Judge is trying to take cleaners to the cleaners
An AOL news article says,
Compare that lawsuit with my own federal court lawsuits against the $300 California "smog impact fee" on out-of-state vehicles, which was declared to be unconstitutional by the California state courts. I argued that the federal courts were an appropriate forum because California had "left the sphere that is exclusively its own" (Parden v. Terminal Railway of the Alabama State Docks Dept.) by basing the fee entirely on the state's special status under federal emissions laws and regulations and because the US Environmental Protection Agency was a necessary defendant because the fee required an EPA waiver of federal pre-emption of federal auto-emissions regulations (and a former top California auto emissions-control administrator testified in state court that such a waiver was required for the fee). At one point, the government attorneys half-threatened to try to have me declared to be a "vexatious litigant."
My advice to the legal profession: physician, heal thyself.
.
WASHINGTON (June 6) - A customer who believes he was mistreated by a dry cleaner has dropped the pants from his suit. Roy L. Pearson, who filed a $67 million lawsuit against the dry cleaning business that lost his pants, has lowered his demand. Now, he's asking for only $54 million, according to a May 30 court filing in D.C. Superior Court.
The District of Columbia administrative law judge first sued Custom Cleaners over a pair of pants that went missing two years ago. He was seeking about $65 million under the D.C. consumer protection act and almost $2 million in common law claims.
He is now focusing his claims on signs in the shop that have since been removed. The suit alleges that the three defendants, Jin Nam Chung, Soo Chung and their son, Ki Chung, committed fraud and misled consumers with signs that claimed "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service" . . . .
. . .The Chungs, immigrants from South Korea, are now facing tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and emotional distress, Manning says. A donation Web site the Chungs set up for help _ Custom Cleaners Defense Fund _ has barely collected enough to pay a tenth of their costs, Manning [the Chungs' attorney] says.
In the month since Pearson's lawsuit received wide publicity, national groups as well as blog comments have expressed shock at Pearson's demands and called for his ouster. Many blog comments say this kind of suit makes the American justice system look bad.
Compare that lawsuit with my own federal court lawsuits against the $300 California "smog impact fee" on out-of-state vehicles, which was declared to be unconstitutional by the California state courts. I argued that the federal courts were an appropriate forum because California had "left the sphere that is exclusively its own" (Parden v. Terminal Railway of the Alabama State Docks Dept.) by basing the fee entirely on the state's special status under federal emissions laws and regulations and because the US Environmental Protection Agency was a necessary defendant because the fee required an EPA waiver of federal pre-emption of federal auto-emissions regulations (and a former top California auto emissions-control administrator testified in state court that such a waiver was required for the fee). At one point, the government attorneys half-threatened to try to have me declared to be a "vexatious litigant."
My advice to the legal profession: physician, heal thyself.
.
Labels: Judicial independence
posted by Larry Fafarman | 6/06/2007 10:50:00 AM
4 Comments:
How about we compare it to the state smog fee lawsuit instead? The 11 attorneys-of-record tried to charge $88 million in attorney fees! Makes the $2 million for a similar amount of work by the Kitzmiller attorneys small potatoes in comparison.
That said, the judge is totally off his rocker. I remember Ed blogging about it a month ago.
>>>>>> How about we compare it to the state smog fee lawsuit instead? The 11 attorneys-of-record tried to charge $88 million in attorney fees! <<<<<
Yes, but I think that they got "only" $18 million in the end. Even so, I did them one better. They initially sued in federal court, were dismissed and then sued in state court. Unlike them, I gave the above-stated reasons why the federal courts were an appropriate forum. And my adding the US EPA as a co-defendant was a brilliant move. I think that my arguments would have been effective had they been made by those attorneys. Their judge at least gave their case some attention, writing an opinion of maybe about 10 pages. My judge, TJ "Mad" Hatter, gave no opinion at all and there was no oral hearing, so there is not a shred of evidence that he knew anything at all about my lawsuit. With no evidence that he read my arguments at all, it cannot be claimed that he thought my arguments were too stupid to be worth answering. And the state of California did not answer my arguments either.
>>>>> Makes the $2 million for a similar amount of work by the Kitzmiller attorneys small potatoes in comparison. <<<<<<
Those attorneys actually settled for $1 million -- and the loot after expenses, about $750,000, was split by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The five Pepper-Hamilton attorneys got nothing.
>>>>>> That said, the judge is totally off his rocker. <<<<<
-- which is not at all uncommon among judges.
> a brilliant move <
... For comedy. You got laughed out of court.
I know. The judge was crooked and the little green men are making you make a fool out of yourself on this blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home