Nut-bar judge suing for pants trauma

[jon lynn]

I just saw on CNN-Int a judge in Washington is sueing a dry cleaners for $45 million over a pair of pants, because of mental anguish. GIMMIE A DANG BREAK!

This guy is a judge, he makes decisions about the law that can change lives, and he is bitching about a pair of pants!:mad: I say remove this dork from the bench, this is one HUGE pervision of the law.

This is when I really want to get violent, find this guy and strangle the crap outta him.......................then maybe I can sue him for pissing me off.....................mental anguish and all.

[fabsroman]

Jon,

I posted about this a couple of months ago. Trust me, it bugs the hell out of me.

Believe it or not, this Judge is only an administrative Judge (i.e., the lowest form of Judge possible). Not only that, but according to the media, he is pretty poor. I have also heard that the DC Superior Court Judges aren't taking too kindly to this lawsuit. Can you imagine what a jury would do with this lawsuit?

Just like the DA is hopefully going to be disbarred over the Duke lacrosse case, I hope this Judge is going to be disbarred over this pants lawsuit.

[Dom]

Gotta keep track of this one, like a Soap Opera. I'm sincerely hoping the good 'Judge' doesn't get one stinkin' nickel for his BS tactics and agony. Give him a hankee and kick his axx out of the court room. What happened to good ole fashioned common sense in the courts nowadays.

WASHINGTON — A judge had to leave the courtroom with tears running down his face Tuesday after recalling the lost pair of trousers that led to his $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner.

Administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson had argued earlier in his opening statement that he is acting in the interest of all city residents against poor business practices. Defense attorneys called his claim "outlandish."

He originally sued Custom Cleaners for about $65 million under the District of Columbia consumer protection act and almost $2 million in common law claims. He is no longer seeking damages related to the pants, instead focusing his claims on two signs in the shop that have since been removed.

He alleges that Jin Chung, Soo Chung and Ki Chung, owners of the mom-and-pop business, committed fraud and misled consumers with signs that claimed "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service."

Pearson, representing himself, said in opening that he wanted to examine the culture that allowed "a group of defendants to engage in bad business practices for five years."

An attorney for the Chungs portrayed Pearson as a bitter man with financial troubles stemming from a recent divorce who is taking out his anger on a hardworking family.

"This case is very simple. It's about one sign and the plaintiff's outlandish interpretation," attorney Chris Manning said.

The Chungs were to present their case Wednesday. Manning asked D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff to award them reimbursement for their legal costs if they win.

Pearson called several witnesses Tuesday who testified that they stopped going to Custom Cleaners after problems with misplaced clothes.

Pearson also called himself as a witness, saying his problems began in May 2005 when he brought in several suits for alterations. A pair of pants from a blue and maroon suit was missing when he requested it two days later. He said Soo Chung tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants.

As Pearson explained that those weren't the pants for the suit, he choked up and left the courtroom crying after asking Bartnoff for a break.

Pearson originally asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit, which was more than $1,000. But because the Chungs insisted the pants had been found, they refused to pay.

Manning has said the cleaners made three settlement offers to Pearson, but the judge was not satisfied and increased his demands — including asking for money to rent a car so he could drive to another business.

[cdhunt]

well, just look at the situation facts, undereducated, afro-american, ego problems, obese,no hair, sounds like a liver lip when speaking, d.c resident,size eee shoes.

[fabsroman]

http://www.examiner.com/a-782166~Pants_lawsuit_could_cost_D_C__judge_his__100_000_job.html

At least it looks like he is going to lose his job. I have to be in that Courthouse tomorrow morning, so this should be fun if the trial is still going on.

[PJgunner]

I read something to the effect that that judge has has problems with that cleaners prior to the pants incident. Seems the owners of the laundry have on several occasions asked the judge to take his business elsewhere. He refused to to do so. Looks to me like the judge was just waiting for a chance to to sandbag those Koreans.
I hope they fire his sorry arse. :mad:
Paul B.

[fabsroman]

According to the Judge, she is supposed to render a verdict by the end of this week. Since tomorrow is the last day of this week, I am praying that she waits until the afternoon to render that verdict because I don't want to have to deal with all the BS while I am down there. Then again, if I finish up my hearing in the morning and the verdict is scheduled slightly afterward, I might just stick around so I can hear it. That might be fun if she finds in favor of the dry cleaners.

[Dom]

Thank Heaven, my faith has been restored -- in at least one Judge with common sense!! Not that I don't think there are valid cases for the courts, but come on, some of the sue'ings are getting ridiculous. Judge Bartnoff has my respect. If it had gone any other way I would have just shook my head . . .

Judge Rules in Favor of Dry Cleaner in $54 Million Lawsuit Over Lost Pants
Monday, June 25, 2007

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
WASHINGTON — A judge ruled Monday in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants.

The owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's consumer protection law by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store window, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled.

"A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands" or to agree to demands that the merchant would have reasonable grounds for disputing, the judge wrote.

Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung.

(Story continues below)
FOX NEWS LINK (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286575,00.html)

[fabsroman]

Dom,

I saw the same thing on the news today. However, you left off some of the article, which states that while the Judge awarded the dry cleaners Court costs amounting to about $1,000, the dry cleaners were not awarded their legal fees yet, which amount to tens of thousands of dollars. The Motion for Attorneys' Fees is to be decided later on. I hope they are awarded their attorneys' fees too, because way too many people use the threat of running up attorneys fees to clobber people that don't have a lot of money.

[Rocky Raab]

It's just a bloody shame that there can't be attorney's fees plus damages awarded to the dry cleaners.

Or that the nut-case judge who filed the suit can't be disbarred on the grounds of lunacy.

[Aim to maim]

Originally posted by Rocky Raab

Or that the nut-case judge who filed the suit can't be disbarred on the grounds of lunacy.

If that were grounds for disbarment, there would be signifcantly fewer judges for a while, but many would argue that would be a good start. ;)

[fabsroman]

They are working on disbarring him and they are working on making sure that he doesn't get re-appointed to his administrative judge position.

[jon lynn]

"May justice rein" FINALLY!:D