Justice for the Chungs
Original Post by Uncle Dave is here.
A judge in the District of Columbia has dismissed a case against a dry cleaner who was sued for $54 million in damages over a pair of missing pants.
Judge Judith Bartnoff awarded court costs to the Chungs, who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on the case. They are attempting to have their attorney’s fees paid by Pearson.
Bravo!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 5215 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Now can we get the judge who initiated the lawsuit kicked off the bench because he’s obviously too f*ing stupid to be presiding over cases.
The real astonishing thing it got as far as it did. Aren’t there safety valves in place to make this impossible? If not why not?
So much legal time was tied up and taken away from more deserving cases for something so silly. Damages should be only to replace the pants. No liability past replacing the lost item.
Otherwise I could sue the Pope for a breach of contract when my house was destroyed by “An act of God.”
This is why the US needs a loser pays system, like most of the developed world has. It’s only because of the strangle-hold the trial attroneys (through associatons like the Bar) have on the justice system that we can’t change this and have some meaningful tort reform.
This prick ought to be thrown from the bench. Wielding his power against these small business people.
“The real astonishing thing it got as far as it did. Aren’t there safety valves in place to make this impossible? If not why not?”
A very good question!! Why did it get so far? How much money did the defendants have to spend against this frivolous lawsuit? #2 shows some of the answers.
Almost makes me wanna spill some McDonald’s coffee on myself…
This judge who was the plantiff can still appeal this verdict. On top of that, he was offered $15,000 in settlement and turned it down.
Loser pays and prosecuting perjury in civil cases would stem this crap in a minute. I love it when lawyer types are in favor of people breaking the law with perjury. Please guys, tell me why perjury in civil cases is almost never pursued.
And now we will hear from the pro-lawyer field that will never address why this cannot happen againl.They will keep saying this type of case is an aberraiton and offer no solutions to prevent people from being sued in future cases like this. They will say they are there to protect the little guy from corporate America while half these lawyers are being paid by corporate America.
Meanwhile, the RIAA and their lawyers will keep suing college kids for hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading a couple of songs.
You never would have hurt spit about this case if this judge plantiff took the ridiculous $15,000 settlement offer.
#1-4,
Did anyone here notice that the loser did indeed have to pay the costs?
#5 – tallwookie,
Not that I love McD’s in any way, but I do have to point out that there was a bit more to that case. While it certainly sounded frivolous on the surface, I remember reading that the issue was that they (someone) had found internal memos in McD’s acknowledging that some percentage of people would burn themselves if they served coffee that hot. They decided people wanted piping hot coffee anyway and decided to serve it that way despite the assumption that people would get burns from it. So, that does sound a bit like willful negligence (or whatever the real legal term would be) to me.
This case, on the other hand, was just a total sham brought by someone who really should have known better. I’d have loved it if they awarded punitive damages to the defendants to make a strong statement and to compensate them for their time.
You anti-lawyer retards should learn how to read.
The case is about a warranty and one of the main issues is whether the pants they returned to him were his.
Pearson had “not met his burden of proving that the pants the defendants attempted to return to him were not the pants he brought in for alteration,” the judge concluded.
His abuse of the system, in the judge’s view, came in declining a reasonable $15,000 settlement.
The “problem” with this case is NOT the lack of “loser pays” court system.
What we really need is a LOSERS PAY court system, where you geniuses would have to pay my court costs because you can’t read plain English.
At least one judge involved used their brain. Too bad it git this far. Now the bar association needs to have some hearings. If I had a case going to be heard by the suing judge, I’d have some serious questions about fairness and equal treatment under the law. Yes. I am holding a sitting judge to a higher standard.
In an odd way it is too bad the guy didn’t win. If a lost pair of pants can be worth millions of times the cost of the pants, what would that say about the settlement value for real crimes?
I have often thought that if you Kill half all US lawyers, put their heads on a pike in public places, the problem will be solved!
The $15,000 offer was made because of legal extortion. Defending said case would have cost more than $15,000,and you damned well know it.
So #8, in your opinion, $15,000 is “reasonable” for a lost pair of pants. Glad to see we anti-legal abuse types are losers for thinking such an offer was extreme.
In your opinion, what’s reasonable reimbursement had they lost a whole suit? $2 million?
BTW, besides the name calling, any suggestions on how to prevent such abusive cases from reoccuring.We are all ears.
I guess Pearson will have to work a couple of more years like the rest of us or perhaps sue his window washer.
#11. Start by decapitating the Chungs’ lawyer?
Ah…this is just stupid…
Way too much use of litigation in this country…
3 and 7:
A loser pays system won’t fix anything. I used to think there were simply too many attorneys, but that’s not the real problem. And you could tweak the laws all you want, but that won’t change anything either.
The real problem is that plaintiffs are able to obtain damages beyond what they economically suffered. In my system, plaintiffs should only be able to recover for actual and verifiable economic loses.
People who sue should not be able to get money for “pain and suffering.” A jury would have to speculate to get that figure, i.e., pull it out of their ass.
They should not be able to get money for “embarrassment” or “emotional damages.” Is there a sum certain for emotional damages? Nope, you lose.
