Comments on: Pearson penultimate (?) update – the trial ends

By: David Nieporent

David Nieporent — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:31:50 +0000

Justinian, see the update. D.C.’s offer of judgment rule isn’t very generous, so it doesn’t do a very good job of deterring frivolous suits.

OBQuiet: No, they won’t be better off losing than winning.

By: Samson Isberg

Samson Isberg — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:51:50 +0000

What is frightening is that a man completely lacking in judgement actually is a judge and passes sentence over others. How many like him is out there, banging their gavels?

By: OBQuiet

OBQuiet — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:03:28 +0000

IANAL so forgive this question.

Could the defendants actually be better off is the judge finds against them in the amount of $1 than if the actually win?

If true, doesn’t that highlight just how screwed up the system is?

By: Justinian Lane

Justinian Lane — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:50:12 +0000

And I thought “offer of judgment” legislation prevented frivolous lawsuits!

By: NAC

NAC — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:26:43 +0000

Speaking of appeals, there were some comments in the linked blog about why there were so few objections raised during the proceedings, and why Judge Bartnoff didn’t simply toss out the whole mess. Popular opinion seems to be a combination of giving Pearson lots of rope to hang himself with, and reducing the number of grounds on which he can lodge an appeal (no objections/dismissals, no rulings to appeal against). As a non-lawyer reader of this fine blog, I don’t know if that second theory actually has any merit, but the first one seems to. Pearson is a nutjob, and has probably enraged a number of retail/service workers in his time.

By: E-Bell

E-Bell — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:38:13 +0000

The District’s offer of judgment rule only awards costs, not legal fees.

And that’s only for costs after the offer of judgment was made.

So if the verdict is less than their offer, Pearson will have to pay them for things like the cost of making copies, witness fees, etc.