- One of the hallmarks of the American legal system
is that anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason
at any time.
("The Star Spangled Banner" playing)
(fireworks)
and, of course, one of the major drawbacks
to the American legal system is
anyone can file any lawsuit at any time for any reason.
Doesn't mean they're going to win,
but they can still file the lawsuit.
And over the years, many people have
taken advantage of this principle to file
a whole variety of frivolous lawsuits.
Now, many of these cases are filed
by self-represented parties,
but you'll also find far too many lawyers
willing to attach their names and reputations
to these suits.
(mock sneezing)
Sorry.
Must be getting over something.
But baseless lawsuits not only waste the precious time
of an already overloaded court system,
they can also be financially ruinous
to the parties having to defend these nonsensical claims.
But these cases also have the unfortunate side effect
of making us lawyer types look kind of bad.
But today let's take a mirror to our own profession
and let's discuss five of the dumbest lawsuits
ever filed.
(upbeat music)
Sponsored by Skillshare.
So where do we begin?
Well, when someone tries to sue another
for a substantial sum of money,
we refer to that as suing the pants off of someone.
(grunts)
(popping)
But that can literally be the case.
And in 2005, Roy L. Pearson Jr.,
a lawyer and newly appointed DC administrative law judge
took that phrase quite literally
after Custom Cleaners, a DC dry cleaning establishment,
briefly misplaced his pants.
The store prominently displayed a sign
that said satisfaction guaranteed,
and Judge Pearson demanded satisfaction
by suing the owners for $67 million.
So here's the backstory of what has become the poster child
for frivolous pants-related litigation.
In 2005, Judge Pearson took a pair of expensive pants
to Custom Cleaners.
The business was owned by Jin and Soo Chung,
Korean immigrants who came to the United States in 1992.
Now Judge Pearson intended to wear these pants
on his first week on the bench.
But the business owners had inadvertently
sent the pants to the wrong location.
But Judge Pearson refused to accept them,
claiming that they were not his pants,
despite the owners providing confirmation
through their business records, tags
and the judge's receipt.
Now Pearson demanded payment of $1,150.
The owners did not respond to this demand,
so Judge Pearson then filed suit,
no pun intended,
in the District of Columbia Superior Court for
$67.3 million in damages,
67,000 times more than his original settlement demand.
Judge Pearson contended that the Chungs
had failed to honor the legal warranty
established by the same day service
and satisfaction guaranteed signs displayed at their store.
Judge Pearson apparently had an incredibly expensive view
of the idea of satisfaction guaranteed,
which he claimed obligated the Chungs
to undertake any and all actions without limitation
based on the customer's determination
of whatever would make the customer satisfied.
Given this expensive and incredibly literal
interpretation of satisfaction guaranteed,
it sort of raises the question,
who was Judge Pearson's legal mentor?
Lionel Hutz?
- Mr. Hutz, do you know you're not wearing any pants?
- What?
(screams)
- Well, Judge Pearson contended
that the Chung's failure to provide him proper satisfaction
constituted seven separate violations
of Washington DC consumer protection laws,
and using a complicated formula,
Judge Pearson argued that the owners and their son,
Ki Chung, owed each $18,000 per day
that the judge was not satisfied,
and they had failed to provide him with same day service.
As part of his damages, Pearson also claimed $90,000
to rent a car to drive to another dry cleaner
and $3 million in emotional distress,
because you know, he really loved those pants.
But Judge Pearson is not an unreasonable man.
Before trial, Judge Pearson generously lowered
this damage claims to $54 million.
When this case went to trial,
it actually went to trial in 2007,
the DC Superior Court rejected
all of Judge Pearson's claims.
The court ruled that Judge Pearson
had failed to prove that Custom Cleaners
had misled consumers with a satisfaction guaranteed sign.
In fact, the court found that Judge Pearson
was unable to prove that the cleaners
lost his pants in the first place,
and further, the court held that Judge Pearson's
expansive interpretation of satisfaction guaranteed
had no support under the law.
Shocker.
Pearson appealed, but lost on appeal as well.
And because this is America, although the Chungs prevailed,
they were financially devastated by the litigation,
and they were only able to afford their attorney's fees
after a generous outpouring of financial support
through third-party fundraising.
In September, 2007, citing a loss of revenue
and emotional distress,
the Chungs closed and sold their dry cleaning shop
at the center of the dispute.
And they decided to focus their energy on
another dry cleaning shop that they owned.
And as for Judge Pearson,
well, he did not get to be judge much longer
as he was not reappointed when his two year term expired.
Over a decade later, former Judge Pearson
was brought before
the DC Board of Professional Responsibility
to address his bizarre behavior in the pants lawsuit.
And on June 4th, 2020, the Board suspended Pearson
from practicing law for 90 days.
