Judge Sues Dry Cleaners for $65 Mil.

honeychile · #1 06-15-2007, 12:12 AM

Am I the only one who doesn't hope that the dry cleaners involved file a countersuit for defamation and sue the pants off of this judge?

KSig RC · #2 06-15-2007, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honeychile

Am I the only one who doesn't hope that the dry cleaners involved file a countersuit for defamation and sue the pants off of this judge?

ooooooooooooooh I see what you did there

AlphaFrog · #3 06-15-2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC

ooooooooooooooh I see what you did there

LOL...good call, I didn't even notice that.

KDAngel · #4 06-15-2007, 12:53 PM

I'm up here in the District and word is the cleaners are going under trying to pay for this case. So now there's a website up where people can help them out and donate money http://www.customcleanersdefensefund.com/

AlphaFrog · #5 06-15-2007, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDAngel

I'm up here in the District and word is the cleaners are going under trying to pay for this case. So now there's a website up where people can help them out and donate money http://www.customcleanersdefensefund.com/

Their case info site says that the trial is over and they're expecting a verdit next week.

ETA: It also said that their final settlement offer was $12,000 and if he doesn't win more than that, he will have to pay their legal fees.

I doubt any judge in their right mind would reward more than $12,000 for a pair of pants. Especially when he's representing himself.

OneTimeSBX · #6 06-15-2007, 01:03 PM

they seem like such a sweet couple...my mom heard they were going back home after this...what a shame.

Kevin · #7 06-15-2007, 01:13 PM

I think that whatever this lawyer wins might just be taken away from him by a subsequent Rule 11 (sanctions) motion.

I've seen the statute in question. I think the pants owner has a basic case according to the law. It's just that one of the rules of statutory interpretation is that the law should not be interpreted so as to achieve an absurdity. If that is true, I've never seen a more accurate place for that to be true.

The fair thing to do here would be for the judge to award the plaintiff whatever it costs to buy a new pair of pants which were like the ones he had before (the law doesn't care if they're lucky). Then, I think the judge ought to award the dry cleaners their attorney's fees -- payable by the plaintiff since the plaintiff has unreasonably spurned a number of settlement offers.

I don't know if that can be done, but that's what I'd like to see.