A frivolous lawsuit is the practice of starting or carrying a lawsuit that has no chance of winning.
A lawsuit is considered frivolous by jury if they find the claim to be absurd regardless of its legal standing while as such litigation is frivolous officially and is considered to consist of a legal claim or defense presented even though the party or party’s legal counsel had a reason to know the claim or defense was manifested insufficient or futile and thus had no legal merit.
Though frivolous lawsuits very rarely make it through the courts due to their lack of sound basis , they usually wind up costing the plaintiff ransomly as he ( plaintiff) is made by the court to pay for damages to the defendant if he (plaintiff) looses the case.
The lawsuit of Mr. Pearson vs. Chung is a good example of such a scenario. The afore mentioned lawsuit is about a Mr. Roy Pearson , a Washington DC Judge, who sued a Dry Cleaning Business , Chung , for $67million ( lowered to 54million). According to Mr. Pearson , the Dry Cleaners lost his pants which he incidentally, had taken to their premises for alteration for $10.50. He ( Pearson ) refused their request for a large refund from the Dry Cleaners claiming and believing that a ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’ sign in the window of the shop legally entitled him to a refund for the cost of his pants estimated at $1,000.00.
The $54 million total also included $2 million for mental distress and $15,000.00 which he estimated to be the cost of renting a car every weekend to go to another Dry Cleaner. In general view and from a broad perspective, Mr. Pearson , is a well versed person in judicial matters and thus was literally exercising and flexing his muscles on a helpless individual ( Dry Cleaners) who knew or had very little knowledge of the consequences of loosing or even misplacing a client’s pants.
Mr. Pearson’s behavior was to a more and bigger extent driven and instigated by greed rather than the sheer loss of his pants. He truly believed that with his legal knowledge , he could swiftly take and make this golden chance of a pant’s loss and easily turn it into a $54 million dollar jackpot This is evidently abuse of the judicial process.
From the Dry Cleaners point , such cases are inevitable as they could be caused by even the slightest misplacement of clients goods and since it’s an obligation of all the Service providers to display clearly all information related to the type of services being carried out , (whether this information is meant for advertisement , or otherwise ) they ( Dry Cleaners) should take some initiative and learn afore hand what the lawsuits has in store for them so that just in case such an incident is repeated, which is more likely, they would be well prepared and versed on how to go about it ,
Though Mr. Pearson was right to ask for his pants back , his mean behavior characterized by his selfish need to become a millionaire overnight thus by literally taking advantage of his knowledgeable stature of the judicial process ended up being humiliated and a disgusted man as he eventually had his case thrown out and therefore costing him more than he would have spent on another pair of pants.
Being ethically upright is a virtue that needs to be highly upheld by all in the society as had Mr. Pearson been more ethical , he would have looked at this particular issue from a simple and humane perspective which would have seen the Dry Cleaners refund and repay him for his lost pants respectively. However, since knowledge is power , this was not the case and instead of Mr. Pearson negotiating with the Dry Cleaners and acting as a role model of democracy, he opted to go about the whole issue from the Judge’s perspective which caused him to flop miserably thus degrading himself and all other judges in the same jurisdiction.
As a leader in the judicial process, Mr. Pearson ought to have been able to reason out logically, thus by putting himself in the Dry cleaners shoes , to realize that such a misfortune can happen to anyone in business therefore treating the Dry Cleaners in a manner equal and acceptable to how he would like to be treated by a fellow client had he been the service provider ( Dry Cleaner).
His caliber of being a judge as well as his greed for money are an unequivocal justification of how corrupt those in the judicial process certainly are and is also a clear and illustrative representation of lack of free and fair justice to all in the society. Abuse of power is also an issue to reckon with in this particular case as had Mr. Pearson been just a lay man, he would have addressed the same issue with less vigor as he would have probably opted to settle it out of the courts.
The saying that , ‘ the more money you have , the more you would want to acquire’, is very true and practical in this particular scene in that by being a judge , Mr. Pearson must have made quite a fortune which on the contrary was not sufficient for him as it seems he must have been looking for other ways of making more money.
Humility, on the other hand played a major role as the Dry Cleaner , did not wrestle with Mr. Pearson’s reactions but instead decided to play it cool , eventually emerging winners and thus prompting and confirming the biblical saying, ‘the humble will rule the earth’.
Despite the fact that Mr. Chung ( Dry Cleaner) had to close down that particular branch due to the unforeseeable threat of the lawsuit outcome, he was relieved of the burden of suspense and in reality mental distress as he was said to have been on the verge of relocating back to his mother country, Korea.
Racism is a major threat to progress and it seemed Mr. Pearson was kind of trying to settle goals out of most likely a personal vendetta with Mr. Chung which could have emanated from the fact that Mr. Chung was an Immigrant while he , Mr. Pearson is a citizen. Human rights however, come in handy and was in favor of the former thus declaring him a humble and honest winner. Life is a destiny whose origin or end remain an elusive mystery to mankind as with all the facts and legal knowledge that Mr. Pearson had, one would have presumably declared him the winner long before the unending 10 year tussle of this lawsuit.
The main objective of having such like lawsuits should be to make others understand that all are equal and share the same benefits where justice is truly and undeniably carried out. However , the ever arising question to many however was , had Mr. Pearson been adjudicating such a lawsuit in his capacity as the judge, what would have been his ruling and the final out come. This one dollar million question will forever raise eyebrows of the honest and hardworking citizens and who would want such judges like Mr. Pearson deprived of their positions and instead new appointments carried out as this is a clear indication of how corruption becomes entrenched into the judicial system and eventually becoming deep- rooted. Mr. Pearson is therefore a true representation of those legally knowledgeable citizens who instead of preaching peace and harmony and being principle agents of it are realistically haters of truth, justice and peace within the society and the country at large.