$67 Million Lawsuit Over a Pair of Pants:
Please tell me that this story is some sort of joke.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
In Search of Jefferson's Moose
Sources on the Second Amendment
$67 Million Lawsuit Over a Pair of Pants:
Please tell me that this story is some sort of joke.
|
ContactJohn Elwood CategoriesSubscribeArchives
FeaturesStuff from usAcademic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates In Search of Jefferson's Moose Sources on the Second Amendment Blogroll |
Or, if that's too simple, my father's favorite words of wisdom for me - "Sometimes, you're so right, you're wrong." (not that I think this guy, or the judges who have let it drag on, are right).
Should someone wish to do so:
http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/ethics/discipline/index.cfm
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Wallace E. Shipp, Jr.
Bar Counsel
District of Columbia Office of Bar Counsel
409 E Street, NW
Room 228B
Washington, DC 20001
I would hope that he would also be disbarred, but I doubt the DC Bar would take such a drastic step. The rationalization: So he's a little crazy, but the bar shouldn't take a person's living away for such a mild indiscretion. And, of course, the authorities that appoint or supervise administrative law judges would be similarly weak-kneed.
It is a pity, and I do hope, first, he loses; second, that there is some basis in D.C. law for the judge to award huge costs against him (is there an equivalent of Rule 11?). And, finally, that he is hit with a whopping malicious prosecution suit.
It makes me ashamed to be a member of the legal profession. Alas, it is far from the only instance that creates my shame.
Here's a link to another article.
Lowering The Bar has been covering this as well, so far here and here.
As a judge, assuming he's actually made decisions on other people's cases in the past, does this lawsuit of his call the reasonableness of his own past decisions into question?
I'll believe that when I see it.
Indeed.
One problem is that the system divides into tiers. Out of JP or small claims, into superior or district court. So long as the number claimed is above the jurisdictional amount, a person can claim any idiotic number they want, subject only to the risk of looking like a moron.
If I was a lawyer in DC, I would represent these dry cleaner's for free. The judge might think this is very funny, but it isn't.
My thoughts exactly. What the hell is wrong with this guy? It was a pair of pants.
You can get a very nice car, and pay for parking and insurance for a decade for under $2 million, even in D.C.
This case isn't about lawyers. This case is about a particular twisted individual who is completely out of control, and should be disbarred from practicing law for dishonoring the profession.
Ultimately, this guy will lose, or get a judgment for much, much less than he is asking for. If he ends up getting a judgment for $67 million on these facts, then there would either be a problem with the legal system, or the statute in D.C. that made the judgment possible.
One of the unstated threats in DC is that non-blacks will always be judge by a majority black jury. That threat causes many business to settle on lousy terms.
Also, anyone know what the three belt loop situation is? Sounds like a band name ...
I dunno about disbarment - but I think he should be - argh, too early, word escapes me. He should be stripped of his office as a judge if that's at all possible.
I would have dismissed this comment, but in Philadelphia I noticed a similar thing. The jury pool in Philly is usually 50% or more black. During settlement conferences, Judges often bring up the racial angle to pressure one side into settling.
Certainly it isn't fair to single out these guys - there are scores of businesses that cut corners or take unfair advantage in small ways but over tons of customers. They avoid legal repercussions because no single plaintiff has any real incentive to sue (and class-action suits generally net the plaintiffs very little).
I'm conflicted between my sincere sympathy for these guys and my desire to send all similar businesses a message that small wrongs done lots of times are just as bad as big wrongs done once.
And this is the wrong reaction. What they should hate is the judges who do not have the guts to put a stop to this behavior.
Having practiced law for ten years, most lawyers are decent people, but there are a minority who will do anything to win a case -- if they can get away with it. That's the nub.
(Analogize this to a spoiled child -- who is to blame, the child or the parents?)
The judge here should have long ago entered partial summary judgment as follows: Plaintiff may have a claim for lost pants, which is capped at $800. Court grants partial summary judgment for any claim in excess of this amount. (Rule 56(d) of the federal rules of civil procedure permit this -- don't know about the local D.C. rules.)
The Defendants could then file an offer of judgment in that amount.
End of case.
This is one of the most hateful things I have ever read, and completely detached from reality. Gotta break a few eggs, right?
What "wrong" did the cleaners commit here? To reiterate: they found his pants and he refuses to pick them up!
Some loose and popular examples:
Metro bus drivers keep killing people.
Street sweepers keep killing people.
The DC government's negligence led to the deaths of over 200 kids in foster care.
The Metro keeps catching on fire.
Firetrucks can't find addresses so people die.
EMT workers don't take the injured to the closest hospital (or recognize the different between someone hit in the head with a pipe and someone who is drunk) but instead to ones closest to where they have personal business to attend to...and people die.
We all know the (recently struck down but still in force) DC gun laws that prevent self-defense.
