« "I should have had a V-8," says man jailed in soda brouhaha | Main | Few surprised that legless skateboarder was hit by a truck »
Man sues dry cleaners for $65 million over missing pants
The man -- a lawyer, of course -- says he deserves millions for the damages he suffered by not getting his pants back, for his litigation costs, for "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort," for the value of the time he has spent on the lawsuit, for leasing a car every weekend for 10 years and for a replacement suit, according to court papers. (Washington Post)
April 26, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
So th District of columbia allows insane people to be judges?
Posted by: | Apr 26, 2007 5:45:15 AM
Well, they allow crackheads to be mayor, so why not?
Posted by: Onan the Barbarian | Apr 26, 2007 5:51:02 AM
I'm betting his love life is non-existant.
Posted by: | Apr 26, 2007 6:03:14 AM
Hot damn, the worst part is that they haven't thrown this out yet, AND that the guy still can continue to harass these people. He must really get off on this!
Posted by: V | Apr 26, 2007 6:04:23 AM
Sounds like lawyer foreplay.
Posted by: KDP | Apr 26, 2007 6:10:19 AM
I thought it was a joke. Nope. Turns out the lawyer/judge is a hole of the ass. Big surprise.
Posted by: stopeatingmysesamecake | Apr 26, 2007 6:35:42 AM
SEMSC, I was sorta hoping it was a joke, too.
Posted by: V | Apr 26, 2007 6:37:11 AM
ONLY IN AMERICA!!!
Posted by: pootsie | Apr 26, 2007 6:38:18 AM
You made the coat and vest
Should fit me the best.
You sewed the buttons strong.
But Sam, you made the pants too long.
Far from the Bronx I flew,
Around the world to you,
'Cause they said you're the best custom tailor in Hong Kong.
Sam, you made the pants 'bout a foot and a half too long.
First I took a jet,
Then I took a clipper,
Then I took a ricksha to your door.
And now Sam, I regret,
My chin's caught in my zipper,
And my cuffs are down there polishing the floor.
Oh, what a thrill divine,
When I first saw your sign.
It said, "For service, kindly bong the gong."
I bonged, and then mine pants went wrong.
I don't like to complain,
Or cause a demonstration,
But the belt is in my armpits, if you please.
I'm trying to explain,
My pants need alteration.
How do you say "oy vay" in Chinese?
I've been here six long weeks.
My pagoda leaks.
I thought your name was Feldman, but it's Fong!
Sam Fong, you made the pants too long!
Posted by: ALLAN SHERMAN | Apr 26, 2007 6:45:03 AM
After the tragedy in Blacksburg last week, I would think people would think tiwce befire pissing off Asian dry cleaners in the Washington DC area.
Posted by: Bill | Apr 26, 2007 6:47:45 AM
Eek, Bill, treading on dangerous ground?
Allan-you've been saving that one up for just this occasion, haven't you? :D
Posted by: V | Apr 26, 2007 6:49:32 AM
My drycleaner lost a shirt of mine - no big deal. They paid for a replacement and I considered the matter dropped and still frequent them. Accidents happen. I do find it hard to believe that an attorney lacks the cash to simply buy another suit.
This guy does take the cake for being schmuck of the year.
Posted by: Nick | Apr 26, 2007 6:54:27 AM
Allen Sherman yeah! My Son, the Greatest!
Posted by: stopeatingmysesamecake | Apr 26, 2007 7:01:08 AM
Wow, my Korean cleaner mistakenly gave a pair of my pants to a different customer who returned them to the store and then they were returned to me within a day or so.
I wouldn't have said "no problem" if I thought I could get 65 million out of them.
They gave me a scratchy lottery ticket with the pants.
Posted by: Lou Sussler | Apr 26, 2007 7:13:33 AM
A dry cleaner I used to use offered you a free watch if they made a mistake like that. Once they lost a shirt of mine. The guy was handing me the watch, and then realized the time was wrong. He held it up to his ear and listened, shook it, tried to wind it, and then just shook his head. I asked him if I could have it anyway (nice watch, I'd have just had it repaired). But he wouldn't give it to me. "No ticky, no watchy!" he said.
Posted by: Howie Feltersnatch | Apr 26, 2007 7:24:41 AM
If this country has a whit of sanity the judge would eschew judicial language and etiquette and just tell this guy to go fvck himself.
Posted by: SwarthyTroll | Apr 26, 2007 7:33:53 AM
You know, I was going to leave this be, but I re-read the history of what happened in the past, and I will personally donate to their legal cause if the find some other ambulance chaser to sue him for harrassment.
Of if they want, hire a couple of mouth-breathers to kick his ass and give him a huge wedgie.
Posted by: stopeatingmysesamecake | Apr 26, 2007 7:34:12 AM
What does leasing a car every weekend have to do with pants??
Posted by: LibraryGirl | Apr 26, 2007 7:35:02 AM
Its explained in the article, well, as much as it could be.
Posted by: stopeatingmysesamecake | Apr 26, 2007 7:39:44 AM
If he wins that would set a dangerous precedent. I may have to sue mu lundry for all those lost socks!
Posted by: Jeff Vachon | Apr 26, 2007 7:39:57 AM
Library girl, he gave the excuse that since he doesn't own a car and he needed to find a new dry cleaners that they owed him the money for a car rental so that he could take his clothes to the new cleaners. This is the most ridiculous story I've ever read.
Posted by: nin | Apr 26, 2007 7:56:44 AM
Clearly, none of you have ever luxuriated in a perfectly worn in, well fitting, and properly tailored pair of Sansabelt trousers.
Posted by: Cipher | Apr 26, 2007 8:09:41 AM
Lawyers should not be allowed to represent themselves in lawsuits. They should have to hire a non-related firm to handle their case. The defendant is forced to find an attorney, and is saddled with enormous costs. Even if the judgement is in the defendant's favor, there is no guarantee that they can countersue for damages. The lawyer, otoh, has a knowledge of how to work the system, has assistants (usually) to handle the mundane stuff and puts very little work into the case. All he has to do is keep asking for tons and tons of information that may or may not be related to the case and the defendant has no choice but to comply or be held in contempt and have to pay additional fines.
They'll end up settling for an unholy amount of money because it will cost an even more unholy amount of money to continue to court, and there will be a chance of losing with a jury trial which could lead to even more money.
*speaking from personal experience*
Posted by: ReardenSteele | Apr 26, 2007 8:11:45 AM
The aim of the lawsuit is not to actually get $65 million, but to make a point: if you own a business and make guarantees, like same day service and complete satisfaction, you should do exactly that. The plaintiff depended on their guarantee so he could have a clean suit for his first day as a judge, and they couldn't come through.
This lawyer knows that a jury won't actually give him diddly squat, but the expense the defendants will incur fighting the lawsuit will be sufficient punishment and (hopefully) convince them to make good on their lofty promises in the future. Unfortunately, cases like this give republicunts fodder for tort "reform," whose point is to make it more difficult for legitimately injured citizens to sue huge corporations.
Posted by: Pat | Apr 26, 2007 8:14:30 AM
NEXT HE WILL SAY THE PANTS HE GOT BACK FROM THERE WERE TOO HOT AND BURNED HIS CROTCH.
Posted by: SwarthyTroll | Apr 26, 2007 8:15:52 AM
