Obviously we're in need of some serious shorts reform.
Does this guy perhaps have a vendetta against Koreans for daring to own businesses?
Would being disbarred have any effect on a judge? I thought the bar's sanction was required to practice law before a judge, but that the judge himself was not beholden to the bar.
Sounds like a candidate to fill Justice Stevens spot on the Supreme Court.
Pants make people do crazy things, we all know that.
The person who should be disbarred is the judge who is letting it go to trial. Shameful!
The proper response would have been: "Judgment on the pleadings! De minimis non curat lex. Enjoy small claims court."
Fun math trick, though. If you want to sue someone for a lot of money, start with a reasonable number then find several factors of 2 or 3 to toss in and make it a big number.
I'm going to sue Apo for $1500 for the emotional distress of making me think about him not wearing pants. But he did the post plus 2 comments so far (x3), he also has another blog (x2), he has 2 kids who he also walks around in front of without pants (x2, + class action!), etc., etc.
9: Exactly right. Small Claims Court & psychotherapy is indicated.
There are too many lawyers in this forum for me to make a joke about them. Ca suffit!
I have been assured in the past that the reason you see so many judges bringing ridiculous high-figure law suits is that they know well how the law works, and they know they can make a lot of money this way.
The countersuit for harassment should be fairly easy to win.
By 'should' I mean 'in an ideal world.' In this world, it's probably feasible for a judge to drain an immigrant family of their entire net worth over a pair of pants.
Do you really call an Administrative Law Judge a "judge?"
Is this actually going to trial?
How can this survive a demurrer and/or a motion to strike?
People file crazy stuff all the time. Then, big business-funded "public interest" groups rant and rave about how wacked the system is, as if these suits are anything but the rantings of wierd people.
Damn, this makes my city look bad. And unfortunately, he starts a new 10-year term starts today.
13: Of course, that the law works this way is those very judges' fault. Tort reform is only a needed concept because judges all over this country have abrogated their duty as gatekeepers of justice and have tolerated idiotic, trifling lawsuits. Every time I see a story on "can you believe this lawyer brought this craaaazy lawsuit?!" I think, "one more judge who has failed to do his job." As such, your comment is even more depressing insofar as those judges created the world they now take advantage of.
16: The article says trial is set for June. How it got past demurrer, I simply cannot fathom.
5: Would the more appropiate action then be to disrobe him?
(Sorry... )
Based on his Wikipedia entry, this is pretty much how the Reverand Phelps kicked off his entrance to the law profession.
I give it 5 years before he's picketing baby funerals.
That we don't have demurrer in DC might be part of it.
There's a fact dispute about whether the pants proffered by the cleaner are the pants dropped off by the judge. I'm no happier about how the legal system works on bogus claims than anyone else, but this is enough to keep it alive.
As I noted on the ObWi thread on this last week, one hopes there's an offer of judgment on the table, and that somehow the court can award attorneys fees when the judgment comes in. (I haven't looked at DC Rule 68 with this in mind.)
You know, someone should go down and live blog the trial in this case.
23: You have no motion to dismiss analogue? Even if you have a completely untenable theory of law, as long as there's a factual dispute, you won't get dismissed?
As I noted on the ObWi thread on this last week
I should probably start reading other blogs again.
Rousseau, your attitude reeks of mopery and barratry. I'll see you in a DC court. Be prepared for a charge of conspiracy to commit macing and defalcation, as the bailor for the bailiff's soccage in fief.
Nolo contendere to mopery. Especially given the sadsack tone of 19.
I should probably start reading other blogs again.
Madness. Utter madness.
23:
Darn those DC rules!!
I was not as concerned about the factual dispute as about whether he has stated a legal claim under his stated facts.
Emotional distress? You don't have any basis to kick out a case pre-trial?
I anxiously await DNA evidence tying plaintiff to the disputed pants.
The proper response would have been: "Judgment on the pleadings! De minimis non curat lex. Enjoy small claims court."
"And as for judgement on the pleatings: uuuunflattering."
Okay, I don't know when this started, but it's "wringer": when you're having a hard time you're going through a "wringer." As in, you get wrung out, twisted, stretched, frayed.
What the hell do people think they're saying when they say they've been through a "ringer"?
