Posted on 06/25/2007 7:56:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
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.
Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs after he claimed they lost a pair of suit trousers and later tried to return a pair that he said was not his. He arrived at the figure by adding up years of law violations and almost $2 million in common law claims. Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.
Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, countered that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to be an unconditional promise of satisfaction.
The two-day trial earlier this month drew a standing-room-only crowd, including many Korean and international media outlets covering the story. It even overshadowed the drunken driving trial of former Mayor Marion Barry.
The Chungs also said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule.
Judge should be impeached and sent to mental hospital.
Seems to me that the lawyer is the one who should be ridiculed here. A new pair of pants doesn't cost $67 million.
"99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name."
I hope he now sues the producers of the movie “The Never Ending Story.”
Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. should be ashamed of himself. He used his legal experience in a most heinous fashion and should have his license to practice law revoked.
Not only that, he’s a class A a**hole.
Does it mean the guy who brought the suit has to be something to the dry cleaners for the money they spent defending themselves?
And the fun continues. This claim could be the basis for an abuse of process/malicious prosecution lawsuit. I don't think the Chungs were the ones who were ridiculed; it was that idiotic fatheaded overreaching grasping greedy sleazy slimey lawyer who got all the boos.
Marion Barry drinking and driving?
Imagine that.
He’s an “administrative law judge” (high salaried clerk)
“are awarded the costs of this action “
What are “costs”?
Do they include lawyer’s fees?
Gregg Jarret from FOX News Channel said no
The judge should lose his shirt.
i think the Chungs should have to pay for the lost trousers...
No. Cost are usually small amounts, related filing fees, the cost of having a brief or an appendix printed, if that's requrired, and so forth, but costs specifically do not include attorney's fees.
Huh?
The judge filed a frivolous lawsuit
“Cost are usually small amounts, related filing fees, the cost of having a brief or an appendix printed, if that’s requrired, and so forth, but costs specifically do not include attorney’s fees.”
Could the judge have awarded the costs and the lawyer’s fees both? It seems like that would be a way to keep these kinds of frivolous from being so commonplace.
Which only goes to prove you shouldn’t try to take the cleaners to the cleaners.
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.