Η υπόθεση Pearson v. Chung γνωστή και ως “pants lawsuit”, η ή δίκη του παντελονιού είναι μια αστική υπόθεση που ξεκίνησε το έτος 2005 από τον Roy L. Pearson, Jr., διοικητικό δικαστή στο District of Columbia στις ΗΠΑ σε συνέχεια διαμάχης με ένα καθαριστήριο και μάλιστα στεγνοκαθαριστήριο για την απώλεια ενός παντελονιού. Ο Pearson ενήγαγε τους Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung, ιδιοκτήτες της Custom Cleaners ζητώντας αρχικά $67 εκατομμύρια για τη ζημία, το ψυχικό άλγος και τη δικαστική δαπάνη της εκπροσώπησής του σε σχέση με την απώλεια του παντελονιού που κατά την άποψη του Pearson είχε προσφύγει στις υπηρεσίες του στεγνοκαθαριστηρίου για εγγυημένα αποτελέσματα. Η υπόθεση τράβηξε το διεθνές ενδιαφέρον ιδίως όταν έφθασε στο ακροατήριο το 2007 και έμεινε ως παράδειγμα παράξενης δίκης που οδήγησε στην ανάγκη μιας νομικής μεταρύθμισης στις ΗΠΑ .
Εν τω μεταξύ και πριν φθάσει στο ακροατήριο η υπόθεση το στεγνοκαθαριστήριο προέβη σε τρείς προστάσεις συμβιβασμού ποσά $3000, $4600, and $12000, οι οποίες απορίφθηκαν ως κακόπιστες.
Για την υποστήριξη των στεγνοκαθαριστών ιδρύθηκε ιστοσελίδα για ενίσχυση ενόψει της νομικής του κάλυψης.
Κατά τη διάρκεια της δίκης ο δικαστής Pearson ξέσπασε σε λυγμούς για την απώλεια του παντελονιού του.
Στις 25 Ιουνίου του 2007 εκδόθηκε απόφαση από τη δικαστή Judith Bartnoff υπέρ των στεγνοκαθαριστών
Προφανώς ασκήθηκε έφεση η οποία απορρίφθηκε.
Οι παράδοξη αυτή υπόθεση οδήγησε τον τύπο να ονομάσει την υπόθεση ως την μεγάλη δίκη του αμερικανικού παντελονιού και τράβηξε τη διεθνή προσοχή. Οι δικηγόροι των στεγνοκαθαριστών σε δηλώσεις τους στο BBC αναφέρθηκαν στον αμερικανικό εφιάλτη σε αντιπαράθεση με το αμερικανικό όνειρο και η υπόθεση απέδειξε την ανεπάρκεια του νομικού αμερικανικού συστήματος. Την υπόθεση ανέδειξε και η τηλεοπτική σειρά Law & Order, στο 18 επεισόδιό της.
Εν τω μεταξύ και πριν φθάσει στο ακροατήριο η υπόθεση το στεγνοκαθαριστήριο προέβη σε τρείς προστάσεις συμβιβασμού ποσά $3000, $4600, and $12000, οι οποίες απορίφθηκαν ως κακόπιστες.
Για την υποστήριξη των στεγνοκαθαριστών ιδρύθηκε ιστοσελίδα για ενίσχυση ενόψει της νομικής του κάλυψης.
Κατά τη διάρκεια της δίκης ο δικαστής Pearson ξέσπασε σε λυγμούς για την απώλεια του παντελονιού του.
Στις 25 Ιουνίου του 2007 εκδόθηκε απόφαση από τη δικαστή Judith Bartnoff υπέρ των στεγνοκαθαριστών
Προφανώς ασκήθηκε έφεση η οποία απορρίφθηκε.