It is illegal to have pepper spray in DC unless you register it with the police.
It is illegal to have a bike in DC unless you register it with the police.
etc. etc. etc.
But what else can we expect from a place where people knowingly elect crackheads to run things?
And yes, I am aware that this semi-coherent rant is only tangentially related to the actual topic at hand. :-D
Sure it is. The only reason that this case is causing such a ripple is the million-plus amount being asked. Would it be any less egregious if the amount were $5000? Would it be unusual enough to have made the news?
Justin, the Palestinians are white (there are five races). Whatever you offer them gets rejected because they want more with the ultimate goal of destroying you. Similarly this lawyer wanted to destroy this business out of an insane hatred for the owners. He kept rejecting more than reasonable offers just as the Palestinians do. I think the comparison is apt. What is the value of a used pair of pants? Certainly not their original cost of $800 (if that’s even true), but more like $20. Try denoting a pair of pants to charity as seem how much you can deduct.
BTW I have never had a dry cleaners lose anything. And that’s using cleaners on both coasts including the DC area, the New York area, and the San Francisco Bay area. While I can’t really say because I wasn’t there, I suspect he gave the business a really hard time as a customer by being over demanding. Look at his divorce for additional signs of this type of behavior.
It's common in Middle East politics especially because the final goal is destruction. You see it here. Don Imus tried to apologize, which led to him being used for publicity and them calling for his throat. It's why the President, no President, can ever admit an error of any kind and apologize for it - while this might be a 'normal' thing to do it would be handing a knife to his enemies with which to stab him endlessly.
It leads to a place where no concessions or apologies can be made.
OTOH, there are plenty of local businesses that continue to commit wrongs that are technically legally actionable (loss/damage of items, magically increasing fees, failure to disclose important terms clearly etc. . . ) but avoid legal action by keeping the monetary value of these wrongs underneath the "litigation threshold".
First, we're talking about what amounts to an allegation that the drycleaners were not good at their jobs, not that they charged hidden fees, excesesive interest, or even refused to honor rebates and coupons. Second, there are three basic, nonexclusive remedies for the problem he complains of - a) stop patronizing the business and tell everyone you know about it; b) file a claim in small claims court (no attorney needed); or c) file a consumer protection complaint with your state attorney general. All of these are perfectly effective ways to remedy your harm, although they don't provide the opportunity for an unmeritted windfall or to personally destroy the lives of the people who "did you wrong."
As there is a good faith argument for his statutory claims, the Defendants, unfortunately, would not be entitled to an award of attorney fees.
oren-
this is not really the time to be addressing the problem of business actions that cut corners in small ways....if you want to adress that...ask why there is a litigation threshold in the first place (not enough court resources) ...ask about the inadequacies of other remedys for bad buissness like the better business burro and the simple supply and demand curve that will put a dishonest business out of business
ask if when we get pissed off about getting screwed over in some small way by businesses and immediately assume this exact thing happens to a million other people a year (yes i do that too) ...if we have any evidence for that assumption..or if we are just pissed off (perhaps at ourselves for being taken in by the scam)
don't express sympathy for the guy who's suing for 64 million dollars for lost pants.....even though you say you dont agree with what hes doing..bringing it up now makes it look like your conflicted.
Alan Gunn wrote:
Yeah, this suit is nuts. But it's no more nuts than suing obstetricians for causing cerebral palsy by not doing enough C sections, or suing Dow Corning for causing autoimmune diseases by making silicone, which was used in breast implants. The only difference is that you don't need to know any science at all to understand this one.
NO ITS A LOT MORE NUTS:
1. because those doctors are set up to defend themselves from those types of frivolous suits..however frivolous they are (as far as i know..there is no malpractice insurance for the dry cleaning profession)
2. because this person is a ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
3. 64 MILLION DOLLORS
4. TWO YEARS
1. because those doctors are set up to defend themselves from those types of frivolous suits..however frivolous they are (as far as i know..there is no malpractice insurance for the dry cleaning profession)
2. because this person is a ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
3. 64 MILLION DOLLORS
4. TWO YEARS
5. And unlike plaintiffs with cerebal palsey or autoimmune diseases, the harm this guy suffered is absolutely completly trivial i.e. losing an easily replaced pair of pants.
Yes, it is a lot lot lot lot more nuts. Seems to me that it shows a lack of judicial temperment sufficient to disqualify him from the bench.
And for the logicians in the audience, might I point out that an example of one frivilous lawsuit, no matter how frivilous (and it doesn't come much more frivilous than this) does not imply that all consumer rights lawsuits are frivilous.
and id be the first one to tell people not to make policy because of one case.
but it does seem like in this particular case there is a structural problem with the consumer protection code.
