I can't believe this is making it to court

[sparks19]

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.

$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 to put it nicely lol

[wombat2u2004]

Pearsons only after a quick dollar....nothing more and nothing less.
Wom

[joycenalex]

and he's pretty well killed his career too. he appears to be a nutjob with a mean streak

[lizbud]

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.

[king2005]

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...

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.

[lizbud]

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...

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.

That's right King. You have to have experienced it yourself to know what
it feels like.

[lady_zana]

$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 to put it nicely lol

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.

"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.

and he's pretty well killed hiw career too. he appears to be a nutjob with a mean streak

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.

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.

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

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.

[sparks19]

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 Even if it puts the owners of that business on the street.

[rosethecopycat]

Pants?

Tort Reform now, please.

[catnapper]

Oh my..... thats why I use Dryel! 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!

[lvpets2002]

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 ..

Oh my..... thats why I use Dryel! 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!

[Cataholic]

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.

[wombat2u2004]

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.
"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.
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
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.

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

[Cataholic]

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.

[lizbud]

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.

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.