Reply With Quote
Good for them!
Dry cleaner wins missing pants case By LUBNA TAKRURI, Associated Press Writer
2 minutes ago
A judge ruled Monday in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants.
The owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's consumer protection law by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store window, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled.
"A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands" or to agree to demands that the merchant would have reasonable grounds for disputing, the judge wrote.
Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung.
Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs, claiming they lost a pair of trousers from a blue and maroon suit, then tried to give him a pair a pair of charcoal gray pants that he said were not his. He arrived at the amount by adding up years of alleged law violations and almost $2 million in common law fraud claims.
Bartnoff wrote, however, that Pearson failed to prove that the pants the dry cleaner tried to return were not the pants he taken in for alterations.
Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.
The court costs amount to just over $1,000 for photocopying, filing and similar expenses, according to the Chungs' attorney. A motion to recover the Chungs' tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be considered later.
Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, praised the ruling, which followed a two-day trial earlier this month.
"Judge Bartnoff has spoken loudly in suggesting that, while consumers should be protected, abusive lawsuits like this will not be tolerated," Manning said in a statement. "Judge Bartnoff has chosen common sense and reasonableness over irrationality and unbridled venom."
Pearson did not immediately respond to a call and an e-mail seeking comment.
Good for them!
That guy who sued was a dumbass anyway. I would have thrown that lawsuit out and told him to never bring stupid like that in court again.
Good think this Country is going to . Otherwise worthless ing losers with too much time on their hands would struggle to earn millions off the hard working self employed public.
All I know is that I would not want to have a case come up in the court of the so-called "administrative law judge" who filed this asinine suit in the first place. He should be defrocked.
Justice will be done when this asshole ends up paying the Chungs' attorney fees
IMHO, they should file a counter suit and take him to the cleaners!
Thank God, there's still hope for this country yet.
They need to get attorneys' fees out of him too, but court costs is a good start.
Pearson should just admit he doesn't like Chinamen.
Where's his $67mil lawsuit against Wendy's drive-thru for failing to put the barbecue sauce in the bag with the chicken nuggets?
THANK GOD!
the so called "judge" who filled this lawsuit against the Chungs is an ebarrsment ot this country. what a dmaan joke.
and I bet he doesn;t even get it either. i bet he;s pissed his lawsuit was dismissed.
poor Chungs. imagine actually wanting to go back top Korea because you;ve been so ed over by America.
Common sense comes out of hiding for a rare day in court. And Ed, Chinamen is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian Americans, please.
He has to pay all the fees now!
Seriously, this guy has got to feel pretty damn embarrassed now.
this case is just lame,
dude shouldve just sued for the recoverable amount of the suit
not fukn 50+mill
Sorry. My bad.
BTW, why is it that Chinamen are so good at washing clothes anyway? I've always found that the Chinese laundries do a far superior job to those owned and operated by any other ethnic group. Is this some sort of genetic gift the Chinese have?
PC police strike again...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
