<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: The Litigation Lobby&#8217;s &#8220;frivolous&#8221; bait-and-switch: the Judge Roy Pearson pants-suit	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/06/the-litigation-lobbys-frivolous-bait-and-switch-the-judge-roy-pearson-pants-suit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/06/the-litigation-lobbys-frivolous-bait-and-switch-the-judge-roy-pearson-pants-suit/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2015 15:58:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: E-Bell		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/06/the-litigation-lobbys-frivolous-bait-and-switch-the-judge-roy-pearson-pants-suit/comment-page-1/#comment-7767</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[E-Bell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:43:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5017#comment-7767</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;b&gt;ohwilleke&lt;/b&gt;, that&#039;s a good question.

D.C. Superior Court is not really a &quot;municipal court.&quot;  It&#039;s more akin to a state court of general jurisdiction.  It hears all kinds of civil and criminal cases.

As for the Pearson docket, look no further than &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.dccourts.gov/pa/pages/CRTVCaseSummary.jsp?case_id=2799329%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&amp;xsl=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the court&#039;s own online records&lt;/a&gt;.

It appears as though the defense filed one - it was granted in part and denied in part on May 16, 2006.  The plaintiff&#039;s motion for partial summary judgment with regard to the Consumer Protection Act was denied.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>ohwilleke</b>, that&#8217;s a good question.</p>
<p>D.C. Superior Court is not really a &#8220;municipal court.&#8221;  It&#8217;s more akin to a state court of general jurisdiction.  It hears all kinds of civil and criminal cases.</p>
<p>As for the Pearson docket, look no further than <a href="https://www.dccourts.gov/pa/pages/CRTVCaseSummary.jsp?case_id=2799329%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&#038;xsl=" rel="nofollow">the court&#8217;s own online records</a>.</p>
<p>It appears as though the defense filed one &#8211; it was granted in part and denied in part on May 16, 2006.  The plaintiff&#8217;s motion for partial summary judgment with regard to the Consumer Protection Act was denied.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: ohwilleke		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/06/the-litigation-lobbys-frivolous-bait-and-switch-the-judge-roy-pearson-pants-suit/comment-page-1/#comment-7766</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ohwilleke]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:49:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5017#comment-7766</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Was there either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment?  Were the orders from those rulings?

I&#039;ve heard no mention of them in this high profile case and have assumed that none were filed because they were not available in this particular municipal court.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Was there either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment?  Were the orders from those rulings?</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve heard no mention of them in this high profile case and have assumed that none were filed because they were not available in this particular municipal court.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ted		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/06/the-litigation-lobbys-frivolous-bait-and-switch-the-judge-roy-pearson-pants-suit/comment-page-1/#comment-7765</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ted]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:02:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5017#comment-7765</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/06/update_kia_franklin_and_roy_pe.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;We have responded to Kia Franklin in detail&lt;/a&gt;.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/06/update_kia_franklin_and_roy_pe.html" rel="nofollow">We have responded to Kia Franklin in detail</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Kia		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/06/the-litigation-lobbys-frivolous-bait-and-switch-the-judge-roy-pearson-pants-suit/comment-page-1/#comment-7764</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kia]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:03:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5017#comment-7764</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Please feel free to read my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2007/06/overlawyered_gets_all_hemmed_u.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;response&lt;/a&gt; to this if you&#039;d like. Thanks.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please feel free to read my <a href="http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2007/06/overlawyered_gets_all_hemmed_u.html" rel="nofollow">response</a> to this if you&#8217;d like. Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
