Lawyer Sues Dry Cleaner for $67 million! over $10 cleaning bill

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
A-hole got what he deserved for sure

Yep

I would honestly feel no remorse at all if he got the himself beaten to death. Assholes like this just piss me off.

 

[Juno]

Originally posted by: WarhammerUC
Fired..

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi...dart.cgi?ArtNum=205093

now i can rejoice, that asshole deserves it.

 

[BoomerD]

This guy and his lawsuit is one of the types of cases where I wish our system forced the one who filed the frivilous lawsuit to pay the winning side's legal expenses.

 

[Engraver]

Originally posted by: WarhammerUC
Fired..

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi...dart.cgi?ArtNum=205093

Bet he's sad in the pants now...oh wait he doesn't have them anymore.

 

[alkemyst]

poor people lost their business I believe.

 

[Xavier434]

Good. Screw that guy. No one that even comes close to being willing to try and take advantage of the law like him should have any power.

 

[0roo0roo]

he was black?
i only got hints of this from the fired link

wtf...

is there a way to counter sue for all the suffering he's caused?

 

[Miramonti]

I smell a $6 billion lawsuit coming for unlawful termination!

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
poor people lost their business I believe.

they had a few stores open. they had to close the one he sued. they still have the orginal store they opened years ago.


but i really wish they could sue him for the 67million and get it.

 

[V00DOO]

I am glad they fired the fvcker.

 

[thepd7]

"The Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges first notified Pearson in August that it might not reappoint him, several weeks after he lost his civil suit against the dry cleaners. Pearson was asked to provide witnesses on his behalf. However, no witnesses testified."

LOL he couldn't find ANYONE to testify on his behalf, now that's hilarious.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: thepd7
"The Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges first notified Pearson in August that it might not reappoint him, several weeks after he lost his civil suit against the dry cleaners. Pearson was asked to provide witnesses on his behalf. However, no witnesses testified."

LOL he couldn't find ANYONE to testify on his behalf, now that's hilarious.

Karma's a bitch.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Update:

Appeal on this case

The $54 million lawsuit against a family-owned dry cleaners that allegedly lost a pair of pants is going up on appeal next month.
Former administrative judge Roy Pearson lost his suit in trial court last year, but immediately filed for an appeal to have the D.C. Court of Appeals determine whether Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff erred in her ruling against him.

Bartnoff ruled that the dry cleaners' owners did not violate the consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson's interpretation of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign displayed in the store.

The appeal is set for Oct. 22.

...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Update:

Appeal on this case

The $54 million lawsuit against a family-owned dry cleaners that allegedly lost a pair of pants is going up on appeal next month.
Former administrative judge Roy Pearson lost his suit in trial court last year, but immediately filed for an appeal to have the D.C. Court of Appeals determine whether Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff erred in her ruling against him.

Bartnoff ruled that the dry cleaners' owners did not violate the consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson's interpretation of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign displayed in the store.

The appeal is set for Oct. 22.
...

Pearson should be in prison.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Update:

Appeal on this case

The $54 million lawsuit against a family-owned dry cleaners that allegedly lost a pair of pants is going up on appeal next month.
Former administrative judge Roy Pearson lost his suit in trial court last year, but immediately filed for an appeal to have the D.C. Court of Appeals determine whether Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff erred in her ruling against him.

Bartnoff ruled that the dry cleaners' owners did not violate the consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson's interpretation of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign displayed in the store.

The appeal is set for Oct. 22.
...

Pearson should be in prison.

On what grounds?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Update:

Appeal on this case

The $54 million lawsuit against a family-owned dry cleaners that allegedly lost a pair of pants is going up on appeal next month.
Former administrative judge Roy Pearson lost his suit in trial court last year, but immediately filed for an appeal to have the D.C. Court of Appeals determine whether Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff erred in her ruling against him.

Bartnoff ruled that the dry cleaners' owners did not violate the consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson's interpretation of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign displayed in the store.

The appeal is set for Oct. 22.
...

Pearson should be in prison.

On what grounds?

He is anti-American.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Update:

Appeal on this case

The $54 million lawsuit against a family-owned dry cleaners that allegedly lost a pair of pants is going up on appeal next month.
Former administrative judge Roy Pearson lost his suit in trial court last year, but immediately filed for an appeal to have the D.C. Court of Appeals determine whether Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff erred in her ruling against him.

Bartnoff ruled that the dry cleaners' owners did not violate the consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson's interpretation of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign displayed in the store.

The appeal is set for Oct. 22.
...

Pearson should be in prison.

On what grounds?

He is anti-American.

He is clearly abusing the system, and the innocent victims of this abuse continue to have to pay to defend themselves from this lunatic. First, the suit should be tossed for being frivolous, and Pearson should be disbarred for his behavior. Then he should be made to pay the legal fees for the defense in the case as well.