Haha, Lawyer Loses Dry Cleaner Claim!

Originally Posted by TCN

Click to expand...

Now hold on there folks; if anyone should be sympathetic to this claim, we should be . . . and I am. First of all, the guy offered to settle with the dry cleaners for the cost of the suit, and they told him to go pound sand . . . so he got pissed. Not that I agree with how far he took this, but there's more to this claim than meets the eye.

About five years ago, I sued my dry cleaners, here's what happened . . . We had an arrangement with the cleaners, whereby they would pick up my shirts from the front porch, and drop off at the back door of the house. They did this, and it worked fine.

Then one day, they decided to both pick up and drop off from the front porch, on a day that happened to be a Purple Heart pick-up day. So the dry cleaners picked up our donations, dry-cleaned them, sent us the bill, and dropped off 16 of my shirts on the front porch, which the Purple Heart truck picked up and disseminated about an hour later. 5 T&A's, 2 Charvets, 2 RLPL's, and a mix of Pinks and Brooks Bros. (along with my wife's favorite cashmere blanket). I was able to recover five shirts from a Goodwill store in Detroit the next day.

When I first told the dry cleaners about this, they were apologetic and said just give us a list of the items and we will reimburse. So when I ultimately gave them the list and offered to settle for 50 cents on the dollar, they told me that they didn't feel they were responsible, and that it was all my fault. I politely (always) asked them to reconsider and informed them that I would file a lawsuit (in my jurisdiction) for the full damages plus penalties allowable under Michigan's Consumer Protection Act, they again told me to go pound sand.

Well, I filed a suit, and they kept trying to settle by giving me free dry cleaning (sorry, not interested). I was so angry, I wanted to keep the bills churning (I represented myself) and get the full payment plus penalties (there was no way they'd win btw), but ultimately agreed to settle because I was friends with the lawyer they hired to represent them. I regret not making those bastards pay more frankly.

Um, the Chungs actually did have his pants. They still do. If memory serves, they were misplaced the first time he came in, but then they found them, at which time he claimed they weren't his pants. At that point they offered $800, but he acted like a dick and wanted to sue. They made two or three subsequent offers, the last one being $12,000, but his dickishness knew no bounds. Therefore, he's a dick, period, and these poor people have suffered far, far more than he ever could for this.

Maybe the pants now have a novelty value that could be realized on EBAY. Perhaps some tort-reform group will buy them for their symbolic value and frame them or something.

Originally Posted by TCN

Click to expand...

I was so angry, I wanted to keep the bills churning (I represented myself) and get the full payment plus penalties (there was no way they'd win btw), but ultimately agreed to settle because I was friends with the lawyer they hired to represent them. I regret not making those bastards pay more frankly.


(not directed at you lawyerdad)

Originally Posted by Faded501s

Click to expand...

******* LAWYERS!!!

(not directed at you lawyerdad)

No worries. I may have overlooked something, but it's not clear to me that TCN is necessarily a lawyer, fwiw.

^^^ ******* lawyers!








...nice catch

You know, there are lawyers out there that also defend people like owners of the dry cleaners in this case. Why do people equate "trial lawyers" with "plaintiff's lawyers"?

Originally Posted by odoreater

Click to expand...

You know, there are lawyers out there that also defend people like owners of the dry cleaners in this case. Why do people equate "trial lawyers" with "plaintiff's lawyers"?

In part because the plaintiffs' bar appropriated that designation for themselves (with organizations like CTLA). But I admit to occasionally being irked by the same thing. (Especially since I like to tweak some of my big-firm friends by telling them that I'm a "real trial lawyer" while they are "litigators".)

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

Click to expand...

In part because the plaintiffs' bar appropriated that designation for themselves (with organizations like CTLA). But I admit to occasionally being irked by the same thing. (Especially since I like to tweak some of my big-firm friends by telling them that I'm a "real trial lawyer" while they are "litigators".)

Takes two to tango, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by odoreater

Click to expand...

You know, there are lawyers out there that also defend people like owners of the dry cleaners in this case. Why do people equate "trial lawyers" with "plaintiff's lawyers"?

It might be the evil television rearing it's ugly head once again.

Originally Posted by odoreater

Click to expand...