And where is w-lfs-n, and why isn't he posting this?
A couple of years ago my partners and I went through a four-day jury trial in a case brought by a crazy pro se plaintiff who alleged that I'd basically beaten him up when he showed up at our office to pick up non-existent documents. Factually crazy cases are hard to get rid of.
32: I thought it was "ringer," as in, "I feel like I've been shrunk down to tiny size and stuck in the bell inside my old telephone and then returned to my normal size."
You mean this isn't right?
They probably couldn't have the whole claim thrown out on a motion to dismiss because the judge is probably entitled to something -- just not the $67 million he's looking for.
I'm sure that the owners could have moved to get rid of the emotional distress claim, but it is probably cheaper to just go to trial and get rid of it then.
They probably couldn't have the whole claim thrown out on a motion to dismiss because the judge is probably entitled to something -- just not the $67 million he's looking for.
I'm sure that the owners could have moved to get rid of the emotional distress claim, but it is probably cheaper to just go to trial and get rid of it then.
I don't know how the law works, but with any luck they'll grant him reasonable damages, but make him pay his own legal fees, which will more than wipe out the damages.
Pearson's bio makes the suit even more befuddling.
http://oah.dc.gov/oah/cwp/view,A,3,Q,604474.asp
He appears to have been a director of a legal aid agency specializing in civil claims in DC for 13 years as well as a clinical law professor at Georgetown. You would think he might have a little compassion and common sense.
Sounds like a grudge. Who knows, maybe the cleaners used "the n-word" or something.
39: I bet not. He would have added some civil rights cause of action.
We have Rule 12. I'm sure the complaint states a claim. The cleaner promised to clean the pants by a time certain. The pants were not cleaned by that date. Why doesn't this state a claim? The promise is made in an advertisement. Sounds like it falls within the consumer protection statute.
Now the damages are silly, but sometimes statutes create silly situations.
39: I bet not. He would have added some civil rights cause of action.
Huh, good point.
He states a claim, but a claim for emotional distress? I cannot imagine that he has stated a claim for that.
34: Old fashioned wringer. I remember seeing those (sleeker, but the same idea) into the early fifties. The meaning of "put through the wringer" becomes quite clear once you've seen one, verdad?
As my old partner likes to say, 'don't think, look it up:'
In November, Judge Neal Kravitz ruled that such a demand was an egregious abuse of process and a monumental waste of the court's and the parties' time and resources.
"At the end of the day, this is a case about one pair of pants that either was or wasn't fixed and was or wasn't lost," Bartnoff said at the March 21 hearing, echoing Kravitz's initial ruling. "All that's relevant is, 'Are these pants yours or not?'"
Pearson maintains that the Chungs failed to alter his pants by May 5, 2005, after he dropped them off May 3. He claims they substituted a different pair of pants that didn't match his suit jacket.
During the hearing, Bartnoff became increasingly frustrated with Pearson's interruptions and litany of special requests. For instance, she told him he would be able to call only four witnesses from the list of 50-plus he submitted.
"The witness list is enormously disturbing," she said, adding that their complaints regarding Custom Cleaners were way beyond the scope of the trial. "This list is so long ... it's so out of proportion to the issue in this case."
Bartnoff questioned how much emotional distress anybody suffered over one pair of pants and also quizzed Pearson about his request to present video at the trial supposedly showing distances he had to travel to find a dry cleaner now that he no longer used the one in his neighborhood.
"I don't think you have a fundamental right to have a dry cleaners within four blocks of your house," Bartnoff said.
The news accounts don't make clear what's actually going to trial, but it doesn't look like it's the whole boat prayed for.
This doesn't sound exceptional at all: At a June 11-12 non-jury trial, Associate Judge Judith Bartnoff will decide if the pants presented as evidence indeed belong to Pearson. If not, Pearson could be entitled to the $1,450 he claims it would cost to replace the suit. If the judge finds cleaner owners Soo and Jin Nam Chung and their son Ki Y. guilty of willful and malicious behavior, Pearson might have punitive damages coming his way.
"Old fashioned wringer. I remember seeing those (sleeker, but the same idea) into the early fifties"
In English "mangle". As in "I haven't laughed so much since Granny got her tits caught in the.."