The Board characterized Pearson's damage theories
as utterly frivolous and excoriated him
for his refusal to accept reasonable settlement offers.
The Board concluded that Pearson had violated
the ethical rule prohibiting conduct, which quote,
"Seriously interferes with the administration of justice."
Which takes us to our next incredibly frivolous lawsuit.
Because in today's image-obsessed culture,
people will try anything to fight the aging process.
Trendy diets, experimental remedies,
whatever it is that keeps Paul Rudd from getting any older.
But in 2018, a 69-year old Dutchman
was perhaps the first person to turn the fight
against the aging process into a legal one
by asking a judge to legally reduce his age by 20 years.
This did not go well.
But meet Emile Ratelband, a motivational speaker
and self-described positivity trainer from the Netherlands.
In 2018, the then 69-year old Ratelband
appeared before a Dutch court
complaining that he had been the victim
of age discrimination in employment,
and through unfair denial of Tinder dates.
But instead of filing suit against specific people
or entities that might have wronged him,
Ratelband took novel approach to remedy his alleged injury
by asking a Dutch court to legally change his birthday
from March 11th, 1949 to March 11th, 1969
in order to make him 20 years younger.
Describing himself as a quote "young god,"
Ratelband argued that his strict diet, exercise routine,
and mental discipline had, according to his doctors,
given him the body of a 45-year-old.
- The judge was first laughing,
and then I told him the series matter,
and then he said, "Well, you have a point.
Perhaps I want to be younger also."
- In a move that was sure not to offend anyone,
Ratelband likened his struggles
to that of transgender people saying quote,
"We live in a time when you can change your name
and change your gender.
Why can't I decide my own age?"
And in a generous offer,
Ratelband even stated that he was ready
to give up his 1500 Euro per month pension
in return for the Dutch government
shaving 20 years off of his official age.
Not surprisingly, the court ultimately
ruled against Ratelband,
holding that there was no legal mechanism
for allowing a person to change their date of birth.
And in its ruling, the court warned
that allowing Ratelband to change his date of birth
would create all kinds of legal problems
by effectively erasing 20 years of events.
Quote, "Mr. Ratelband is at Liberty to feel 20 years younger
than his real age and to act accordingly,
but amending his date of birth would cause
20 years of records to vanish from the register of births,
deaths and marriages and registered partnerships.
This would have a variety of undesirable legal
and societal implications.
The priority must be to ensure that the public registers
contain accurate factual information."
The court highlighted that specific dates
and obligations attached to age, such as the right to vote
right to marry, drink alcohol and drive a car,
and that a ruling in favor of Ratelband
could open up the possibility
of a person declaring oneself older
and try to obtain those rights.
Which pisses me off just because I didn't think about that,
and I really would've liked to have done that.
But if Ratelband feels like
he has been discriminated against,
the ruling said that there were other laws
that he could use to invoke
and try to seek relief that way.
Because at the end of the day, he only has himself to blame,
which is also the case in our next frivolous lawsuit.
Our next plaintiff took it one step further
and just sued himself.
Because many people who represent themself pro se
are filed by those currently serving time in prison.
And many of those lawsuits try to address
a variety of important issues,
like subpar prison conditions,
or particularly in case of death row inmates,
to seek a retrial of one's case.
Other times, they're just plain weird.
And such was the case of Robert Lee Brock,
the man who sued himself for $5 million
for violating his own civil rights.
Here's the story.
In 1995 Brock was serving a 23 year prison sentence
at the Indian Creek Correctional Center
in Chesapeake, Virginia for breaking and entering
and grand larceny.
And like many people who make bad decisions
that they regret forever, he was drunk at the time.
- To alcohol, the cause of and solution to
all of life's problems.
- And for that, Brock believed
You may be entitled to compensation.
Who me?
Yes, you.
You could get compensation.
Wow, that sounds great, I think I'll do that.
Because in a seven page handwritten complaint,
Brock argued that his Christian faith
forbids him from drinking alcohol,
and he argued that getting drunk caused him to commit crimes
and violate his own religious civil rights.
He pleaded with the court to grant him relief from himself,
quote "For violating my religious beliefs,
I want to pay myself $5 million,
but ask the state to pay it on my behalf
since I can't work and am a ward of the state."
Brock sought $3 million for his wife and children,
quote "for their pain and suffering and college tuition,"
and $2 million to support him
for the next 23 years in prison,
but promised he would pay it back someday.
The judge was not impressed
and immediately dismissed the lawsuit as frivolous.
In her order, the judge wrote quote,
"Plaintiff has presented an innovative approach
to civil rights litigation.
However, his claim and especially the relief sought
are totally ludicrous."
But Brock, who would later file lawsuits under the alias
Two Souls Walker, would continue to be
a thorn in the side of the federal court system,
filing 29 appeals to Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
in 1995 through 1996 alone,
all of which were rejected.
But Brock's barrage of baseless lawsuits
included complaints about the price of coffee,
improper placement of a mirror for the handicapped,
and suing the prison for $1 million for mental cruelty
when prison nurses said no to Brock's request
for extra meat with dinner,
and vitamins in place of vegetables.
Brock even sued the victim of the crime
that originally sent him to jail.
But in his final lawsuit,
Brock alleged that he was quote,
"Either being poisoned or experimented on"
by the prison, because the pancake syrup he was being served
contained propylene glycol, a food additive
that does also happen to be contained
in some items like deodorant and antifreeze.
But it was the syrup that broke the camel's back
as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
decided that it had finally had enough.
The court ruled the case was frivolous,
not only because of the propylene glycol
is a common nontoxic extract,
but also Brock made no allegation
the prison forced him to eat the allegedly poisonous syrup.
Citing Brock's history of wasting money
and precious court resources,
the court banned him from filing any more lawsuits
without a judge first certifying
that his claim was not frivolous.
Because the Constitution guarantees life and liberty,
but it doesn't guarantee a good time.
And that's what takes as to our next frivolous lawsuit.
There's an old saying that
you can't believe everything you see on TV,
and that's actually a good rule to live by,
and it's especially true when it comes to advertising,
because beer commercials often present a fantasy
of beach parties, beautiful women,
and occasionally skateboarding dogs,
but most people understand this image to be just that,
a fantasy.
But that's most people.
Because, for one Michigan man,
he believed that Budweiser's advertisements in the late 80s
were misleading their audience with an explicit promise
of partying and fun times.
And when there's a will, there's a lawsuit.
So in 1991, Richard Overton, representing himself,
sued Anheuser-Busch for $10,000,
alleging their advertisements caused him
emotional distress, mental injury and financial loss.
And in support of these allegations,
over Overton cited the company's Bud Light ads,
which he claimed promised beer's ability to make quote,
"Fantasies come to life,
fantasies involving tropical settings,
and beautiful men and women engaged
in unrestricted merriment."
- Bye, Spuds.
Call me.
- Overton alleged Anheuser-Busch's ads
violated Michigan's laws against deceptive advertising
by presenting this fantasy as reality
while downplaying the destructive effects
of drinking alcohol.
The Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed Overton's claims.
The court held that Anheuser-Busch's ads
portraying unrestricted merriment,
were merely quote, "Grandiose suggestions
constituting puffing,"
which is actually a legal term,
and could not be the basis of an actionable fraud claim.
The court further concluded that Anheuser-Busch
could not be held liable for allegedly downplaying
the dangers of alcohol by portraying the consumption
of alcoholic beverages in a positive light.
And according to the Michigan court,
the dangers inherent in alcohol consumption
are well-known to the public.
As a result, Anheuser-Busch had no affirmative duty
to disclose in its advertisements
risks that are already well-known.
And decades later, Overton still stands by his lawsuit.
In a 2007 interview with the Kalamazoo Gazette,
he rejected the characterization of his image
as a sex starved loser,
who drinks Bud Light hoping to find pretty girls.
Overton himself doesn't actually drink alcohol
and has three children and a wife for three decades.
And according to Overton, the spark for his lawsuit
was seeing his young children captivated by Spuds McKenzie,
the Budweiser dog.
- Crack open one of those BLs.
I don't have thumbs.
(clinging)
- He said, quote, "I looked at them
and I thought this isn't right.
Here are my kids being drawn into
part of a culture of alcohol because of this advertising.
That's when I figured something needed to be done."
And fair enough.
I think a lot of people would probably agree
with that sentiment.
In a way, society has come to Overton
because those kinds of ads regarding alcohol
are no longer really seen on TV.
But the solution to this issue
wasn't going to be found in a deceptive advertising lawsuit.
But unfortunately, some people have learned
that if you don't like something on TV,
even if you file a frivolous lawsuit,
you can still cause pain to the other side.
Because you can accuse former president Donald Trump
of a lot of things,
and in fact, I have actually outlined a lot of things
that you can credibly accuse Donald Trump of
in a variety of videos.
But there's one thing that you cannot credibly accuse
former President Trump of,
and that's having a sense of humor.
Because in 2013, Donald Trump showcased his lack of humor
by hiring high-priced lawyers to sue Bill Maher
for $5 million over a joke.
Back when Donald Trump was just a failed game show host,
he made a name for himself by questioning
the Constitutional legitimacy of president Barack Obama,
the first African-American elected to the presidency.
And back in 2011, Trump demanded the Barack Obama
release his long form birth certificate
to prove that he was born in the United States.
After Obama released his birth certificate,
Trump continued to fan the flames
of racist conspiracy theories,
and in the run-up to the 2012 election,
Donald Trump said that he would donate
$5 million to charity if Obama released
all passport records and college transcripts.
