Haha, Lawyer Loses Dry Cleaner Claim!

lawyerdad · Jun 26, 2007

Originally Posted by TCN

This is indeed a strange one. I wonder how a dry cleaning business (with two locations I think?) would qualify for free legal aid from some organization, but assuming they did, it wouldn't surprise me if they were doing exactly what you suggest above. I mean how much discovery is needed in a missing pants case? I'm surprised the ALJ didn't get sanctioned earlier if he was showing up every week for a different motion as the reports suggest.

The dry cleaners' attorneys also set up a website earlier for people to donate to the business's defense costs. I would have thought that their commercial insurance businessowner's policy would have picked this up, but apparently not.

I assume many small business can't afford -- or at least gamble that they don't need standard CGL coverage. Also, it's possible that if they have a policy, coverage might not extend to fraud-type claims.

SoCal2NYC · Jun 26, 2007

40 acres and a mule.

imageWIS · Jun 26, 2007

Originally Posted by SoCal2NYC

40 acres and a mule.

And a pair of matching Hickey-Freeman pants from a suit bought at Nordstrom's.

Jon.

SoCal2NYC · Jun 26, 2007

How much do judges make?

Probably a K&G discounted suit whose ORIGINAL retail was $1,000.

lawyerdad · Jun 26, 2007

Originally Posted by SoCal2NYC

How much do judges make?

Probably a K&G discounted suit whose ORIGINAL retail was $1,000.

I think ALJ's are on the federal GS scale, and I think they make, depending on a variety of factors, somewhere in the $90,000 - $150,000 range.

Manton · Jun 26, 2007

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

I think ALJ's are on the federal GS scale, and I think they make, depending on a variety of factors, somewhere in the $90,000 - $150,000 range.

GS definitely does not reach $150,000. It's possible that SES now does, but that would be a fairly recent development.

lawyerdad · Jun 26, 2007

Originally Posted by Manton

GS definitely does not reach $150,000. It's possible that SES now does, but that would be a fairly recent development.

Thanks for the correction. I don't actually know if they're on GS or not, that was an assumption on my part. Not being a federal employee, I have only a loose understanding of how that stuff works. Indeed, I have only the dimmest of notions of the distinction between GS and SES. I do think, however, that with locality adjustments - at least in expensive places like LA, SF, NY -- the GS scale goes up to pretty near $150,000.

mack11211 · Jul 15, 2007

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/07/06/...it-the-appeal/

Merckx · Jul 15, 2007

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfi...suit_that.html

Pearson strikes me as a bitter person, someone who is miserable in life.

satorstyle · Jul 15, 2007

I think it was noted here in the local press that it was between 96 and 100,000

Artisan Fan · Jul 15, 2007

I'm not sure what is more evident here:

**That Pearson is an asshole.

**That we need strong tort reform immediately.

I hope this family countersues him back to the Stone Age.

lawyerdad · Jul 15, 2007

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

I'm not sure what is more evident here:

**That Pearson is an asshole.

**That we need strong tort reform immediately.

I hope this family countersues him back to the Stone Age.

I'm not sure that "tort reform", at least as I understand it, would have made a difference here. But obviously that term can encompass many different concepts. Without completely gutting the system, it's near impossible to keep people from filing stupid lawsuits and losing -- especially in person-to-person suits (forgive the pun) like this as opposed to class actions and the like.
Even a social insurance liberal like me can get behind some form of tort reform -- but as with many things, the devil's in the details.

Artisan Fan · Jul 15, 2007

I'm not sure that "tort reform", at least as I understand it, would have made a difference here.

Well I believe adopting a "loser pays" rule has some merit. Maybe some reasonable limits on damages would be a good step as well.

odoreater · Jul 15, 2007

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

Well I believe adopting a "loser pays" rule has some merit. Maybe some reasonable limits on damages would be a good step as well.

Why a "loser pays" rule is not a good idea has been discussed here and elsewhere ad nauseum. But, just to reiterate, it's a bad idea because it will discourage meritorious lawsuits as well as frivilous ones, and will result in the "little man" never getting his day in court because he is faced with the prospect of having to pay the fees for the big bad firms that are retained by defendants.

grimslade · Jul 15, 2007

Originally Posted by odoreater

Why a "loser pays" rule is not a good idea has been discussed here and elsewhere ad nauseum. But, just to reiterate, it's a bad idea because it will discourage meritorious lawsuits as well as frivilous ones, and will result in the "little man" never getting his day in court because he is faced with the prospect of having to pay the fees for the big bad firms that are retained by defendants.

Spoken like a lawyer. This is only true, however, if you can show somehow (I'm not sure how one _could_ show it, but...) that the number of meritorious claims discouraged were somehow greater in either number or social utility than the number of frivolous claims currently encouraged by the present system.

Haha, Lawyer Loses Dry Cleaner Claim!

Lying Dog-faced Pony Soldier

Fashion Hayzus

Stylish Dinosaur

Fashion Hayzus

Lying Dog-faced Pony Soldier

RINO

Lying Dog-faced Pony Soldier

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Senior Member

Suitsupply-sider

Lying Dog-faced Pony Soldier

Suitsupply-sider

Distinguished Member

Stylish Dinosaur

Classic Menswear Featured products

FEATURED PRODUCTS

Similar threads

Featured Sponsor

Definitely full canvas only

Half canvas is fine

Really don't care

Depends on fabric

Depends on price

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

FOLLOW STYLEFORUM ON: