This thread is about $67 million PANTS!

[DeeBye]

Before I post the link, I just want to say that I didn't know whether to yell angrily or laugh like an idiot when I first read this story. It's one of those things that's so ridiculously absurd that you think it just has to be fake.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3119381

A $10 dry cleaning bill for a pair of trousers has ballooned into a $67 million civil lawsuit.

Plaintiff Roy Pearson, a judge in Washington, D.C., says in court papers that he's been through the ringer over a lost pair of prized pants he wanted to wear on his first day on the bench.

He says in court papers that he has endured "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort."

He says he was unable to wear that favorite suit on his first day of work.

He's suing for 10 years of weekend car rentals so he can transport his dry cleaning to another store.

The lawsuit is based in large part on Pearson's seemingly pained admission that he was taken in by the oldest and most insidious marketing tool in the dry cleaning industry arsenal.

"Satisfaction Guaranteed."

Pearson did not return numerous calls from ABC News for comment.

It's the kind of lawsuit that makes liability reform advocates' temples throb.

"People in America are now scared of each other," legal expert Philip Howard told ABC News' Law & Justice Unit. "That's why teachers won't put an arm around a crying child, and doctors order unnecessary tests, and ministers won't meet with parishioners. It's a distrust of justice and it's changing our culture."

The civil trial, set for June, has the scope of a John Grisham courtroom thriller and the societal importance of a traffic ticket.

Pearson plans to call 63 witnesses.

Defending themselves against the suit -- for two years running -- are Korean immigrants Jin and Soo Chung and their son, who own Custom Cleaners and two other dry cleaning shops in the Fort Lincoln section of Washington, D.C.

The ABC News Law & Justice Unit has calculated that for $67 million Pearson could buy 84,115 new pairs of pants at the $800 value he placed on the missing trousers in court documents. If you stacked those pants up, they would be taller than eight Mount Everests. If you laid them side by side, they would stretch for 48 miles.

Please read the rest of the report. It just gets better and better. This guy is a judge, and he's suing his local mom 'n pop dry cleaners for $67 MILLION because they lost his pants. Those must be really special pants. The dry cleaners have offered to settle for $12,000, but the suing judge said no. This case has been ongoing for years, and the defendants have been racking up legal bills.

I really like the fact that he's asking for $15,000 for rental car fees to take his dry cleaning to another location. There is no way in hell that a judge owns his own car, no way whatsoever.

[Crusader]

Only in America. :P

[Munkay]

This story has been circulating the various press outlets for a few months now. It certainly is a screwy case. In another article I read Jin Chung lost the pants, found them, offered to give them back, but the judge refused the offer. Preferring to sue instead, I assume.

Regardless of whether or not the pants were actually offered back, the case is absurd and I'm sure everyone involved (except the judge in question) knows it. I'm confident it will all be sorted out eventually, unfortunately at a high legal defense cost for the Chung family. The complexity of the court system results in a screwball story once every few months - remember the substitute teaching looking at +20 years in jail over a porn pop-up incident? That resolution too a while, but it got there.

Either way, if I was going to sue for 65 million dollars for a pair of paints I'd skip the rental car and go straight for the rental jet :P

Cheers,

Munk

[ima_nerd]

Before I post the link, I just want to say that I didn't know whether to yell angrily or laugh like an idiot when I first read this story. It's one of those things that's so ridiculously absurd that you think it just has to be fake.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3119381
Please read the rest of the report. It just gets better and better. This guy is a judge, and he's suing his local mom 'n pop dry cleaners for $67 MILLION because they lost his pants. Those must be really special pants. The dry cleaners have offered to settle for $12,000, but the suing judge said no. This case has been ongoing for years, and the defendants have been racking up legal bills.

I really like the fact that he's asking for $15,000 for rental car fees to take his dry cleaning to another location. There is no way in hell that a judge owns his own car, no way whatsoever.

If you sue someone and lose, you should have to pay the defendant's legal bills.

This sue everyone attitude over here is ridiculous and embarrassing.

[Munkay]

If you sue someone and lose, you should have to pay the defendant's legal bills.

Agreed. But rather then a blanket rule, I'd like to see a system where the judge in the case can rule the prosecution must pay the defense's bill if the case is excessive/absurd. The courts are supposed to protect people, not be a place for further harassment.

This sue everyone attitude over here is ridiculous and embarrassing.

Agreed. Now I'm going to sue you for stealing my point of view. I think something in the tune of 14 million sounds right to me!

Cheers,

Munk

[DeeBye]

In my highly scientific estimation, there is only one person that could possibly win this lawsuit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9nptjUs9FM

[Maitre]

Before I post the link, I just want to say that I didn't know whether to yell angrily or laugh like an idiot when I first read this story. It's one of those things that's so ridiculously absurd that you think it just has to be fake.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3119381
Please read the rest of the report. It just gets better and better. This guy is a judge, and he's suing his local mom 'n pop dry cleaners for $67 MILLION because they lost his pants. Those must be really special pants. The dry cleaners have offered to settle for $12,000, but the suing judge said no. This case has been ongoing for years, and the defendants have been racking up legal bills.

I really like the fact that he's asking for $15,000 for rental car fees to take his dry cleaning to another location. There is no way in hell that a judge owns his own car, no way whatsoever.

The story has been tossed around the DC media for a while, but the emphasis here has been about where the $ figure comes from. Don't get me wrong, I think the claim is ridiculous, but he got the 60+ million dollar number by suing for false advertising no just the pants. The suit cites signs posted in the location's windows that state "next-day service" and "satisfaction guaranteed." The statue he's suing under specifies a maximum penalty per infraction for false advertising ($12K I think), and Pearson is claiming each day the signs were up as one infraction, times the number of days, times two signs... He also has upped the total dollar figure over time to account for his own time at a billing rate of ~$400/hour (top lawyer pay in the DC area).

There's a lot of junk in this suit that makes it ridiculous, but lets not over simplify this to the headline of "$67M for the pants." I think he should have taken the first settlement that was offered and let these people run their business.

[Rhydderch Hael]

Hot off the press: :blush:

The plaintiff, Mr Pants-Guy, lost the suit over the lost suit pants. Any motions on part of the cleaners' to recover their case expenses have yet to be determined.

In short, "Satisfaction Guaranteed" does not guarantee a store must satisfy a customer's unreasonable quest to milk millions of dollars in baseless expense calculations.

[ShadowHM]

According to this article,

Judge Judith Bartnoff of District of Columbia Superior Court ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung.

[Munkay]

Hot off the press: :blush:

The plaintiff, Mr Pants-Guy, lost the suit over the lost suit pants. Any motions on part of the cleaners' to recover their case expenses have yet to be determined.

In short, "Satisfaction Guaranteed" does not guarantee a store must satisfy a customer's unreasonable quest to milk millions of dollars in baseless expense calculations.

And there was much rejoicing,

[Maitre]

According to this article,

Correct, court costs. However, the legal representation fees are considered seperate from court costs. Court costs would then include filing fees, etc. paid directly to the court. In order for the defendants to recoup their lawyers fees, they'll have to go after the original plaintif in a subsequent action.

I just hope the judge left the plaintif no opportunity to appeal.

[ShadowHM]

In order for the defendants to recoup their lawyers fees, they'll have to go after the original plaintif in a subsequent action.

So it is still a game of 'deeper pockets', eh? That sucks.