quote: The Chungs, immigrants from South Korea, realized their American dream when they opened their dry-cleaning business seven years ago in the nation's capital. For the past two years, however, they've been dealing with the nightmare of litigation: a $65 million lawsuit over a pair of missing pants.
This breaks my heart. I have a related query which I'll add later.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
What a jerk. And the way he's manipulating the system (or trying to) certainly convinces me that his appointment shouldn't be renewed!
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
$65 Million for a pair of trousers?
The man is clearly insane and has no place in public office.
Claiming the cost of car rental every weekend for 10 yeas as a cost of not using heis neighbourhood dry-cleaners is just plain bonkers.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yeah, that story has been bouncing around the internet/blogs lately. I think I saw it on fark.com first.
While I could envision that high level of idiocy for a lawyer (though he should at minimum be reprimanded, if not disbarred), nobody who's that much of a jerk should be a judge. I think there may be a petition movement afoot to prevent his being re-appointed as a judge. I hope it succeeds.
[ May 03, 2007, 03:58 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
For a pair of pants found a week later.
Yeah, guy's got class. [/sarcasm]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
What a jerk.
What, exactly, is his aim in doing this? It's ridiculous. Sheesh.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: I have a related query which I'll add later.
If you sue Hatrack for a week-old missing post, you'll surely be shunned. Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
But I can charge $1000 a day -- that's 7k!
No, well, I sometimes do contractor computer related work for random people to make an odd dollar. I'd rather not this happen to me -- what should I do to protect myself legally?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There really isn't anything. The guy's suit is without merit -- but there's nothing stopping people from filing stupid lawsuits. Just winning 'em.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Really? Can't you be fined for wasting the court's time with frivolous lawsuits?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, but that's pretty rare. You have to prove it was deliberate.
I have to say, if any case should qualify, this one should.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
The Chungs won the case, the judge who was suing them has to pay all their legal fees.
Now I wanna see the ARDC go after the judge... {evil grin}
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Awesome. Thanks for sharing the good news!
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Is there a "Congratulations, you're the reason the world laughs at our judicial system" option for disbarring someone?
Also, I'm glad this case didn't go the way I feared it would, and happy that other than some time lost the Chungs didn't have to pay a cent.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm glad justice was served in this instance.
Small victory for the little minority guys too!
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote: The National Labor Relations Board has called for Mr Pearson to be debarred so that he can no longer serve as a judge.
quote: Legal groups have said the case, which has dragged on for two years and involved thousands of hours of legal investigative work, has damaged the image of the US judicial system.
Yeah, no kidding. What was he thinking?
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote:The court costs amount to just over $1,000 for photocopying, filing and similar expenses, according to the Chungs' attorney. A motion to recover the Chungs' tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be considered later.
It looks like the issue of their legal fees has yet to be determined. I sure hope he gets stuck paying their tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees in addition to the court costs.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Let's not be TOO happy, here. I mean, they DO sound like a pretty crappy dry cleaners.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Why? Where are you getting that from?
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:Originally posted by ludosti:
quote:The court costs amount to just over $1,000 for photocopying, filing and similar expenses, according to the Chungs' attorney. A motion to recover the Chungs' tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be considered later.
It looks like the issue of their legal fees has yet to be determined. I sure hope he gets stuck paying their tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees in addition to the court costs.
Ah, they've updated and expanded the story since I posted it. As of 10:30, it was a short 3-para story which reported that Pearson was to pay all of the Chungs' legal fees.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually, while I can't really determine if the original suit was without merit, I'm pretty sure it was without pants.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, this guy sounds like SUCH a bully!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by ludosti:
quote:The court costs amount to just over $1,000 for photocopying, filing and similar expenses, according to the Chungs' attorney. A motion to recover the Chungs' tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be considered later.
It looks like the issue of their legal fees has yet to be determined. I sure hope he gets stuck paying their tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees in addition to the court costs.
I hope so too.
If he doesn't I'll donate $20 toward it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why? Where are you getting that from?
They did lose his pants, insulted him when he demanded his pants, and then tried to pass off pants from another suit for the pants they lost. As far as I know, they're not challenging the fact that his pants are still missing, or even that they treated him badly; they're just -- rightfully -- outraged by the amount claimed in damages.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't think that makes them a necessarily bad service.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
if losing their client's clothing and then ill-treating said client is not in the definition of poor dry cleaning service then I'm not sure what is. Admittedly this is a one-off situation as far as I know, so I'm not willing to state that they are bad, just that we don't have any evidence that they aren't.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I thought that his pants (really truly his, not something they were trying to pass off) were found inside of a week and that their attorney had them because he repeatedly refused delivery. Unfortunately, I don't remember now if that was based on an article I read in the news or someone's comments about that article. And the link in the original post no longer works.
Ah, found this. I think it might be the Chungs' attorneys, if you need to take it with a grain of salt because of the source.
And here's a story from ABC News when this was first blowing up.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
<grin> I wish they could've fined him a few millions for wasting everybody's time.
--j_k
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
I've never understood how an adult could stand up there and say that they suffered so by not having their favorite pants. What is the judge, eight years old?
[ June 26, 2007, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: HollowEarth ]
Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
Maybe they were his "lucky" pants.
Don't they have a sign or notation on their claim check that their maximum liability is limited to the cost of the item lost?
That probably wouldn't have been good enough for him, though.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
The dude is obviously disturbed in some way.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
According to the articles, the pants were taken in, along with the jacket, to be altered after he purchased them, not cleaned. How could they have been his favorite pants?
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
The way I read various stories was that he took them in for alteration because he'd gained weight over the last couple years and was about to start a new job. Which means that they must have been hiding out in the back of the closet for a while if he didn't know they were snug. Which also detracts from the "favorite suit" claim.
I also read that he knew he was in financial straits and was taking the suits in 1 or 2 at a time because of lack of funds. He was concerned that he wasn't going to have enough of a balance on his Visa card. Gee... would that qualify as motivation to be a {unmentionable under TOS}?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Ah, I misread the article. He "brought" the suit, not "bought" the suit.
I guess living in poor backwards Florida distorts my view, but most people I know who are in financial straits don't own $1000 suits. I realize he had them for several years now, but if he just became a judge, that would seem to indicate that he had been successful in life.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The sad thing is that thousands of cases like this go by, but the media attention made this somewhat happy for the Chungs.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm amazed that even your favourite pants could mean this much to someone. Seriously. They're just pants. They're not a child or a dog or a house.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Actually, while I can't really determine if the original suit was without merit, I'm pretty sure it was without pants.
No, but the story has legs.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Thanks for sharing the good news!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)