On the other hand, the cases I described went in favor of the plaintiffs in the end, and, as a result, people have died. The C section rate has gone up quite a bit over the past few decades, mainly because of fears of malpractice litigation, and C sections, like all major surgery, are sometimes fatal. The scientific consensus is that fetal distress has not been shown to cause cerebral palsy. In the case of silicone, silicone became unavailable for medical uses as a result of the litigation (which was settled, at enormous cost). So, for a while, no silicone stents. Metal stents are more dangerous. (If I seem peeved, it may be because I have four metal stents; I'll have to take medication for the rest of my life to keep them from clogging up, with silicone, I wouldn't have had to.) And the unavailability of silicone breast implants has surely deterred some women from getting mastectomies, probably deterred some even from getting mammograms. If so, more deaths.
So, even if you're right about which case is more nuts, the ones I cited have almost certainly killed people. The pants case, by contrast, while hard on the defendants, has probably had a useful educational effect, and I doubt that anyone will die.
Or this quote:
"The trial court found that husband was substantially responsible for "excessive driving up" of the legal costs by "threatening both wife and her lawyer with disbarment [sic]," and creating unnecessary litigation. [Now THAT's a shocker!!]
Consequently, it awarded wife $12,000 in legal fees to be paid by husband.
Credible evidence supports the trial court's ruling. The trial court made specific findings concerning the award of attorney's fees, including that the litigation was disproportionately long despite the relative simplicity of the case and that husband "in good part is responsible for excessive driving up of everything that went on here including threatening both the wife and her lawyer with disbarment as a member of both the D.C. bar and Virginia bar," which created "unnecessary litigation."
The defendants probably could not have the case dismissed because the plaintiff probably does have a valid claim -- for the cost of the pants, and maybe a trebling or something if the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" thing violates a consumer protection law. But there's no way he gets a violation for every day, multiplied by three because he chose to sue three people.
And certainly the defendants and their lawyers know it, too. They could probably move to dismiss part of the claim, but why would they? It's cheaper to go to trial and have the claims dismissed at that point.
And I wonder exactly how many "thousands" of dollars these defendants have really spent to defend against the claim.
Although I could explain for you the link's relevance to my comment, I could never understand it for you.
Hint: I wrote that the plaintiff might be relying on Hadley V. Baxendale, as distinct from the case, for reasons stated in my original comment.
The text of the review at the link clarifies that point.
Those offended by images should configure browsers accordingly. The humor impaired should avoid reading my comments entirely.
Businesses that depend on repeat business -- it's hard to imagine an example better than a dry cleaners -- don't do this, because they quickly go out of business if they do.
You can check out the Docket at dccourts.com/pa, and search for "Pearson." It's docket# 2005 CA 004302 B. Count the number of motions filed by this schmuck, in what should be a small-claims matter. Including numerous discovery motions and a summary judgment motion, and a motion to amend the complaint a year into the case.
You're mistaken in thinking that "They could probably move to dismiss part of the claim, but why would they? It's cheaper to go to trial and have the claims dismissed at that point." In fact, they did. (It was granted in part and denied in part.)
By the way, the defendants filed an offer of judgment in January 2006. Here's hoping that Pearson owes the cleaners a lot of money.
Leaving aside that very obvious problem (which a decent judge could dispose of by, for instance, ruling that there were at most a couple of violations, one for each lost pair of pants, since once the pair of pants is lost it makes no sense to claim every day they are lost is another violation), there clearly is a fundamental case management problem as well. In what parallel universe does a plaintiff in a case like this require dozens of witnesses? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I cannot fathom there are more than a couple of very basic elements of the ALJ/Plaintiff's claim to be proved. No wonder it is costing the dry cleaners so much to defend (I, too, would likely have volunteered to represent them pro bono if I lived in DC).
Last, the real reason cases like this allow the media to cast the legal profession in such a dim light is that they don't get enough exposure to all the true nut cases out there who litigate myriad insane claims and legal theories every day in the courts around the country. Anyone on this blog who has clerked for a federal district or circuit judge has seen far crazier, some of whom eventually make it onto "frivolous litigant" list in the court. I will always fondly remember the time the judge I clerked for, hearing an appeal from an order of the district court denying a motion by plaintiff to enjoin the United States from sending its designated secret agent to poison the plaintiff by putting a fruit extract in a city's water supply, asked me if it would be OK if he gently suggested that tin foil in the hat might help the situation (it would block the secret agent's ability to track plaintiff's whereabouts). Unfortunately, that day I was more prudent than in retrospect I wished I had been, and I convinced him it was best left for us to laugh about that rather than raise it at oral argument.
Justin: Wow, Zarkov, way to show your anti-Palestinian racism in a blog post about DC lawyers!