You know, there are lawyers out there that also defend people like owners of the dry cleaners in this case. Why do people equate "trial lawyers" with "plaintiff's lawyers"?

I think it's because the "system" was created by lawyers (for lawyers) and the "system" is too much of a burden on society as a whole. No matter how a case is decided there will always be at least two winners...the lawyers on each side...and maybe a 3rd...the "winner" of the case.

Did the dry-cleaners "win" this case? I think not.
Are medical costs too high? I wonder why.
Is the tax code too complex? I wonder why.

Granted, I'm painting with very broad strokes here but there is a reason for all of the lawyer jokes. I love my lawyer. She's a wonderful person, (really...she truly is). BUT, IMO she is the exception to the rule.

I was just glad the the plaintiff was saddled with the cleaners' legal costs.

Originally Posted by Faded501s

Click to expand...

I think it's because the "system" was created by lawyers (for lawyers) and the "system" is too much of a burden on society as a whole. No matter how a case is decided there will always be at least two winners...the lawyers on each side...and maybe a 3rd...the "winner" of the case.

Did the dry-cleaners "win" this case? I think not.
Are medical costs too high? I wonder why.
Is the tax code too complex? I wonder why.

Granted, I'm painting with very broad strokes here but there is a reason for all of the lawyer jokes. I love my lawyer. She's a wonderful person, (really...she truly is). BUT, IMO she is the exception to the rule.

Yes, we all meet at the clubhouse on Sunday night and hammer out how we're going to screw everyone.

Ever think that the we wouldn't have this issue of huge medical malpractice claims and therefore insurance premiums and therefore medical costs if doctors just didn't commit malpractice?

he has to pay the cleaner's court costs, which was reported around $1000

he has yet to be ordered to pay their attorney costs, which was reported in the 10s of 1000s

Originally Posted by odoreater

Click to expand...

Yes, we all meet at the clubhouse on Sunday night and hammer out how we're going to screw everyone.

Ever think that the we wouldn't have this issue of huge medical malpractice claims and therefore insurance premiums and therefore medical costs if doctors just didn't commit malpractice?

i believe the statistic is that 20% of the doctors commit 80% of the malpractice - part of the malpractice problem is that the AMA positions allows virtually anybody to keep practicing, even when it's clear they've moved into butcher territory...

Originally Posted by Teacher

Click to expand...

Um, the Chungs actually did have his pants. They still do. If memory serves, they were misplaced the first time he came in, but then they found them, at which time he claimed they weren't his pants. At that point they offered $800, but he acted like a dick and wanted to sue. They made two or three subsequent offers, the last one being $12,000, but his dickishness knew no bounds. Therefore, he's a dick, period, and these poor people have suffered far, far more than he ever could for this.

The Plaintiff took this too personally and went too far, clearly. There is a dispute as to whether or not the correct pants were returned (the Court ultimately found the dry cleaners story more credible). From the opinion/order:

"When he arrived, Ms. Chung, without comment, gave him a pair of gray pants with cuffs that were on a hanger. He testified that those pants obviously did not match his suit jacket, which was still hanging in the store, but Ms. Chung nonetheless insisted that the pants were his. Mr. Pearson determined that there was no point in discussing the matter further, and he left. He hen realized that he had left a carrying case with papers at Custom Cleaners, and he returned to the store to retrieve it and had a further conversation with Soo Chung. He testified that she continued to state that the pants were his. 15. Mr. Pearson attempted to determine whether it would be possible to replace the pants. He called Samuel Adinew, a salesman at Nordstrom's, who was able to identify the fabric number from a label inside the pocket of the suit jacket. Mr. Adinew called Hickey Freeman on Mr. Pearson's behalf, and he learned that the fabric was no longer available. The pants therefore could not be replaced. 16. Mr. Pearson then wrote a letter to Soo Chung and to Ki Chung,10 in which he stated his version of what had happened to his suit pants and demanded that they deliver a check for $1,150 to him at his home by June 4, 2005, to compensate him for the lost pants and to fulfill their promise of "Satisfaction Guaranteed." He further stated in the letter that if Custom Cleaners did not honor the guarantee by making the payment he demanded, he would pursue legal remedies against them for multiple violations of the CPPA and for fraudulent conduct and would seek no less than $50,000 in compensatory, treble and punitive damages . . ."