They should not be able to get lost wages decades into the future. How could anyone know how much they’ll make 20 years from now?!
If you lose your arm, you should get the cost of medical treatment, that’s it. If you die, your estate should get the cost of the funeral, that’s it. And if you lose a pair of pants, the most you could sue for it the true cost of the pants.
Once we get rid of multi-million dollar awards, tort attorneys will stop suing and our sue happy culture will come to an end.
#9, SoMWDR,
I think you expect too much from most of the posters on this topic. There is no thought behind their posting let alone any actual reading more then the headlines.
Also, the plaintiff was assessed the defendant’s court costs. The trial Judge will decide later if the case was totally frivolous and if so then the defendant will have to pay at least some of the attorney fees.
9. “You anti-lawyer retards should learn how to read.” “The case is about a warranty…”
Maybe you should read the judge’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. It was only about a warranty in the broadest sense. For those too lazy to read it, the case was specifically about a sign. The owners of the dry cleaners had a sign that read, “Satisfaction Guaranteed”
Pearson thought the sign should be interpreted subjectively and contrary to any notion of reasonableness. From the judge’s findings…
Pearson had nine witnesses testify on his behalf. Not even one of them agreed with his bizarre interpretation of the sign.
Great post #18. The only reason there is any talk of reimbursement at all in this case is because of the publicity.
It’s funny how these pro-legal abuse fools like Mr.(s) Fusion have taken this you-don’t-just-understand line of bullshit and hurl further insults. What else can they say?
For the life of me, I don’t get why these pro-legal abuse lawyer types don’t understand that being extorted for $15,000 by a lawyer is in some ways worse than losing $5000 when being held up by some gun toting punk. In the latter example besides being less costly, the entire legal system and society condemn the armed robber. On the other hand, as you see here, the extortionist lawyer actually has some public support.
The other part the pro-legal crowd does not get is they have no idea of the havoc a suit such as this does to a business and to society. The Chungs and business people like them change priorites. They put not being sued ahead of pleasing the customer.
I personally have wondered at what point do the Chungs and people like them realize that litigation may be a better route to financial success than hard work.
#12 – jz,
I think you meant to address your comment to #9, not me. I never said that.
#11, No. If you kill half the lawyers, then the problem will only be half solved.
#18, SN
Maybe you should read the judge’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. It was only about a warranty in the broadest sense. For those too lazy to read it, the case was specifically about a sign. The owners of the dry cleaners had a sign that read, “Satisfaction Guaranteed”
Maybe YOU should read the opinion. It was all about the warranty. The actual sign is the warranty and the plaintiff’s interpretation was the disagreement. The Judge ruled that a “reasonable person” would not have interpreted the sign the same way as the plaintiff. He also didn’t prove the store lost his pants.
#19,
It’s funny how these pro-legal abuse fools like Mr.(s) Fusion have taken this you-don’t-just-understand line of bullshit and hurl further insults. What else can they say?
If brains were made of dynamite, you still couldn’t blow your own nose. You confuse using a system correctly with abuse. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has condoned what Pearson’s argument. Your whole argument rests on “if there is a flaw, scrap the whole system”. The same reasoning is used by those who hear of one bad cop and therefore deride all cops. It is an imperfect world with imperfect people doing imperfect jobs. When people get hurt through other’s imperfections, then we have a right to be compensated.
The system worked. Instead of getting a gun and exacting revenge himself, Pearson made a legal complaint. The complaint had enough legal merit to not be dismissed out of hand as frivolous. The case was heard by an impartial Judge in a fair trial. The Judge made a decision.
What people see as abuse is Pearson demanding $60+ million in damages. It might be unreasonable, but it isn’t abuse. It also garnered a lot of publicity and cost any public sympathy, but that still doesn’t make it abusive. Before you forget, the store did lose his pants. They were to be ready Thursday and they weren’t. So yes, the store made and admitted to the first error. The issue before the court is what damage he is entitled to. It was Pearson’s unreasonableness that cost him the case.
Abuse is when a consumer tries to get compensation from a large company. The large company buries the consumer with motions, discovery, more motions, endless appearances, more motions, until he can’t afford to sue anymore.
I like the quote where you purposely misspell my handle and deride those who disagree as only hurling insults. Nice touch of hypocrisy, asshole.
Mr Fusion wrote:
“The complaint had enough legal merit to not be dismissed out of hand as frivolous.”
This is a serious flaw! The ridiculous amount alone should have been merit enough to cause it to be dismissed as a frivolous law suit and barred it from ever being presented again.
“What people see as abuse is Pearson demanding $60+ million in damages. It might be unreasonable, but it isn’t abuse.”
How is this not abuse of an overtaxed court system?
“It is an imperfect world with imperfect people doing imperfect jobs. When people get hurt through other’s imperfections, then we have a right to be compensated.”
When compensation for a $100 pair of pants grows into a $54M lawsuit and it is not immediately dismissed, there is more than a “flaw” in the system. An overhaul is long overdue.
Mr. Fusion you are way way off base in this case.
#9 needs a life.
22. “Maybe YOU should read the opinion.”
I did read it. In fact I provided a link to a copy of it. In further fact, I cited some of it. I’d call you an idiot for your implication that I did not read it, but, that’d simply be too obvious of an insult.
Is there a warranty that says that a business has to satisfy a customer’s subjective desires no matter how unreasonable they are? Nope. Thus, this case was not really about a warranty because no such warranty exists. Thus, in fact, it really was about a sign.
The next time you think about putting fingers to a keyboard, do us a favor and think first. Thanks!
#20 I swear I thought I had the right number. I meant #9. Sorry for the mixup.
#24 Mr (s). Fusion’s quote has to go down in the hall of shame, “What people see as abuse is Pearson demanding $60+ million in damages. It might be unreasonable, but it isn’t abuse.”
A case of missing pants should have been tried in a small claims court. It was tried in a higher court because Mr. Pearson is a lawyer, and that is why there was system abuse. No one but a lawyer could get a $15k offer for a pair of missing pants. Mr. Pearson abused his status as a lawyer to extort an unfair settlement.
Besides more name calling and the straw man attack on my views ( prosecuting perjury and loser pays is hardly scraping the whole system. Prosecuting perjury is enforcing the law), we had the old stand by: corporate America as evil and lawyers as white knights. “Abuse is when a consumer tries to get compensation from a large company. The large company buries the consumer with motions, discovery, more motions, endless appearances, more motions, until he can’t afford to sue anymore.”
Actually, Mr. (s) Fusion is once again wrong. I know you are all shocked. Corporations don’t file motions. Lawyers paid by corporations do. Isn’t it funny how lawyers trash corporations so much while half of these same lawyers are filling their pockets with corporate dough?
After this debacle and the lawyers constant need for self promotion, I have to wonder if we got rid of 2/3 of the lawyers in our country, would anyone really notice the difference?
#26, SN
Is there a warranty that says that a business has to satisfy a customer’s subjective desires no matter how unreasonable they are?
Precisely !!! That is the nexus of Pearson’s argument. As you rightly point out, the court (and the rest of the world) agree there isn’t.
Your previous comment: It was only about a warranty in the broadest sense. virtually dismisses that point. When you turn around and suggest Thus, in fact, it really was about a sign. shows how far off the mark you are.
The sign is nothing other then media for the message contained thereon. It would have mattered little if the message was on the receipt, broadcast advertising, printed on the plastic film covering the clean clothes, or even verbal (with witnesses), the warranty was expressed by the store to its customers.
The sign caused no issues. It didn’t physically injure anyone. It didn’t obstruct a view that caused an accident. It didn’t impede public egress. It didn’t display offensive material.
The court wrote:
The plaintiff’s claims regarding the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign are premised on his interpretation that the sign is an unconditional and unlimited warranty of satisfaction to the customer, as determined solely by the customer, …
Nothing in the law supports that position. To the contrary, a claim of an unfair trade practice properly is considered in terms of how the practice would be viewed and understood by a reasonable consumer.
#27, jz
A case of missing pants should have been tried in a small claims court. It was tried in a higher court because Mr. Pearson is a lawyer, and that is why there was system abuse.
Wrong. Anyone could have filed the suit, not just Pearson or a lawyer. While it is highly advisable that you use a lawyer, it isn’t a requisite.
I fully support prosecuting perjury. I have never argued otherwise.
I do not support blanket “loser pays”. In almost every instance, there is some degree of shared responsibility. If it turns out that one party is 51% responsible then do you now expect that party to pay all the costs? In the most egregious circumstances courts do recognize that fact that one party should bear the most responsibility for costs. In frivolous cases the courts often make the Plaintiff pay the Defendant’s legal fees.
In this case the court assessed all the court costs on the Plaintiff. It will also rule later on how frivolous the case was and if Pearson should also pay attorney fees. I think the court will make him pay attorney fees. Not because he didn’t have a case, but because he was unreasonable in his pursuit of the case which caused the Defendant higher then necessary legal costs.
Corporations don’t file motions.
FYI, Lawyers don’t file motions, etc. The Plaintiff or Defendant does. The lawyer is an agent or employee and everything is filed and done in the name of the party. While a lawyer might do the actual work, it is not a requirement.
Isn’t it funny how lawyers trash corporations so much while half of these same lawyers are filling their pockets with corporate dough?
Lets see. Using your same logic, isn’t it stupid that all of General Motors sales team is in direct competition with Toyota’s sales team? And Honda’s, and Ford’s, and anyone else trying to sell a car? And isn’t it even stupider that the Indianapolis Colts are in direct competition with the Cincinnati Bengals? Or the Yankees and the RedSox? Or Motrin and Advil? Newsweek and TIME?
Don’t blame all weathermen because it rains. Don’t blame all doctors if your boyfriend gets cancer. Don’t blame all engineers if a tower falls. Don’t blame all biologists because you have a mole infestation. Don’t blame all computer repair techs because your computer is screwed. Better still, lets back up and instead of the word all, lets just blame 2/3s. Ya, that’s funnier.