Legal: end of saga of $54M pants(VICTORY for attorneys!)

T

theinvisibleheart

New member
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297365,00.html

Dry Cleaner Closes Business After $54,000,000 Missing Pants Lawsuit
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
_____________________________________________________________________

WASHINGTON — The owners of a dry cleaner who were sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants have closed and sold the shop involved in the dispute, their attorney said Wednesday.

The South Korean immigrants are citing a loss of revenue and the emotional strain of defending the lawsuit. They will focus their energy on another dry-cleaning shop they still own, said their attorney, Chris Manning.

"This is a truly tragic example of how devastating frivolous litigation can be to the American people and to small businesses," Manning said in a statement.

Soo Chung and her husband, Jin Nam Chung, faced more than two years of litigation after a former customer at Custom Cleaners alleged they had lost a pair of his pants, then sued for $67 million under the District of Columbia's strict consumer protection act.

Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, a local administrative law judge, later lowered his demand to $54 million. He said the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service" signs that once hung in the shop were misleading and fraudulent.

The case went to trial in June and a D.C. Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the Chungs, awarding Pearson nothing. Pearson is pursuing an appeal.

The Chungs incurred more than $100,000 in legal expenses, which were eventually paid with help from fundraisers and donations.

Even after the trial ended favorably, Manning said, the Chungs lost customers and revenue. They have now closed two of their three businesses since the lawsuit began, he said.

_____________________________________________________________________
 
Last edited:
Now I would really love to know who the rat bast... customers are that took thier bussiness some where else because of the lawsuit.

Personally if I was one of thier customers I would look for extra things to take in just to help them out.

On a side note, my Dry Cleaner is a first generation Korean family, and when I go in I use the Korean terms of respect that I picked up from when I served in Korea. Boy does that make me friends and I never have a problem getting my things back quick and spotless.
 
most probably, the customers left becuz the quality of service at various locations declined due to small business owners having to spend their time in the court instead of at their shop.
 
It ain't lawyers. It's the law and the lawyer's CLIENTS. This litigant is the ultimate supreme jackass, and no amount of sand would bury him deep enough. He happens to have been a judge. What a fruitcake this judge was/is.
 
Can't critisize attoreys

There are no penalties for filing frivolis lawsuits, ruining people financialy draging industries like the evil tobaco companies, auto makers, gun manufacturures into court for the acts of oters using there products. set a stage as acceptable behavior to beat an entity to death with legal fees untill it goes away not because you are right but because you can make a buck or attack a behavior you don't approve of for the good of the children:barf: Nobody blinks when it is a wealthy corporation if its succesful it must be evil. A disgruntaled neighbor could litigate YOU into bankrupcy the same way.
I don't have an answer. It just don't seem right.
 
Tough luck. I suggest this is a lesson for other dry cleaners to take extra good care not to misplace other people's property.
 
That doesn't matter. The tactic is to sue, whether you have a good case or not. Since this particular litigant was an attorney, it cost him next to nothing to sue. The tactic is to bury your opponent in legal fees.
 
Why doesn't it matter?

IIRC, isn't it only a "frivolous lawsuit" in the case of no real wrong being done to you by the defendant (think of the gun company cases)?

I mean, the only thing really wrong with this story is the amount of money they sued for, not the actual fact they sued.
 
The fact this was even a major case is certainly frivolous. If anything, this should have been a small claims issue and should have been settled with a replacement pair of pants. But in our society, you can sue for practically anything for a ridiculous amount. $54M for a pair of pants? That judge needs some sense knocked into him. I'll bet if someone entered his courtroom under similar circumstances, he would have summarily dismissed the charges as ludicrous. We need something like a 'loser pays' system to discourage people from engaging in such behavior.
 
That is what I meant by "doesn't matter"

Whether I lose your pants or not, a lawyer can find a good reason to sue anyone if he looks hard enough.

He can claim you took longer to do his pants because you were discriminating, or that you had a satisfaction guarantee and didn't get the stain out, whatever. The point here is not to win the suit, but to bury you in legal fees. Frivolous suits can be forced to pay the legal fees of the opposition, but the bar that you have to clear in order to show the suit not to be frivolous is a rather low one.

And yes, that is exactly what Mayor Bloomberg is doing to the gun stores. His case would probably not win in court, but as the mayor of NYC, he has unlimited resources, and the gun stores do not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top