Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Great American Pants Suit

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 12:36 PM
Original message
The Great American Pants Suit
The Wall Street Journal

COMMENTARY

The Great American Pants Suit
By WALTER OLSON
June 18, 2007; Page A16

When attorney Roy Pearson filed suit demanding $67 million from the Chung family, whose Washington dry cleaners had mishandled his pair of trousers, he must have felt he was sitting pretty. Menacing a merchant who's annoyed you with terrifyingly high legal penalties -- that's the way to show who wears the pants, right? Mr. Pearson probably had no idea that his Great American Pants Suit -- the trial of which just wound up in a Washington courtroom last week, with a verdict expected this week -- would stir commentary around the world and come to symbolize the extent to which lawsuits in America can serve as a hobby for the spiteful and a weapon for the rapacious.

It all began two years ago when Mr. Pearson walked into Custom Cleaners, a Northeast D.C. establishment owned by Jin Chung, Soo Chung and Ki Chung. He laid down $10.50 to have a pair of pants altered. The results dissatisfied him: The job wasn't finished on time, and he says the pants he was given were someone else's, which the Chungs deny. He demanded $1,150 for a new suit; the Chungs demurred. So it was off to court, with the claimed damages subject to alterations, in an expansive direction.

How billowy did those damages get? Well, it seems Mr. Pearson needed to be paid for 10 years' worth of weekend car rentals so that he could patronize a different dry cleaner. He wanted $500,000 for emotional distress and -- though representing himself -- $542,000 in legal fees. Best of all, he claimed that the signs on display at Custom Cleaners, "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service," were fraudulent, entitling him to damages of $1,500 each per day under D.C. consumer law. He multiplied 12 violations by three defendants by 1,200 days, and soon was up over $65 million (later cut to a mere $54 million).

The Chungs offered Pearson $12,000, which he turned down. The family says the suit has run through their savings in legal fees and harmed their credit, to say nothing of their peace of mind; they've even considered returning to their native Korea, which they left in 1992. But what really gave legs to the story was this: while his lawsuit was afoot, attorney Pearson himself was overcoming a two-year spell of unemployment to win appointment as an administrative law judge in D.C.

(snip)

Mr. Olson is senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and edits Overlawyered.com.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118212479726338524.html (subscription)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RedEarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. Mr. Pearson falls into the category of asshole
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. He's a real jerk for pressing this case
I wonder what's really up his sleeve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atommom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. He just wants to take them to the cleaners. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demoiselle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. Why didn't the courts throw this out at the beginning of the process?
That the dry cleaners have to pay a dime to defend this stupid suit is appalling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Which is why we need to establish
that the loser has to pay all legal expenses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
angstlessk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. No..to that I say...judges who do not throw out frivilous lawsuits should pay
not the loser ... then there will be no losers...only viable law suits!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Right, I fault the judge
He should have thrown this thing out and sent Mr. Asshole off to small claims court where lawsuits like this belong.

It would be wonderful if jerks like this who bring such ridiculous lawsuits were disbarred as well as having to pay damages to the people they destroyed with such a frivolous lawsuit, but that is probably too much to ask.

I would not want to face his Karma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I think the plaintiff has the judge in his hip pocket
:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemSoccerMom Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Interesting assumption.
There actually may be some truth in that. Does anyone know if the defendants have requested a change of venue so that one of this judge's peers/acquaintances/co-workers/drinking buddies doesn't hear this particular "case" (and I use that term LOOSELY)?

I don't even know if one CAN request a change of venue if it doesn't deal w/ criminal court, but this is one of the reasons that you SHOULD be able to request a change of venue if a reasonable person feels he/she can not get an impartial juror.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 06:22 AM
Response to Original message
10. Full article available without subscription here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokercat999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 06:49 AM
Response to Original message
11. It's unbelievable that the Chungs offered him 12K.
Edited on Thu Jun-21-07 06:50 AM by pokercat999
I would have made him an offer he couldn't refuse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Highway61 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
12. Bet he's an honorable Repug
I thought Bush was getting rid of frivolous lawsuits? No?

Watch, this guy will be promoted to White House council very soon.....qualifications? Scumbag

What do you call a lawyer gone bad?

Your honor.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC