Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

$54 Million Pants Lawsuit Reflects Both Bad and Good in America
Institute for Legal Reform ^ | 7/25/2007 | Lisa Rickard

Posted on 07/25/2007 11:37:06 AM PDT by MrLegalReform

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last
To: MrLegalReform

There’s nothing “good” about this whole stupid fiasco. The idiot who sued over a pair of pants should have to pay the total costs.


21 posted on 07/25/2007 12:51:19 PM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima
From the Washington Post:

Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay the Chungs' court costs -- likely to be a few thousand dollars -- to cover fees for filings, transcripts and similar expenses. But even bigger troubles loom. She said she will consider making Pearson also pay the couple's attorneys' fees arising from the two-year legal battle. With the legal costs likely to exceed $100,000, however, the Chungs aren't counting on Pearson being able to pay, Manning said.

The judge is also going to lose his job.

22 posted on 07/25/2007 12:52:52 PM PDT by Shryke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima
Look, we nailed Jerry Falwell for a few mil once (paid standard rate on checks with names ~ a terrible no-no ~ you must pay First-Class Mail rates on such items). He went to court.

Cost him a bundle.

Judge didn't understand the law so he let Jer slide ~ didn't have to pay the mil. On the other hand when Jer's lawyers asked for reimbursement for their fees the Judge let us slide.

As I recall the number was in 6 figures.

There weren't all that many lawyers involved in the case, and no one spent much time researching the law ~ it's pretty clear and no one had ever "won". Lot of it had to do with court costs. In the end, it gave Jer one "free" mailing and he didn't do that again.

Sometime after that case the federal courts first began allowing folks to submit data and published evidence on CDs, so I know Jer didn't get off easy. Imagine how much "evidence" there is in a mailing ~ it's huge.

Still, there's a vast industry located in downtown DC near the courts dedicated to PRINTING evidence that will be filed in federal court cases. They employ thousands of people and generate most of the large 18 wheel traffic in the vicinity of J street.

The courts need to be brought up to date and reduced in size. They also need more parking. Judges should be given no more space than the average federal employee (about 150 sq.ft. counting aisles and hallways).

Give 'em a few bucks payraise and they'll go for it ~ or maybe just give their kids scholarships for college. You can ask Scalia about that problem.

Lawyers are certainly part of the problem, but so are the court and associated costs. Chung's lawyers' claims are just the tip of the iceberg.

23 posted on 07/25/2007 1:03:25 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Shryke
Two year legal battle?!?! No way this judge (the court, not the plaintiff) should have let this suit go on as long as 2 years.

I would have set the case for trial in one week. Either bench or jury trial, over in 1 day.
24 posted on 07/25/2007 1:11:43 PM PDT by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I agree with you that federal courts need an overhaul. There are too many judges trying too few trials. And the nitpicky rules and costs are absurd.

Printing evidence? You mean instead of just photocopying? Why? Just because printing is a taxable cost and copying is not? That's low.
25 posted on 07/25/2007 1:15:08 PM PDT by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima
Photocopy or printing ~ depends on the machine you use. Drop your CD in the slot; the electronic photo/litho offset begins churning out all the copies you want, in nice, neat book form.

Yup, that's the stuff.

To qualify as "printing" I think they need only 2 copies. Whatever it is, it costs a lot, the federal courts consume vast mountains ofit, and so far I've never, ever seen a single lawyer read any of it.

26 posted on 07/25/2007 1:18:26 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

What a racket.


27 posted on 07/25/2007 1:27:11 PM PDT by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mark was here

No argument here.


28 posted on 07/25/2007 1:45:30 PM PDT by Right Cal Gal (Remember Billy Dale!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GeneralisimoFranciscoFranco
The putz who brought the suit.....death by Bula-Bula.

But first, let him entertain the Aristocrats.

29 posted on 07/25/2007 1:48:58 PM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima

“I mean, did they actually think that they were defending a $57 million suit?”

Not a suit. Pants.


30 posted on 07/25/2007 1:53:13 PM PDT by MIT-Elephant ("Armed with what? Spitballs?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MIT-Elephant

Good one.


31 posted on 07/25/2007 2:29:53 PM PDT by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima

Imagine how much the suit must cost.


32 posted on 07/25/2007 3:04:06 PM PDT by MIT-Elephant ("Armed with what? Spitballs?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Right Cal Gal
Depending on hourly rate and number of hours, this $83,000 could very well be termed reasonable.

Well, yes, I'm sure that there's a very well funded study to determine if the earth will continue to rotate over the next 48 hours, and the sun will rise again (least from the viewpoint of us on earth.)

If it takes $83k to come up with, file and deliver the counter: Your honor, the plaintiff is full of dung, then there is a serious need to completely destroy the legal system as we know it, and just start again.

33 posted on 07/25/2007 3:14:41 PM PDT by kingu (No, I don't use sarcasm tags - it confuses people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MIT-Elephant

Or a suit with 2 pair of pants.


34 posted on 07/25/2007 3:19:55 PM PDT by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RobinOfKingston
Loser paying the costs of the trial seems like it would have the potential to cut the number of court case to 10% or less.

There are some moral hazards associated with 'loser pays', since a side that expects to win has no incentive to minimize its own legal expenses.

35 posted on 07/25/2007 4:45:44 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: libs_kma

The judge hearing the case should have cut the whole thing off on Day 1. She should have sent Pearson for a court-ordered psych exam based on the absurdity of his initial filing and then dismissed the case when the obvious result was reported. There should never have been a day in court. Pearson is clearly seriously mentally ill. It made no more sense to allow this case to be heard, than to allow some ranter claiming “so-and-so turned me into a newt” to have a long drawn out court proceeding to consider the rant, and force the alleged newt-turner to hire defense attorneys.

The DC government should be picking up the tab for every cent of the Chungs’ legal expenses and a bundle more for their time and stress, and the judge who heard the case should be thrown off the bench. The DC government has a duty not to allow its judges to entertain frivolous lawsuits by obviously mentally unstable persons, at huge expense to perfectly innocent citizens.


36 posted on 07/25/2007 7:46:46 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mark was here

Nope. Bartnoff should pay (and lose her job). Pearson should be committed to a mental hospital where he belongs, and where Bartnoff should have sent him the minute she read his filing unless he agreed to drop the suit immediately.


37 posted on 07/25/2007 7:49:36 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Right Cal Gal

Unfortunately, the plaintiff is broke, and his prospects for future employment look mighty bleak. He couldn’t even get a job bagging fries at McDonald’s at this point. He is not a source of cash with which to compensate the Chungs.


38 posted on 07/25/2007 7:51:28 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kingu

It is not the fault of the Chungs or their attorneys that Judge Bartnoff allowed this insanity to drag on for 2 years. The suit was originally filed in May 2005, and although the 2 week trial didn’t start until June 2007, the Chungs’ attorneys were no doubt having to assemble evidence and file pre-trial motions in response to Pearson’s pre-trial motions and discovery demands. Certainly the Chungs’ attorneys filed multiple motions to dismiss, arguing essentially that “the plaintiff is full of dung”, but none of those motions caused Judge Bartnoff to dismiss the case. None of this should have been happening. It should have been stopped the minute a court official first laid eyes on Pearson’s initial filing.


39 posted on 07/25/2007 8:03:58 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson