts in USA enuf REAL issues to handle ????
The world is watching.......and LAUGHING !!!!!!!
Wom "
You might be getting a kick out of it, but I doubt the WORLD cares one
way or the other. :D
You must admit tho LB......this IS bordering on the ridiculous !!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
Wom
Well, I didn't realize they had tried to settle out of court three times. I also didn't realize this man is a judge!! That explains a lot.
And yes, it is becoming ridiculous!! So you don't like that dry cleaners.....go somewhere else!!! Is that the only dry cleaners in the state??
This has gotten blown up way out of proportion, IMO. I just keep thinking something like this could happen to my parents. That's not cool.
LOLOLOLOL,
What a PW.
Crying over a pair of pants?
I can see where he is upset that the pair of pants that the cleaners had were not his.
His pair had a hole in the rear so he could duck his head into them.
----------------------------------
Any man who would make a big deal outta a pair of pinstriped Hinky Peeman pants doesn't deserve the time of day.
But then again, anyone who has to namedrop the brand of pants they wear deserves a little ridicule.
-------------------------------
Next we will see suits for people who have lost their minds or their virginity.
-------------------------------
I love the line about a person who represents himself as having a fool for a client.
I think we can amend the client to triple AH, in this case!
LOLOLOLOLQuote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
[QUOTE=RICHARD]
Next we will see suirs for people who have lost their minds or their virginity.
HEY! i got an idea..... :eek:
naw i got too much common sense to do something like that
[QUOTE=joycenalex]Careful JNA. Common sense is now a sueable offence.... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
Wom
Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
It doesn't matter if we think it's ridiculous, the law allows it to be
considered. If we don't like it, we can vote to change the law. I for
one, am glad that these laws exist.Who knows, I might want to use
this process one day for myself. ;)
Well thats fine, so long as you and everyone else are REASONABLY responsible for your/their own actions. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
Wom
Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
How kind of you to allow me a right under OUR laws. :p
Well.....I am a giving sort of a person you know !!!! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
Wom