And enter Bill Maher, host of the eponymous HBO talk show
and in mocking Trump's demands
that Obama prove has eligibility to be president,
the comedy host demanded
that Donald Trump provide his own proof of parentage,
namely, that he was not quote,
"The love child of a human woman
and an orangutan from the Brooklyn zoo."
And on January 7th, 2013,
Bill Maher appeared on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno,
where he continued to demand
that Donald Trump prove he was not sired by a great ape.
(laughing)
- And he marched into court with his birth certificate
and sued me,
because he's a whiny little (beeping).
- And in turning the tables, the very next day,
Trump, through his attorney,
sent Maher a copy of his birth certificate
and demanded that Maher pay him
$5 million to donate to charity.
And yes, what I'm going to show you is a real letter
sent and signed by a lawyer.
"I write on Donald Trump's behalf to accept your offer
made during the Jay Leno show on January 7, 2013,
that Mr. Trump prove he is not the quote,
'spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan.'
Attached hereto is a copy of Mr. Trump's birth certificate
demonstrating that he is the son of Fred Trump,
not an orangutan."
And I want to add that not only is this a real letter
sent and signed by a lawyer,
this demand was not from Trump's fixer Michael Cohen.
This was sent by Cooley LLP,
one of the top international law firms in the world,
best known for representing multinational corporations.
The following week, the Cooley attorney
sent a followup demand letter stating quote,
"Mr. Trump has accepted your offer for $5 million,
provided the necessary documentation and demanded payment.
You have not honored your obligation."
If you think that those letters are strange,
wait until you see the complaint
they actually filed in court.
Because on February 4th, 2013,
Donald Trump formally sued Bill Maher in California
for breach of contract demanding immediate direct payment
of $5 million to Trump so that he might donate that
to the charities of his choosing.
The complaint reads like Donald Trump wrote it himself,
or at least dictated most of it.
And after quoting from Maher's interview with Jay Leno,
Trump argued that Maher had made a sincere offer
to pay Trump $5 million if Trump could prove
that he was not the son of an orangutan.
And the complaint alleges that a contract was formed
when Trump performed by producing his birth certificate
Maher failed to pay the promised sums,
and thus Maher was in breach of contract for $5 million.
Though apparently they thought better of it,
because eight weeks later,
Donald Trump withdrew the lawsuit.
- We should not be having frivolous lawsuits like this.
The legal system in this country is not a joke.
It's not a toy for rich idiots to play with.
It's not a collection agency for billionaires.
- And while his fixer, Michael Cohen,
claimed that Trump would soon be filing
an amended complaint, such a complaint was never filed.
Cohen never gave any reasons for the withdrawal
or why a subsequent lawsuit was never filed.
Though some legal scholars do point out
that this lawsuit was complete and utter nonsense,
and Trump wouldn't actually be able to recover anything,
also other scholars point out
that California's Anti-SLAPP law,
which punishes those who file frivolous lawsuits
that seek to chill speech
would have entitled Bill Maher to recover
all of his attorney's fees from Trump
when Maher inevitably prevailed.
And if there's one thing that we know about Donald Trump
is that he hates paying for attorneys.
Of course, the bottom line is
that all of these lawyers who filed these lawsuits
should probably be disbarred and find new jobs,
because they filed such frivolous lawsuits.
They'd really benefit from Mari Andrew's Skillshare class,
Drawing as Self-Discovery, 5 Ways to Start,
because they'd probably be better artists
than actual lawyers.
Or they could take Andy Pizza's class,
Find Your Style: Five Exercises to Unlock
Your Creative Identity,
because their identity should not be bound up
in actually being a lawyer.
Or let's be honest, they're gonna do what everyone does
and start a podcast probably after watching
John Lagomarsino's class,
How to Make a Podcast:
Plan, Record, and Launch with Success.
Because you can find almost any class
in the world on Skillshare.
Skillshare has classes on almost everything,
from video to business to design.
Skillshare, as you know, is one of the world's largest
online learning communities
with tens of thousands of classes on everything,
and it's the best place to get a start on the internet.
Or, if you're one of these lawyers,
a new start on the internet.
If you'd like to try out Skillshare,
the first 1000 Legal Eagles
to use my link in the description
we'll get a free trial of Skillshare Premium.
And after the trial ends, Skillshare
is still way more affordable
than most online learning platforms,
with plans starting at less than $10 per month.
Plus, clicking that link really helps out this channel.
So just click on the link in the description
to get a free trial of Skillshare.
So do you agree with my analysis?
Are there other frivolous lawsuits that I didn't cover
that I should?
Leave your objections in the comments,
and check out this playlist over here
with all of my other videos on
the craziest lawsuits in the world,
legal issues in the news.
You name it, it's over here, so click on this playlist,
or I'll see you in court.