Log In | Register
Dry Cleaner Wins Missing Pants Case
nul
Administrative law judge Roy Pearson, left, is questioned by a member of the media as he leaves court after the second day of his lawsuit in Washington in this Wednesday, June 13, 2007 file photo. A judge on Monday, June 25, 2007, ruled in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued over a missing pair of pants in a case that garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, FILE)
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (36)
The Chungs also said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule.
Though I imagine this will pale in comparison to the deluge of ridicule about to crash against this idiot judge that sued them.
- 16 votes
#1 - Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:40 AM EDTI can see it now - he gets reappointed for another 10 years, and every case that comes before him has people sniggering and commenting that "well, how can we trust your rulings if you can't keep your pants on ?"
- 1 vote
a blue and maroon suit
If you ask me, the dry cleaners were doing him a favour by losing the pants! Sheesh! He should be prosecuted for fashion crimes!
- 15 votes
#2 - Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:54 AM EDTthere will be big $$$ to pay in punitive damages...hehe
what a
PANTSTASTIC outcome on a egregious lawsuit...
- 10 votes
The Chungs should sue the pants off this guy!
(Too obvious?)
- 12 votes
#3 - Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:14 PM EDTFor what?
suing you isnt against the law.
what is said.. the pantless judge still won
He may not have won money but he won putting them through a great deal of anguish for a very long time.
- 1 vote
from nbc4.com
Previously, the Chungs offered Pearson settlements of $3,000, $4,000 and $12,000, but he refused them, News4 reported.
snip
DEAL or no DEAL??? (thinking to self..."no I want $54 million")
wrong answer!!!! you get zero!!! plus you get to pay for court costs and lawyer fees...YAY!
- 8 votes
suing you isnt against the law.
True and I know very little about the law in the USA on this but isn't there avenue for the defendants to claim the suit was frivolous or tantamount to harassment? They made all reasonable efforts to satisfy him yet he still abused process to damage them.
Good! I'm glad the pants guy didn't take the Chungs to the cleaners...eh...
this was the most ridiculous lawsuit since the lady that spilled hot coffee on herself sued McDonalds, although, McDonalds might deserve to be sued.
- 3 votes
#5 - Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:40 PM EDTI have heard several conflicting reports about the coffee incident, and here is one. I used to think the lady was somehow dumb enough to do this to herself, but I have read so much about it that I think MacDs was at least partially at fault. The media spin on it sure didn't help her out.
- 2 votes
Yeah, I think the real defining factor in the case (for me) was that McDonalds kept their coffee roughly (if I remember correctly) 20 degrees or so hotter than industry standard.
- 2 votes
And, McDonalds had settled several identical lawsuits before.
And, anyone who is incredulous that she spilled coffee on herself while driving: 1) she was the passenger, not the driver and 2) the driver pulled over so she could add the cream and sugar.
With all of that aside: McDonalds sold her the coffee through a friggin' drivethru! McDonalds definitely recognizes the issue (finally): They now request that you let them add the cream and sugar when purchasing from a vehicle.
Also, the amount she was awarded was significantly reduced. She did not make "millions" as is widely reported. (In fact, I think she made significantly less than a million.)
And, as has been mentioned -- she had to get skin grafts on her genitals.
- 3 votes
Hmm, good to know. Newsvine is making me so much smarter today! :-)
- 1 vote
One sad thing among many in this case is that the judicial persecutor, meaning Pearson, is himself a judge, something I would like to see remedied.
- 10 votes
#6 - Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:55 PM EDTWould AP kindly stop changing the text of the article once people have started commenting on it please....otherwise half of the comments make no sense any more!!!!
- 2 votes
#7 - Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:23 PM EDT"A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands," the judge wrote.
Amen! I'm glad things worked out the way they did. I remember this story from awhile back--the family, faced with potentially huge legal costs, were even talking about folding the business and going back to Korea. I hope Pearson gets pantsed again and again after this. What a prick.
- 3 votes
#9 - Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:20 AM EDTWhat a waste and misuse of the judicial system.
- 1 vote
#10 - Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:38 AM EDTYes, and since its DC its all of our tax $$$ being wasted.
- 1 vote
Well, give DC statehood and that might not be the case anymore, eh?
It would cost more to replace all of the flags than we'd save I think, at least in the near term lol
- 1 vote
Make it a state? Would we be subjected to Governor Marion 'Bitch Set Me Up' Barry?
- 1 vote
No, but the people of DC might. Barry's no worse than DeLay, Lott, Byrd, or Kennedy, after all.
Warn me before it happens, I want to invest in text book publishers, map makers, etc.
- 1 vote
As you are undoubtedly aware, a $54 million lawsuit was recently brought in DC District Court against a small neighborhood drycleaners over a pair of alleged lost trousers. While the Court found resoundingly in favor of the business owners, Jin and Soo Chung, their ordeal is not yet over—they have drained their saving accounts contesting this frivolous lawsuit, and they have racked up over $100,000 in legal expenses.
In order to help the Chungs defray their legal bills, ILR and the American Tort Reform Association are co-hosting a fundraiser on Tuesday evening, July 24 at 6 p.m. at the US Chamber Building in Washington, DC. Unfortunately, businesses large and small across America must deal every day with similar extortionist tactics from some plaintiffs' lawyers. The collective outcome is not justice, but lost jobs, ruined businesses and billions of dollars in lost economic opportunity. Additional details, sponsorship opportunities and easy online registration are available at www.chungfundraiser.com.
- 1 vote
#11 - Thu Jul 5, 2007 2:23 PM EDTAs you are undoubtedly aware, a $54 million lawsuit was recently brought in DC District Court against a small neighborhood drycleaners over a pair of alleged lost trousers. While the Court found resoundingly in favor of the business owners, Jin and Soo Chung, their ordeal is not yet over—they have drained their saving accounts contesting this frivolous lawsuit, and they have racked up over $100,000 in legal expenses.
In order to help the Chungs defray their legal bills, ILR and the American Tort Reform Association are co-hosting a fundraiser on Tuesday evening, July 24 at 6 p.m. at the US Chamber Building in Washington, DC. Unfortunately, businesses large and small across America must deal every day with similar extortionist tactics from some plaintiffs' lawyers. The collective outcome is not justice, but lost jobs, ruined businesses and billions of dollars in lost economic opportunity. Additional details, sponsorship opportunities and easy online registration are available at www.chungfundraiser.com.
- 1 vote
#12 - Fri Jul 6, 2007 10:39 AM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