Justin, who characterizes himself as "moderately pro-Israel," regularly jumps in to challenge those expressing pro-Israel views. And he will not allow that many of the most stridently "anti-Zionist" may in fact or in effect be anti-semites. Now, A. Zarkov likens this plaintiff to the Palestinians because "the more you offer the more he wants because he is insane," and that according to Justin makes A. Zarkhov guilty of "racism"?!
To convict of "anti-semitism," which may be seen as a special case of "racism," Justin would demand proof capable of convincing a jury beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. But Justin, a "progressive," does not hesitate to level the poisonous charge of "racism," and he would require nothing beyond a scintilla of proof, if that much, to convict someone expressing an unfavorable view of Palestinians as a "racist".
I'm sorry about your medical situation...had i known i would never of said what i did
i think why im more outraged by this case as opposed to medical malpractice lawsuits that cripple good medical treatments b/c the people suing in the medcical malpractice had real life thretining injuries as well
you say its not fair to blame the doctor or the procedures..and you may be right...despite the jury's sympathetic award to the plaintiff in the cases you talk about)
these malpractice plaintiffs people were in court for redress of real issues...they were using the court for what it was designed for..whether the end judgment was fair or not..and whether they were right to blame the doctors or not...they weren't out to get revenge on the doctors...at worst they were out to get rich
on the other hand..here is an administrative judge (who is the epitome of someone who should know better) who is abusing the system and some poor drycleaner..not for redress..not even for money (hes never going to get 64 million dolors)..but for spite....pure spite
malpractice/tort reform are major policy issues...people die because of BOTH real malpractice AND because of what litigation can cripple medicine...the big question there is how do we find the economic balance...the fewest deaths..the lowest cost to society.
the question for the dry cleaning case is spite...pure spite.
does that help?
Defendant prevailed on his anti-SLAPP motion in response to which which plaintiff had produced no admissible evidence whatever. In drafting the proposed order on the motion, defendant's attorney stuck assiduously to a simple legal issue: that plaintiff had presented no evidence to show that defendant's statements were not non-actionable opinion and hyperbole, and so had not demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on the libel cause.
The trial judge edited the proposed order slightly, adding "and plaintiff has not presented any evidence indicating the statements are false."
the trial is currently set for a non jury trial to all issues except punitive damages...
if it gets to that phase it is yet to be determined the nature of that part of the trial.
the date is currently set for 6/11
of course all this can change....there have been MANY motions filed in the case....
but for now..all the racisim shit (that peason is black and dc is very black so there will be a black jury) is blown out of the water
there is no jury to racist...how about that
I hope you are never on the wrong end of your own logic someday.
Now that's amusing Justin, since you brought up the canard of treating Palestinians as a "race". Science has discarded the notion of race, but politics will probably never be free of it.
Not really. There is now genetic basis behind racial classifications. A large body of literature supports this notion. For example, Reconstruction of Human Evolution: Bringing Together Genetic, Archaeological, and Linguistic Data by Stanford Professor Cavalli-Sforza, note especially Fig 1. More recent approaches use DNA in form of ancestry informative makers. For example the Duffey Null allele has a gene frequency of almost 100% Sub-Saharan Africans, but occurs very infrequently in other races. The company DNA print Genomics claims it can identify a person’s race from their DNA. The genetic markers used do not correspond those that determine visible morphology. Of course many holdouts nit pick the research and steadfastly claim that race is merely a social construct. It seems to me that this is a losing position in view of the fact that we can now objectively identify the race that a person self identifies.
The plantiff/judge in this case is an African-American in D.C., a jurisdiction where, if there's a jury trial, the jury will likely be composed of mostly African-Americans. There is animosity among many African-Americans against Asian business owners (the defendants) and that is what is partly fueling this lawsuit. Moreover, the plaintiff/judge's race may have played a role in this case not being dismissed.
I know I am speculating. People will differ in how much this rings true to them.
i didnt mean to equate the BBB and the law
i was mearly suggesting it as a talking point for Oren...that is..to talk about the BBB's effectivness and other variables that go into the amount that buisnesses screw people over in small ways.
and by the way...i never said at any point that the law was evil.
im going to be a lawyer myself
As a categoric statement, that is not true. Volpe (Neurology of the Newborn), a highly respected pediatric neurologist, attributes 12% of cerebral palsy cases to neonatal asphyxia. That estimate is several times greater than most neuroepidemiologists (Nelson and Ellenberg) would accept. None would maintain, however, that negligence on the part of an obstetrician around the time of delivery can't result in cerebral palsy, though a very, very small percent of cerebral palsy is attributable to physician negligence. Indeed, the American College of Obstetricians, the most dogged defender of obstetricians and a strong advocate of tort reform, has published its own criteria for establishing when neonatal asphyxia has cause brain injuries.
there will be no jury trial for the damges phase
it reamins to be seen if there will be a punitive phase and if so whether there will be a trial.
there is no 800 lbs gorilla in the closet
not every bad situation is the result of rasisim