D.C. Judge Wants $65 Million for Lost Pants

[kurth]

D.C. Judge Wants $65 Million for Lost Pants
Panel Considers Reappointing Judge Roy L. Pearson Jr.

Talk About Being Taken to the Cleaners (AP) It began innocently enough. A dry cleaner losing a pair of pants, an enraged customer seeking justice... just like that episode of Seinfeld. We've all been there, we've all wanted revenge, but what can we do? What indeed. Unfortunately for the Chungs, owners of Custom Cleaners in Northeast Washington, this pair of misplaced pants belonged to Judge Roy L. Pearson Jr., who unleashed an avalanche of legal absurdity so perverse Kafka would blush.

The administrative judge -- whose job, mind you, entails determining civil infractions and penalties -- claimed that he deserves $65,462,500 in damages for the "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort" caused by the loss of his suit pants. To put that figure in some perspective, at his current salary, it would take Judge Pearson just under 650 years to earn that kind of cash.

Despite his seemingly ridiculous claim, because of Washington's bizarre consumer protection laws, Pearson has been able to stretch his trouser-tort out for a couple years now, costing the Chungs many sleepless nights and thousands of dollars in legal fees. Their plight has been so vexing that they even offered him $12,000 to settle, and for the record his suit including the jacket, which wasn't lost, had a value of only $1,100. But still he refused. Now broke and "disenchanted," the Chungs are considering moving back to Seoul, their American dream throttled by American litigation.

Now if there was any justice, a person like Pearson would be disbarred for his actions, but as irony would have it a "panel of four D.C. officials" is currently assessing whether he will be reappointed to another 10-year term. That means Pearson could actually spend another decade on the bench, handing down decisions and determining justice. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. The only thing crazier than keeping him on the bench would be appointing oil executives to run the Environmental Protection Agency... oh wait.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/05/dc_judge_wants_65_million_for.html

[durrrty libby]

1. Just put this in the "People Truly Suck" file

[liberalhistorian]

2. As a paralegal, I say GET THIS JUDGE

OFF THE DAMNED BENCH NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW! He is nothing but a complete and total disgrace to his profession and should be permanently disbarred with absolutely no chance of reinstatement whatsoever.

That being said, I can honestly say that judges and attorneys such as this one are, fortunately, rare, and usually when they pop up, the profession squashes them down right away. It's people like this that gives ALL attorneys and judges a bad name. However, I'm a bit concerned that this can be used to discredit consumer protection and tort laws that help the average person and that the anti-consumer zealots will use it to push their elitist and dangerous tort "reform" agenda. That cannot be allowed to happen.

[Oglethorpe]

3. The justice system doesn't always run fast

$65M for a pair of pants is a bit high, but the justice system doesn't always work as quickly as we'd like. When this suit comes before a judge, a settlement will most likely be arranged. Hopefully the Chungs will be re-enchanted and decide to stay.

[Digit]

4. I had heard on the news that the Chungs had tried to settle this case out of court

I may be incorrect, but I thought I heard that the Chungs offered a final offer of $12,000.

Pants DO wear out eventually.

[liberalhistorian]

5. They shouldn't even have to pay anywhere near that much,

maybe the price of replacing the pants and that is IT. That is all they should ever be responsible for.

[Digit]

6. I agree...they knew he was an attorney and could bring the house down.

I would vote for double the value, tops. That would allow a pair to be made special for him. What would that amount to, maybe 150 tops?

[ninkasi]

7. There are several articles about this when I did a search of his name

This site http://byoolin.livejournal.com/161636.html has a writeup about it, and very helpfully gives the following website, http://dc.gov/contact/index.shtm, which has a FEEDBACK section. Some of us may want to provide feedback.

[july302001]

8. common sense

This ALJ is an absolute disgrace to the American legal system and to the legal profession!

A lawsuit for an outrageous amount of money over one stupid pair of pants!

This individual is clearly abusing the American legal system. If individuals like this would stop their greedy pleadings, the conservative drive for tort reform would have less traction. The greed of a few people like this want to be greedy against mom 'n'pop businesses makes the justification for corporate-friendly-in-all-ways laws so much easier.

If certain individuals like this $million$-pair-of-pants-pleader were to restrain their greed, perhaps we could have decent worker protections. But, because the greedy few spoil the game for the rest of us, corporate America basically gets its way.

A pair of pants or any item of clothing is easily replaceable. The pair mentioned in the lawsuit aren't even mentioned as top-level designer or anything, so I'm assuming they're standard business suit trousers that are worth, at the most, about $200.00 when bought new.

Anyone with common sense has been to Saturday morning yard sales, flea markets or thrift stores and can see how many clean, serviceable, and often name-brand clothing is available - - - never mind what's available new at department stores, specialty shops, and even the 5th Avenue ateliers.

Owing to economic circumstances, I've been shopping at the Goodwill lately for a wardrobe upgrading. I've spent about $200.00 (gas to/from included) and, in the course of several visits, have picked up a solid 2 weeks+' worth of changes for a business wardrobe, plus plenty of casual things. Over a span of several months, I've picked up everything from blouses to pants to jackets to jeans and casual shirts to one very expensive coat (bought for $2.00) for special occasions - - all for about $200.00 and some time.

Even if I were to use this ALJ's tactic and count all my "hidden costs" or "future costs" including vehicle wear and tear, tires, the marginal costs of future hybrid battery replacement in my Prius, and time expenditures, I've spent no more than $550.00 upgrading an entire wardrobe. Hardly one pair of pants. Try about 15+ jackets and numerous uncounted blouses/pants etc. I estimate alteration expenses at about $100.00 so that makes $650.00.

Yes, they're used, but I look very closely for damage, tears, stains, soiling, wear and the like, before I buy. I found several items with store tags still on them and quite a few more that had only been worn once or a few times.

The washable items all go out on my clothesline and are dried by the sun and wind. The woolen items are hanging in my closet waiting for winter...if the cleaners lose something, who cares?! I know where I can get replacements!

I happen to wear relatively common sizes and therefore I can easily buy used. You know...the whole environmental thing...reuse...recycle...

However, I also believe in buying American and supporting American workers.

It's getting very hard to find clothing that's actually made right here in the USA by American workers. Every time I go in the local department store and look at labels, I see "Made in China." That's another reason that I have started shopping for used clothing rather than buying new.

Recently, I found a small North Carolina outfit that custom-makes clothing right here in North Carolina. The firm caters to all friendly American gals in the Plus Sizes. I think it would be nice to give 'em a little free-unasked-for plug because they're a small business and are "Doing the Right Thing" and employing American workers. I'm entirely neutral in their market...I don't even know the owner and I don't wear a plus size.

[fortyfeetunder]

9. It smells like classism to me

Attorney figures he could take advantage of the situation, and since this was his "neighborhood cleaners" he probably knew them and their socioeconomic situation well enough to figure out they had a little bit of money and he could milk this for all he could, as if he wasn't making enough money.

I think he's earned a vacation to St. Elizabeth's across the way....

[Kool Kitty]

10. I don't know why this is so hard to understand-

the cleaners lost his pants. The problem was that although the suit (which the pair of pants was part of) only cost $1,100, the judge forgot that he had left $64,998,900.00 in the left back pocket. I'm sure you've left money in a pocket, too.

[Jack_DeLeon]

11. What a fucking asshole...