wilebill
06-25-2007, 09:42 PM
A District of Columbia administrative law judge who filed a $54 million lawsuit against his neighborhood dry cleaner over a pair of missing pants will not get a penny, a court here ruled today.
Judge Judith Bartnoff of Superior Court ruled that Judge Roy L. Pearson Jr. failed to prove that Custom Cleaners misled consumers with its “satisfaction guaranteed” sign. For that matter, Judge Pearson was not even able to convince her that the owners of the dry cleaner had lost his pants.
“The court finds that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever,” Judge Bartnoff wrote.
Story. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/us/26cnd-trousers.html?ex=1340424000&en=ca23c92838979311&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss)
This is what happens when lawyers/judges get this idea of such self-importance that they sue somebody for $54M over a pair of pants. I hope the judge in this case finds it frivolous and makes the jerk pay out the nose for bringing up such a stupid suit.
Judge Judith Bartnoff of Superior Court ruled that Judge Roy L. Pearson Jr. failed to prove that Custom Cleaners misled consumers with its “satisfaction guaranteed” sign. For that matter, Judge Pearson was not even able to convince her that the owners of the dry cleaner had lost his pants.
“The court finds that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever,” Judge Bartnoff wrote.
Story. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/us/26cnd-trousers.html?ex=1340424000&en=ca23c92838979311&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss)
This is what happens when lawyers/judges get this idea of such self-importance that they sue somebody for $54M over a pair of pants. I hope the judge in this case finds it frivolous and makes the jerk pay out the nose for bringing up such a stupid suit.