The Trousers Trial -- Judgment is now in...

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 7103 Location: Yes

Yeah, this blogger for the WaPo is really doing a bang-up job in covering this circus. He's very funny. Laughing

You can support the dry cleaners by donating to their fund:

http://www.customcleanersdefensefund.com/

Forever n00b Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 432

Aside from being recently divorced, word is that the narcissistic judge is now financially strapped. Maybe self representation wasn't by choice. I doubt any of those plaintiff attorneys would take this on contingency.

Edit: Glad to see the attorneys policing their own. The American Association for Justice, formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, filed an ethics complaint against Pearson with the D.C. Bar.

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:37 pm

Luther Blissett wrote:

What's wrong with these judges? One sues for his pants, the other one is taking off his pants!? Shocked

The CK pants judge was acquitted earlier this week.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 7103 Location: Yes

Good news.

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:58 pm

A win for reality, and the judge has to cough up the costs, excellent!

Forever n00b Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 432

I hope the Chungs are awarded their attorney fees too.

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:46 pm

Does anyone know in NY if "costs" includes attorney fees? In the state where I practice "costs" specifically does NOT include attorney fees. I have not read many articles about this case, but this asshat needs to get hit with attorney fees and everything.

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:19 pm

The article explains about the costs:

Quote:

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.

The dry cleaners' lawyer said:

Quote:

Judge Bartnoff has chosen common sense and reasonableness over irrationality and unbridled venom.

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:46 pm

Thaks 8.... did not read the article obviously.

I hope that they get the attorney fees out of this jerk.

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:47 pm

TheGreatOok wrote:

Just read some warnings on packages, they are on there because someone did that.

Except in the case of some badly translated items from asia Laughing

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 3:40 am

And he may not get his Judge job back! clapping

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 3:57 am

He really did have a fool for a client!

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:49 am

It's a classic case of:

It's not my fault that I'm stupid. Someone should pay me.

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:45 am

Perfect opportunity to get some lads holding up signs taking the p*ss out of him Twisted Evil

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 7103 Location: Yes

I read the 23 page opinion. Aside from the technicalities, it's quite clear that this judge is mentally unstable. According to the presiding Judge, it's quite possible the plaintiff judge never even brought the pants he said he lost to the cleaners. His son had borrowed 4 of his suits when the judge didn't need them and who knows if HE lost them....

In any event, there is no question this guy will end up paying legal fees. The opinion also mentions the judge's divorce and how he stretched that out as well with frivolous motions and positions. He's a real winner.

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:24 pm

At least some sanity remains in US litigation law!

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:04 pm

JMRazor wrote:

I read the 23 page opinion.

Got a link? I'd love to read it.

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:30 pm

The problem here is not just the crazy plaintiff. The problem is also that the defense counsel has allegedly run up a bill for "tens of thousands of dollars" in legal fees. Now, I ask, in what rational, sane world do you spend "tens of thousands" defending such a frivolous claim? And what did this defense attorney do to generate that level of billings? Take ten depositions? Geez. We defend small claims type lawsuits all the time, and this one should have been defended for a fraction of that amount.

Bruin

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:47 pm

Weeeellll, to be fair, if someone were suing me for that many million over a few pair of trousers, I would definitely want my lawyer to depose anyone and his brother who could make sure the judge ruled in my favor. I wouldn't call this a typical small claims case.

If the nutjob plaintiff sent enough time-wasters to the defending attorney, I could see where that would add up, too.

And news articles have been known to inflate numbers.

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:56 pm

I know what you are saying, Mrs.Bean, but what if the plaintiff had prevailed? Realistically, the judgment would have been $100 or $200 or whatever. A judgment of $54 million is (a) like lightning striking; and (b) would be reversed on appeal.

This was basically a small claims court matter with an outlandish damages prayer.

Bruin

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:02 pm

Maybe the tens of thousands include the restraining order.

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:36 pm

The Chungs will not see a penny. Sad

Pearson will appeal the decision and then the award. He's got no income and no prospects for a job. This asshat has no assets and will be on general relief before the appeals are over.

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:57 am

He ought to be out of a job and lose his law license forever. I can see it being $10,000 to defend this claim. In reading some of the news accounts Pearson was pretty abusive in his discovery. He listed 27 witnesses that would testify that the cleaners lost or damaged their property. The Judge limited him to 5 in the pre-trial order. I assume all 5 were deposed pre-trial.

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:32 am

Dang... I think my Grandfather (a lawer then a judge) was rolling in his grave at the beginning of this.. I can imagine what would happen if the asshat had won.. Grandpa would probably come back to life just to bitch slap both of them... Twisted Evil

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 7103 Location: Yes

Yeah, $10,000 is nothing for a case that goes to a 2-day trial. If the crazy plaintiff is going to try to call 27 witnesses, then you need to prepare and know what those witnesses are going to say. If you think the plaintiff is going overboard with his pre-trial discovery, then you have to file motions to try to rein him in. Either way, it costs money. You can't just walk into the trial empty-handed.

However, given that the Chungs' fees may be recoverable is something of a silver lining (assuming of course that this idiot can afford to pay).

Anyway, here is a link to the WSJ Law Blog which has a good run-down and links to the Order and Opinion.

The Trousers Trial -- Judgment is now in...	View next topic View previous topic