Starting Over Talk - Peer Coaching Support Site

This is an interesting AND absurd news piece in the D.C. area...

A local judge is suing his dry cleaner for $54 million dollars for losing a pair of pants (or so he says)... He says they didn't live up to their satisfaction guaranteed sign in their shop.

The poor Korean couple (who by now are really poor because of legal costs) has been raked through the coals by this silly suit..

The hearings ended today and the judge is expected to rule by the end of next week.

I think this is just an opportunist and sure hope that a common sense judge is presiding over the trial! If anything, he should get the depreciated value of the pants..

I hope he loses... Something incredibly wrong with this picture.. Especially in that the complainant is a judge/lawyer! oh yeah... he's representing himself and has all kinds of charges supposedly related to the pants issue..

This is unbelievable... Ya gotta read the story.. It's pretty laughable... Apparently alot of support has come to the Chungs (the drycleaners) because of the story and a defense fund was set up. Hopefully this will at least be an encouragement to them and offset their expenses that have piled up over 2 years..
http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3269485&page=1

I heard about this on some show. I will check out the article.

I don't know about other jurisdictions, but in NC we have a procedure called Offer of Judgement. What it means is that if you are the defendant in a legal action for money and before trial you offer a certain amount to settle the case in writing, if the Plaintiff refuses to settle for the offered amount he could be in trouble later. Because at trial if the Plaintiff recovers even $1. under the offer of Judgment, the Plaintiff must pay the legal fees of the Defendant. I hope I explained this okay. This is to encourage people to make reason attempts to settle.

So if the Dry Cleaners offered $100. as an offer of judgment, the Plaintiff refused to accept, and the award after trial was $99.00, the Plaintiff even though he won would still have to pay the legal fees of the dry cleaners.

Someone on the radio this afternoon was talking about why the suit even got this far and why the judge heard the case. It should have been sent to small claims..

But I don't know all the other legal mumbo jumbo..

Since a fellow judge was the plaintif and the plaintif supposedly had some old laws he was trying to follow... (such as some sort of penalty per day to be assessed to the defendant)... maybe that is what complicated the case. I'd hate to think a fellow judge was giving one of their own preferential treatment.. The presiding judge is a woman..and did at one point sort of reprimanded the plaintiff.. I guess he was arguing for 'his' side... and using the term 'we'... and the judge said use the term 'I'... Rather funny to me! Him arguing his own case in the 2nd person! LOL! I guess he called himself to the stand...and supposedly cried about his emotional distress..

I know it's not supposed to, but I sure hope the judge is swayed by a little bit of public opinion.

I've never heard of that law Debby... Maybe it's a new concept whose time has come! I'm sure it would cut down on alot of frivolous suits..

I personally have a hard time believing this plaintiff...since he has twisted it excessively it taints his credibility and perhaps even his career.. How can a judge be considered fair and impartial when he is so incredulous in his own conduct?

I have worked in Dry Cleaners since 1980! You get to see many "people".

This story is so far out there! If the people didn't have the sign "Satisfaction Guarted" then there probably wouldn't be this much of a mess........and the other person is a "Law" person and knows all the little bits that he can use against the cleaners.

I have heard stories about how " This pair of pants meant so much to me.......my grandmother gave them to me and she now has passed away.......now how am I going to manage!" True story!!

The man was asked to leave at one time and pleaded to use them again. So the cleaners agreed. Word of mouth is the best advertisment and I'm sure that the owners didn't want this wondful customer spreading bad stuff!!

I have had to throw out customers and call the cops on them! They can get real nasty! I understand that you brought in the garment with a stain.......but if it has been on there a long time it won't come out! It's just clothing! It's replacable and many cleaners will replace what is lost or damaged. It's not your arm or leg.......get over it and move on with life!!

In another article, the defense brought up an interesting point.... the judge/platiff had just gotthe through a costly and bitter divorce and the judge wasn't working at the time. He didn't have a lot of money to his name.

You know.........every show I've ever watched on Court TV, Judge Judy..etc...they actually explain that the law is to "make the person whole"...........as in NOT replacement costs.......NOT punitive.........strictly the value at the time of the item they lost.

I'm soooooooooooooo sick to death of these kind of people when we have folks who STILL are suffering losses after Katrina, and other horrendous events. OMG..................it's beyond ridiculous........I say throw out the judge who even agreed to HEAR the case!!!!!!!!!!!!!