Οι παράδοξη αυτή υπόθεση οδήγησε τον τύπο να ονομάσει την υπόθεση ως την μεγάλη δίκη του αμερικανικού παντελονιού και τράβηξε τη διεθνή προσοχή. Οι δικηγόροι των στεγνοκαθαριστών σε δηλώσεις τους στο BBC αναφέρθηκαν στον αμερικανικό εφιάλτη σε αντιπαράθεση με το αμερικανικό όνειρο και η υπόθεση απέδειξε την ανεπάρκεια του νομικού αμερικανικού συστήματος. Την υπόθεση ανέδειξε και η τηλεοπτική σειρά Law & Order, στο 18 επεισόδιό της.
Διαβάστε σχετικά
Paul Courson “Judge in pants lawsuit sues to get job back”. CNN. 2008-05-02. Retrieved 2011-04-12.
• Lubna Takruri, “Judge Who Lost $54M Suit Not Giving Up Pants Fight”, Associated Press, 2007-07-09
• “Drycleaners win ‘pants’ suit”. World News Australia. Retrieved 2007-07-22.
• American Tort Reform Association, press release, 2007-06-25
• Manning, Christopher. “The Facts of Pearson V. Chung”. Manning Sossamon. Retrieved 2009-04-16.
• Associated Press (21 June 2007). “54 million dollars lawsuit against South Korean dry cleaner over pair of trousers is in full swing”. pravda.ru. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
• “Custom Cleaners Defense Fund”. Retrieved 2007-06-06.
• Fisher, Marc (June 14, 2007). “Wearing Down the Judicial System with a Pair of Pants”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-06-14.
• “Pants Extra: Inside the Courtroom”. The Washington Post. June 14, 2007. Retrieved 2007-06-14.
• Steiner, Emil (June 15, 2007). “Pants Lawsuit”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-06-15. Emil Steiner, keeper of washingtonpost.com’s OFF/Beat blog, has been blogging from the D.C. trial of the century, as Roy Pearson, “a lawyer, judge and dissatisfied customer,” sued his dry cleaners for $54 million over a lost pair of pants.
• Fisher, Marc (June 13, 2007). “Judge Who Seeks Millions for Lost Pants Has His (Emotional) Day in Court”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-06-13. Before trial began yesterday in the case of the D.C. judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaners after they lost his pants, the most extraordinary fact was Roy Pearson’s demand for $65 million in damages. That was before Pearson, an administrative law judge, broke down while testifying about the emotional pain of having the cleaners give him the wrong pants. It was before an 89-year-old woman in a wheelchair told of being chased out of the cleaners by an angry owner. And it was before she compared the owners of Custom Cleaners in open court to Nazis.
• “Administrative Law Judge Loses $54 Million Pants Lawsuit”. NBC4 (NBC). Retrieved 2007-06-25. A D.C. Superior Court judge has sided with the defendants in a $54 million lawsuit over a pair of pants. According to the judge’s decision, the plaintiff, administrative law Judge Roy Pearson Jr., will take nothing from Soo Chung and Jim Nam Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners.
• Law.com – Ethics Complaint Filed Against Judge Over His $65M Suit Against Dry Cleaners
• Roy L. Pearson, Jr. v. Rhonda S. Vanlowe
• “Customer pursues $54M lawsuit against dry cleaners”. CBC News (CBC.CA). 2007-07-12. Retrieved 2015-01-08.
• WUSA9.com | Washington, DC | Judge Refuses To Reconsider Ruling In Pants Case
• Fisher, Marc. “First, Pants Man Loses Case. Next, His Job.”. Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-08-03.
• Alexander, Keith L. (October 23, 2007). “Judge Set to Lose Job, Sources Say”. Washington Post. Retrieved May 22, 2010.
• “Judge loses more than pants in lawsuit”. Associated Press. November 14, 2007.
• Emil Steiner (2008-05-06). “Roy Pearson’s Latest Lawsuit”. The Washington Post.
• Wilber, Del Quentin (July 29, 2009). “Ex-Judge’s Lawsuit Thrown Out”. Washington Post. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
• Koppel, Nathan (May 27, 2010). “”Pants Judge” Roy Pearson Strikes Out in Court”. Wall Street Journal Law Blog. Retrieved July 26, 2010.
• Henri E. Cauvin (2007-08-15). “Judge Who Filed Suit Plans to Appeal Defeat”. Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-08-15.
