Crazy Judge Gets Nothing
Good news in the case of the ridiculous missing pants lawsuit (which I blogged about in May):
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.
A web feed for this site is available,
Comments
steve holben
June 25, 2007
11:39 am
My (cynical) guess would be that the trial lawyer association paid off the judge to make sure she ruled this way to avoid futher proof of what a mockery lawyers have made of what is supposed to be a justice system. If the judge did in fact rule on justice and common sense I would expect her days as a judage are numbered. Ambulance chasers don’t want no stop signs on thei way to the bank.
Doris K Halstead
June 25, 2007
11:54 am
Judge Pearson should be removed from the bench. He should be charged with presentation of frivolous suit and $$$$$$$$$$$ for wasting the time of the court.
Bill Lake
June 25, 2007
1:40 pm
What the hell is the judge thinking. Judges are supposed to rule with fairness and dignity…..This judge has lost all sense of both.
DAN LONG
June 25, 2007
5:38 pm
REMEMBER – JUDGES ARE ATTORNEY’S THAT COULDN’T MAKE IT IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. YOU DON’T SEE BIG NAME ATTORNEY’S PLYING FOR BEING A JUDGE. THE OLD STORY IS – STUPIDY CAN NEVER BE CHANGED – BUT, IGNORNACE CAN BE REMOVED BY EDUCATION AND COMMON SENSE. THINK ABOUT THAT.
Ginger
June 26, 2007
10:47 am
Hopefully Roy Pearson will have to pay the Chungs’ legal fees, too.
Jason Lefkowitz
June 26, 2007
10:55 am
He did have to pay their legal fees:
“‘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.”
I take the bit about “awarded the costs of this action” to read “their legal fees are reimbursed”. Any lawyers out there disagree?
legalreform
July 5, 2007
4:21 pm
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 http://www.chungfundraiser.com.