mullet
08-15-2007, 10:56 AM
Could This Be the End of the $54 Million Pants Suit?
Jin and Soo Chung offer "olive branch." (AP)
By Emil Steiner | August 14, 2007; 2:30 PM ET
Like a pair of old trousers stretched past its prime and hanging on by thread, the $54-million pants suit may soon be headed to the proverbial Salvation Army box. Plaintiff Roy Pearson has until 5 p.m. Wednesday to appeal a decision denying him $54 million for the loss of his suit pants.
In gesture of goodwill, Jin and Soo Chung, owners of Custom Cleaners, yesterday withdrew their motion to collect the nearly $83,000 in attorney's fees they spent defending themselves against what some have called the most frivolous lawsuit ever filed. Thanks to generous donations, the Chungs were able to raise "almost enough" money to cover legal expenses.
Their "olive branch," however, as defense attorney Christopher Manning called it, is contingent on Pearson dropping his appeal -- which may not be very likely: the Chungs offered him $12,000 to settle this matter a couple years ago and he turned them down. During the trial an "expert" pants witness testified that the Hickey Freeman slacks had a value of about $395, though Pearson said he was suing on behalf of all consumers who've ever been wronged by their dry cleaners.
Still, there is some hope that reason may at long last prevail. One of the ironies of this case is that Pearson is a judge himself -- but maybe not for much longer. The Commission on Selection and Tenure, which determines appointments of administrative law judges, has sent Pearson a letter expressing "doubts about granting [him] a 10-year term on the bench." His original two-year term expired in April and this letter is considered the first step toward stripping him of his judgeship. (First he loses his pants, then his robe!) The commission's letter refers to the case against the Chungs and warns that it raises of questions about his judicial temperament or lack thereof. As a result there is a chance that Pearson will end this insanity to save his job.
A chance, yes -- but I wouldn't bet on it. In fact the most likely outcome here is more irony from a the case that has shown American jurisprudence to be a few stitches short of hem. If Pearson goes ahead with his appeal, the Chungs would incur more legal expenses and be forced to re-file their motion to recoup. And if Pearson loses his job, he may not be able to pay them anything -- and so, despite winning in court, the Chungs may still end up losing.
-------------------------------------------------------
Pearson v. Custom Cleaners The Saga Continues
By Emil Steiner | August 14, 2007; 2:50 PM ET
Roy Pearson Files Appeal
I have just received word that Roy "Pants-less" Pearson has appealed Judge Bartnoff's ruling that he does not deserve $54 million for his suit pants. The move is a flat rejection to the Chungs dropping their motion to recoup legal fees which their lawyer described as an "olive branch." Lead counsel for the Chungs, Christopher Manning, tells me he has to discuss the filing with his clients before commenting directly, but promised a statement soon. Looks like this pants lawsuit still has legs -
Jin and Soo Chung offer "olive branch." (AP)
By Emil Steiner | August 14, 2007; 2:30 PM ET
Like a pair of old trousers stretched past its prime and hanging on by thread, the $54-million pants suit may soon be headed to the proverbial Salvation Army box. Plaintiff Roy Pearson has until 5 p.m. Wednesday to appeal a decision denying him $54 million for the loss of his suit pants.
In gesture of goodwill, Jin and Soo Chung, owners of Custom Cleaners, yesterday withdrew their motion to collect the nearly $83,000 in attorney's fees they spent defending themselves against what some have called the most frivolous lawsuit ever filed. Thanks to generous donations, the Chungs were able to raise "almost enough" money to cover legal expenses.
Their "olive branch," however, as defense attorney Christopher Manning called it, is contingent on Pearson dropping his appeal -- which may not be very likely: the Chungs offered him $12,000 to settle this matter a couple years ago and he turned them down. During the trial an "expert" pants witness testified that the Hickey Freeman slacks had a value of about $395, though Pearson said he was suing on behalf of all consumers who've ever been wronged by their dry cleaners.
Still, there is some hope that reason may at long last prevail. One of the ironies of this case is that Pearson is a judge himself -- but maybe not for much longer. The Commission on Selection and Tenure, which determines appointments of administrative law judges, has sent Pearson a letter expressing "doubts about granting [him] a 10-year term on the bench." His original two-year term expired in April and this letter is considered the first step toward stripping him of his judgeship. (First he loses his pants, then his robe!) The commission's letter refers to the case against the Chungs and warns that it raises of questions about his judicial temperament or lack thereof. As a result there is a chance that Pearson will end this insanity to save his job.
A chance, yes -- but I wouldn't bet on it. In fact the most likely outcome here is more irony from a the case that has shown American jurisprudence to be a few stitches short of hem. If Pearson goes ahead with his appeal, the Chungs would incur more legal expenses and be forced to re-file their motion to recoup. And if Pearson loses his job, he may not be able to pay them anything -- and so, despite winning in court, the Chungs may still end up losing.
-------------------------------------------------------
Pearson v. Custom Cleaners The Saga Continues
By Emil Steiner | August 14, 2007; 2:50 PM ET
Roy Pearson Files Appeal
I have just received word that Roy "Pants-less" Pearson has appealed Judge Bartnoff's ruling that he does not deserve $54 million for his suit pants. The move is a flat rejection to the Chungs dropping their motion to recoup legal fees which their lawyer described as an "olive branch." Lead counsel for the Chungs, Christopher Manning, tells me he has to discuss the filing with his clients before commenting directly, but promised a statement soon. Looks like this pants lawsuit still has legs -