• Alexander, Keith L. (December 18, 2008). “Appeals Court Rejects Request for New Trial in Pants Case”. Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-12-18.
• “Another hearing sought in missing pants case”. Retrieved 2009-01-06.
• “Pants Hearing Rejected”. The Washington Post. March 3, 2009. Retrieved 2009-03-03.
• Rob Anderson (2007-06-26). “Today’s Hot Topics”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 2011-06-25.
• “$67 million pants”. The Wall Street Journal. 2007-06-26. Retrieved 2011-06-25.
• Lubna Takruri (Associated Press) (2007-06-27). “‘Fancy pants’ loses wacky lawsuit”. IOL News (iol.co.za) (Independent News & Media).
• Lubna Takruri (Associated Press) (2007-06-26). “Judge sides with cleaner in pants suit”. Deseret News.
• “US man loses $54m trousers claim”. BBC News. June 25, 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-15.
• “101 Dumbest Moments in Business”. Fortune. December 19, 2007. Retrieved 2007-12-19.
• Luke McKinney (2008-06-12). “9 Insane Cases that Prove the US Legal System Is Screwed”. Cracked.com website. Retrieved 2012-08-15.
• Support the Chungs
• “Dry Cleaner in Pants Suit Closes (Associated Press)”. Action News 6abc.com (WPVI-TV Philadelphia, PA). September 19, 2007. Retrieved 2011-06-25.
Εξωτερικοί σύνδεσμοι
Pearson v. Chung, Joint Pre-trial Statement (Superior Court of the District of Columbia 2007).
Pearson v. Chung, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Superior Court of the District of Columbia June 25, 2007).
Pearson v. Chung, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Superior Court of the District of Columbia July 10, 2007).
Pearson v. Chung, et al., Opinion of the Court, No. 07-CV-872 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals December 18, 2008).
Pearson v. District of Columbia, et al., Memorandum Opinion, No. 08-758 (United States District Court for the District of Columbia July 23, 2009).
Manning & Sossamon. “The Facts of Pearson v. Chung”. Retrieved 2007-07-20.
“Roy L. Pearson, Jr. Biography”. Archived from the original on 2007-05-02. Retrieved 2007-05-02. From the Office of Administrative Hearings, via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, as of May 2, 2007.
• Lubna Takruri, “Judge Who Lost $54M Suit Not Giving Up Pants Fight”, Associated Press, 2007-07-09
• “Drycleaners win ‘pants’ suit”. World News Australia. Retrieved 2007-07-22.
• American Tort Reform Association, press release, 2007-06-25
• Manning, Christopher. “The Facts of Pearson V. Chung”. Manning Sossamon. Retrieved 2009-04-16.
• Associated Press (21 June 2007). “54 million dollars lawsuit against South Korean dry cleaner over pair of trousers is in full swing”. pravda.ru. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
• “Custom Cleaners Defense Fund”. Retrieved 2007-06-06.
• Fisher, Marc (June 14, 2007). “Wearing Down the Judicial System with a Pair of Pants”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-06-14.
• “Pants Extra: Inside the Courtroom”. The Washington Post. June 14, 2007. Retrieved 2007-06-14.
• Steiner, Emil (June 15, 2007). “Pants Lawsuit”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-06-15. Emil Steiner, keeper of washingtonpost.com’s OFF/Beat blog, has been blogging from the D.C. trial of the century, as Roy Pearson, “a lawyer, judge and dissatisfied customer,” sued his dry cleaners for $54 million over a lost pair of pants.
• Fisher, Marc (June 13, 2007). “Judge Who Seeks Millions for Lost Pants Has His (Emotional) Day in Court”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-06-13. Before trial began yesterday in the case of the D.C. judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaners after they lost his pants, the most extraordinary fact was Roy Pearson’s demand for $65 million in damages. That was before Pearson, an administrative law judge, broke down while testifying about the emotional pain of having the cleaners give him the wrong pants. It was before an 89-year-old woman in a wheelchair told of being chased out of the cleaners by an angry owner. And it was before she compared the owners of Custom Cleaners in open court to Nazis.
