There’s full coverage of the pants trial here. Apparently the trial is over and the verdict will come next week. I didn’t realize it was tried to a judge. I hereby refine my earlier prediction, that the jury would take the plaintiff to task, to state that the judge will take the plaintiff to task.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Powered by WordPress.
Why in the world didn’t this judge dismiss the case after the plaintiff disgraced the legal system and direct him to pay the defendents’ costs ? Does the fact that he was trying it without a jury mean he must go through the whole ridiculous sham ?
Mike K (86bddb) — 6/14/2007 @ 4:50 amWhile the laughter dies down, I’ve read that the poor cleaner is out $1 mil defending. Will the poor SOB get his money back? Hell no. The judge makes money, the lawyers make money, but only the innocent get shafted.
Howard Veit (4ba8d4) — 6/14/2007 @ 4:56 am“Your position,” [Judge] Bartnoff said to Pearson this morning, “is that ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’ means they have to satisfy whatever you demand, with no limitations, absolutely unconditionally?”
“That’s correct,” Pearson replied.
“I have grave doubts about that,” said the judge.
Hopefully the plaintiff will be ordered to pay defendents’ legal fees.
aunursa (37dc85) — 6/14/2007 @ 5:06 amGee, I saw the title, “$54 bMillion Pants Suit,” and I thought that Senatrix Clinton had overspent on an outfit.
Dana (3e4784) — 6/14/2007 @ 8:52 amOdds are in favor of the defendents filing and winning a counter suit.
Skul (4f20b9) — 6/14/2007 @ 10:24 amIf the defendants win and the judge awards them their attorney’s fees, I think that justice would be served here.
The defendants wouldn’t be out any money, and they’ve gotten a lot of free publicity. Public opinion is on their side, and I’m sure there are people sending their business to the defendants because of the trial.
No need to counter sue the creep.
Steverino (d27168) — 6/14/2007 @ 2:20 pmMust have been a tough call, jury or judge, given the plaintiff and DC juries.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 6/14/2007 @ 4:33 pmTo join the chorus, I hope they get their fees back. Otherwise it’ll be pretty pyhrric. I can easily believe the 1 mil in costs so far.
David N. Scott (71e316) — 6/14/2007 @ 7:31 pmEven if the court assesses fees against the plaintiff, does he have the assets to pay? He doesn’t look that old in the photos I’ve seen and it seems unlikely that he would have significant exempt assets.
DRJ (2d5e62) — 6/14/2007 @ 8:00 pmJudge Roy Mean ought to be able to run for office in that city now. He’s gotten enough media exposure. If Marion Barry could make it there, this dude can as well. I’m sure the DNC would back his candidacy. Slap Happy Cindy McKinney could be his campaign manager.
Have Rev. Al and Jetstream Jesse been down there supporting his case against those evil immigrants who are obviously discriminating against a brother? I may have missed it on the news. With the dollars, I mean issues, involved, I would have expected Al and Jesse to be in the courtroom and on TV every day about this injustice to the Judge.
daleyrocks (906622) — 6/14/2007 @ 9:05 pmJustice will not have been fully and properly served in this case unless the verdict includes not only full restitution of all fees incurred by the defendants, but also allows any and all interested parties to kick the plaintiff in the kiester for the next ten years without penalty. Also, he must be forced to wear a “KICK ME – IT’S THE LAW!” sign at all times, so nobody misses the opportunity to contribute.
Seriously, what else could possibly effectively curb this sort of harassment-based litigation?
PCachu (e072b7) — 6/15/2007 @ 6:18 amRegarding the ridiculous pant suit, I can’t believe it even made it to trial. What has this country’s legal system come to? The Plaintiff should be at the very least kicked off the bench, then ordered to pay defendant’s legal fees. This so-called “Judge” has made a mockery of the judicial system. Hopefully the Defendant’s will counter-sue the “pants” off the judge. The plaintiff’s immigrated to this country looking for a better life. Bet they wish they had stayed in Korea.
Jill H (6ef8cb) — 6/22/2007 @ 11:22 amCorrection to my last post, I meant to say “the Defendant’s immigrated to this country”. This whole case has me aggravated. Sorry for the mishap.
Jill H (6ef8cb) — 6/22/2007 @ 11:26 amWhile I am disgusted that this went to trial – I see that it is a necessity because judge Bartnoff undoubtedly (IMHO) knows that Pearson is only after financial and emotional gain (revenge), and is using/abusing the court system to achieve that goal. In order to set precedent for possible future cases – Bartnoff needs to go thru the motions to rule against his suit (no pun intended).
While the Chungs suffer terribly in this trial – they may very well contribute to the protection of other defendants in future frivolous cases.
“This is a very important statute to protect consumers. It’s also very important that statutes like this are not misused.”
I take comfort in knowing that Pearson has most likely ruined his own future by irreparably damaging his own reputation. His current boss has already argued in a written statement to a legal board that Pearson should NOT be rehired for another 10 year position as an administrative law judge. That is a $100K year job. Pearson is not smart.
G-Mah (41e4bc) — 6/25/2007 @ 8:03 ampearson should be ordered to pay taxpayers back for the HUGE waste of time/cost of this egregiously frivolous suit which should’ve been resolved in small claims court
summerteeth (a51f49) — 6/25/2007 @ 8:52 pm