this guy sued a local laundramette run my a chinese couple for $54,000,000 because they lost his $50 pants during cleaning. the first time he went up in court the judge ruled "the business owners did not violate the city's consumer protection law by failing to live up to his expectations of a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store." and the case was thrown out the guy didn't get his millions. now the guy is back and wants the court to "reconsider" the lawsuit because he claims the judge made a "fundamental legal error". what do you think about this multi million dollar lawsuit over ONE missing pants that were worth no more than $50.
2007-07-13 09:26:35 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
it WAS old news not its NEWS again because the guy is back and in case you didn't get it the guy wants a RETRIAL.
2007-07-13 10:21:11 · update #1
the guy is a f*cken idiot. (the plaintiff) he obviously sucks as a judge and isn't making enough money that he has to go after an old couple. he should just drop the suit. i bet he makes tons more money than the people who own the laundromat. =/ he sucks big time!
2007-07-13 09:42:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If it's the case I'm thinking about, the plaintiff (the one who lost his pants) is a judge. And he was censured (punished) by his state judiciary committee for pursuing this lawsuit.
As far as asking that the ruling be reconsidered, that's standard legal process. If the ruling goes against you, you petition the trial court to reconsider. If they refuse, you file an appeal. That's standard practice.
What's non-standard is the nature of the suit.
2007-07-13 09:49:57 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Keep up with the news my friend.
That judge was fined $65 000 that would pay towards the damages delt by the defendants.
2007-07-13 09:34:54 · answer #3 · answered by jaffermaniar 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
thats old news where have u been?? Anyway, the owner of the laundry won, he doesn't have to pay the millions of dollars that judge wanted.
2007-07-13 09:34:43 · answer #4 · answered by tina48fan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its scary as the plaintiff is a JUDGE. when he was getting divorced, he also filed over 450 motions. no one does that. he's a freak and i can't believe he is still a judge. i think the judicial committee needs to get involved.
2007-07-13 09:31:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
This is old news, this case has been resolved, the dry cleaners are not responsible.
2007-07-13 09:32:24 · answer #6 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