• “Administrative Law Judge Loses $54 Million Pants Lawsuit”. NBC4 (NBC). Retrieved 2007-06-25. A D.C. Superior Court judge has sided with the defendants in a $54 million lawsuit over a pair of pants. According to the judge’s decision, the plaintiff, administrative law Judge Roy Pearson Jr., will take nothing from Soo Chung and Jim Nam Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners.
• Law.com – Ethics Complaint Filed Against Judge Over His $65M Suit Against Dry Cleaners
• Roy L. Pearson, Jr. v. Rhonda S. Vanlowe
• “Customer pursues $54M lawsuit against dry cleaners”. CBC News (CBC.CA). 2007-07-12. Retrieved 2015-01-08.
• WUSA9.com | Washington, DC | Judge Refuses To Reconsider Ruling In Pants Case
• Fisher, Marc. “First, Pants Man Loses Case. Next, His Job.”. Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-08-03.
• Alexander, Keith L. (October 23, 2007). “Judge Set to Lose Job, Sources Say”. Washington Post. Retrieved May 22, 2010.
• “Judge loses more than pants in lawsuit”. Associated Press. November 14, 2007.
• Emil Steiner (2008-05-06). “Roy Pearson’s Latest Lawsuit”. The Washington Post.
• Wilber, Del Quentin (July 29, 2009). “Ex-Judge’s Lawsuit Thrown Out”. Washington Post. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
• Koppel, Nathan (May 27, 2010). “”Pants Judge” Roy Pearson Strikes Out in Court”. Wall Street Journal Law Blog. Retrieved July 26, 2010.
• Henri E. Cauvin (2007-08-15). “Judge Who Filed Suit Plans to Appeal Defeat”. Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-08-15.
• Alexander, Keith L. (December 18, 2008). “Appeals Court Rejects Request for New Trial in Pants Case”. Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-12-18.
• “Another hearing sought in missing pants case”. Retrieved 2009-01-06.
• “Pants Hearing Rejected”. The Washington Post. March 3, 2009. Retrieved 2009-03-03.
• Rob Anderson (2007-06-26). “Today’s Hot Topics”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 2011-06-25.
• “$67 million pants”. The Wall Street Journal. 2007-06-26. Retrieved 2011-06-25.
• Lubna Takruri (Associated Press) (2007-06-27). “‘Fancy pants’ loses wacky lawsuit”. IOL News (iol.co.za) (Independent News & Media).
• Lubna Takruri (Associated Press) (2007-06-26). “Judge sides with cleaner in pants suit”. Deseret News.
• “US man loses $54m trousers claim”. BBC News. June 25, 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-15.
• “101 Dumbest Moments in Business”. Fortune. December 19, 2007. Retrieved 2007-12-19.
• Luke McKinney (2008-06-12). “9 Insane Cases that Prove the US Legal System Is Screwed”. Cracked.com website. Retrieved 2012-08-15.
• Support the Chungs
• “Dry Cleaner in Pants Suit Closes (Associated Press)”. Action News 6abc.com (WPVI-TV Philadelphia, PA). September 19, 2007. Retrieved 2011-06-25.
Εξωτερικοί σύνδεσμοι
Pearson v. Chung, Joint Pre-trial Statement (Superior Court of the District of Columbia 2007).
Pearson v. Chung, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Superior Court of the District of Columbia June 25, 2007).
Pearson v. Chung, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Superior Court of the District of Columbia July 10, 2007).
Pearson v. Chung, et al., Opinion of the Court, No. 07-CV-872 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals December 18, 2008).
Pearson v. District of Columbia, et al., Memorandum Opinion, No. 08-758 (United States District Court for the District of Columbia July 23, 2009).
Manning & Sossamon. “The Facts of Pearson v. Chung”. Retrieved 2007-07-20.
“Roy L. Pearson, Jr. Biography”. Archived from the original on 2007-05-02. Retrieved 2007-05-02. From the Office of Administrative Hearings, via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, as of May 2, 2007.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου