Anthony Sebok has an article at FindLaw that discusses why Rule 11 is an ineffective tool to prevent frivolous lawsuits. Hint: we need to be more “continental” and adopt a “loser pays” system.
Comments rss
Trackback“…has a fool for a client.” (Author unknown)
As most media outlets have already reported, Judge Roy Pearson lost his case against Custom Cleaners. Here’s the quick wrap-up.
The Good: Judge Bartnoff, the DC Superior Court judge who tried this case, correctly found that the interpretation of the consumer protection laws invoked by Pearson was not correct. As noted in her opinion, “[a] reasonable consumer would not interpret “Satisfaction Guaranteed” to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer’s unreasonable demands or to accede to demands that the merchant has reasonable grounds to dispute.”
The Bad: As the Washington Post’s Marc Fisher has noted, the case has cost the Chung’s over $100,000 in legal fees, plus business lost by Pearson’s campaign against them. They have been able to raise $35,000 in donations, but that will not be enough to cover their costs, and even if they are awarded attorney’s fees, it is unlikely that they will be able to collect, since it appears Pearson has no significant assets.
The Ugly: This case is not over yet. Pearson still faces a number of unanswered questions. Will he have to pay attorney fees? Will he face disciplinary action? WIll Mayor Fenty appoint him to a 10-year post in the DC court system? Until Bartnoff rules on the Rule 11 sanctions, there should be some
In the future, perhaps Pearson will think twice about representing people like himself. In the future, he should also consider machine-washable slacks.
Comments rss
