Judge sues cleaner for $65 million over lost pants

[PrinceOfLeigh]

This bit even turns up on one of the local tabloids over here.

Here too. Our newspapers love stories which give us a chance to laugh at Americans.

This case would get no dice in the UK. He'd be lucky to get the cost of the cleaning itself back. If he claimed that amount he was claiming here, he would likely be hit with nominal damages and indemnity costs for the other side for having the matter allocated to the wrong value track.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Pearson's first letter to the Chungs sought $1,150 so he could buy a new suit. Two lawyers and many legal bills later, the Chungs offered Pearson $3,000, then $4,600 and, finally, says their attorney, Chris Manning, $12,000 to settle the case.

declare bankrupcy ... oh wait you cant in the US anymore.

Law code of conduct : abuse and misrespentation of laws is enforcebale offense. intimidation which would be easy to prove in this case would be serious grounds in which the lawyer himself be liable to be sued.

 

[StarWorms]

Exactly why I believe that in cases like this, if he loses, he should have to pay the $65million to her and be sacked.

 

[Leifmk]

He should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail.

And disbarred.

 

[Bartleby]

The cleaners will have to tighten their belts now.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

This is nuts. You wonder why our legal system is messed up? This guy is a judge.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

This case would get no dice in the UK.

Dude, neither would an American judge hear a case like this, they very damn idea of allowing it goes against the basic rules of tort law (and sanity). The real issue is about fraud. But, the fact is that Newspapers love taking one or two 'trivial' facts and while completely omitting the relevant facts of the case. Newspapers do this because readers absolutely love to buy into the idea that Americans courts "are a joke".

There's obviously something going on inside the court that the WashingPost isn't mentioning. And I urge people not to believe everything they hear in newspapers when it comes to lawsuits.

 

[Pokurcz]

Prrrffhhhhhhhhhhk! (the sound of disbelief escaping unintelligibly)

Hahahahahaha


It is to good to be true!

 

[QuoVadisNation]

Let's punch a hole into the Media's credibility, shall we?

http://law.creighton.edu/index.aspx?p=340

By the way, Pearson is a lawyer. Okay, you probably figured that. But get this: He's a judge, too -- an administrative law judge for the District of Columbia

According to the link above, Pearson is actually the former adminstrative law judge!

but then..

why would they lie to us?

WHY?!

answer: to make money, distort the truth, and anger people into buying their newspapers




Edit: Apparently, Pearson is not a stranger to twisting the court system.

Here's Pearson's divorce decree:

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0561044.pdf

In page 10, the court upheld a judge's award of $12,000 in legal fees to be paid by Pearson. He threatened his ex-wife and her lawyer with disbarment, creating unnecessary litigation and costs.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Dude, neither would an American judge hear a case like this, they very damn idea of allowing it goes against the basic rules of tort law (and sanity). The real issue is about fraud. But, the fact is that Newspapers love taking one or two 'trivial' facts and while completely omitting the relevant facts of the case. Newspapers do this because readers absolutely love to buy into the idea that Americans courts "are a joke".

There's obviously something going on inside the court that the WashingPost isn't mentioning. And I urge people not to believe everything they hear in newspapers when it comes to lawsuits.

I get what you mean in relation to the reporting of cases. I'm not saying we don't have ridiculous claims here, although they tend to be ridiculous in the allegations of negligence rather than the sum claimed. Newspapers report 'claims' as being 'judgements' and either though ignorance or a desire to sell papers they don't explain the difference.

What startles me here is that the claimant is a Judge. I can only assume that he feels that he has reasonable prospects of success or has simply lost the plot. EDIT: Or as the post above shows, he's a ******

I agree that there may be more to the story than has been reported simply because the defendant has offered to pay such a huge amount already.

 

[classical_hero]

he sure took him to the cleaners

Yes he is suing the pants off them.

 

[Masquerouge]

In a closet of a lawyer's office in downtown Washington, there is a pair of gray wool pants, waiting to be picked up by Roy Pearson.

"We believe the pants are his," Manning says. "The tag matches his receipt."

That's the best ending ever!