67 Million Dollar Pants. - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-04-2007, 11:41 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
coemgen's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 05:16 PM
$67 million? Where they Edun pants?

coemgen is offline  
Old 05-05-2007, 12:07 PM   #17
She's the One
martha's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddam place
Posts: 41,767
Local Time: 03:16 PM
to both.

martha is online now  
Old 06-25-2007, 04:20 PM   #18
Self-righteous bullshitter
BoMac's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,042
Local Time: 07:16 PM
Yes, I'm happy to see that this case was thrown out. A classic example of greed in our society.

A U.S. judge ruled on Monday in favour of a dry cleaner that was sued for US$54 million over a pair of missing trousers.

District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled Washington's Consumer Protection Act was not violated when the owner's of Custom Cleaner's failed to meet Roy L. Pearson's standards.

"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 judge wrote in the ruling.

Pearson, an administrative judge, claimed the owners failed to live up to their "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign that was posted in their shop window in 2005.

Pearson originally sought $67 million after the Chungs claimed a pair of pants from his $1,000 suit went missing.

The couple, who are immigrants from Korea, later tried to return the pants to Pearson, but he claimed they were the wrong pair.

Pearson arrived at the staggering figure by adding up two years of law violations and almost $2 million in common law claims against the couple. The figure was later reduced after he dropped damages relating to the pants to focus primarily on the shop's signage.

The Chungs' lawyer, Chris Manning, argued a reasonable person would not deem the signs an irrefutable promise of satisfaction.

"Judge Bartnoff has spoken loudly in suggesting that, while consumers should be protected, abusive lawsuits like this will not be tolerated," Manning said in a statement.

"Judge Bartnoff has chosen common sense and reasonableness over irrationality and unbridled venom."

The lawsuit has garnered international headlines since it was launched by Pearson. The two-day trial last month drew a packed crowd of Korean supporters and media representatives.

The Chungs, though happy with the decision, said the lawsuit has caused then immense emotional and financial troubles.

Court costs for filing, photocopying and other expenses amount to $1,000 said Manning.

A motion to recover the Chungs' tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be ruled upon later.

Manning said the family was so disheartened by what they had to endure they've considered moving back to Seoul, South Korea.

With files from the Associated Press

BoMac is offline  
Old 06-25-2007, 04:46 PM   #19
love, blood, life
indra's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 06:16 PM
Originally posted by BonoManiac
Yes, I'm happy to see that this case was thrown out. A classic example of greed in our society.
I'm pleased with it too. I have to say though I see it as a classic case of a mean nutjob power tripping though.

With any luck this: "A motion to recover the Chungs' tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be ruled upon later" will also be decided in the Chungs' favor.
indra is offline  
Old 06-25-2007, 05:40 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
Varitek's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 05:16 PM
what shocks me the most ist hat he's a judge. I guess he doesn't preside over frivolous lawsuits.
Varitek is offline  
Old 11-13-2007, 11:21 PM   #21
love, blood, life
indra's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 06:16 PM
Judge Loses More Than Pants in Lawsuit

A little update.

WASHINGTON - A judge who lost a $54 million lawsuit against his dry cleaner over a pair of missing pants has lost his job, District of Columbia officials confirmed.

Roy Pearson's term as an administrative law judge expired May 2 and the D.C. Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges has voted not to reappoint him, Lisa Coleman, the city's general counsel, wrote Nov. 8 in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from The Associated Press.

Pearson was one of about 30 judges who worked in the Office of Administrative Hearings, which handles disputes involving city agencies. He had held his position for two years.

The Washington Post and The (Washington) Examiner, citing sources familiar with the case, reported the commission's decision last month. Coleman refused to release a copy of a letter to Pearson informing him of the decision, saying it is considered a personnel matter.

Pearson's lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court claimed Custom Cleaners, owned by South Korean immigrants, did not live up to Pearson's expectations of "Satisfaction Guaranteed," as advertised in store windows.

Pearson demanded repayment for the lost pants, as well as damages for inconvenience, mental anguish and attorney's fees for representing himself. He calculated his losses initially at $67 million but lowered his request to $54 million.

Pearson did not immediately respond to an e-mail from The Associated Press requesting comment.

indra is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com