Jacob Sullum | June 25, 2007
"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.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
"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!
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.
Not bottoms up--he's not wearing any pants!!
I think he should have to pay the cleaner restitution.
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!
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.
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.
I think he should have to pay the cleaner restitution.
Indeed. Those cleaners should take him to the cleaners.
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.
I hope someone has added Judge Bartnoff to their list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
"Satisfactory" outcome?
When he has remitted court costs, paid the cleaners' legal fees,
then is run over by a bus.
When he has remitted court costs, paid the cleaners' legal
fees, then is run over by a bus.
You forgot about his estate paying for the damage to the bus and
compensation to the bus driver for "psychological distress."
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.
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.
The plaintiff Shout(ed) while the defendants Cheer(ed). This is indeed a new Era.
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)
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.
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.
"So that case actually has some meat too it"
yes - medium-well meat...
*ambles off
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.
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.
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.)
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
In the summer a dog wears a coat and pants.
= My favorite joke since third grade.
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.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245