ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Law Humor Blogs -> Lowering the Bar

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Law Humor

: Lowering the Bar

Complaint in Ruined-Prada-Suit Case

By Kevin Underhill

ADVERTISEMENTS

Here's the complaint in Berland v. Peninou French Laundry, the previously mentioned lawsuit seeking compensation for ruined Prada attire.

The facts alleged are as simple as they are disturbing:

7. On or about October 1, 2009, Plaintiff delivered to Defendants, and each of them, for dry cleaning a red Prada suit (a matching blouse and skirt) that was in perfect condition.

8. Plaintiff had purchased the Prada suit at a cost of $1,305.  In addition, Plaintiff had purchased to go with the red Prada suit matching red Prada shoes at a cost of approximately $400 and a matching red Prada purse at a cost of approximately $400.

9. On or about October 10, 2009, Plaintiff returned to pick up her Prada suit.  The suit, while in the exclusive possession and control of defendants, and each of them, had been damaged beyond repair.

10.   Plaintiff made a demand on defendants, and each of them, for damages, but no part has been paid.

The complaint further alleges that the "red Prada purse and red Prada shoes were purchased solely to go with and be worn with the red Prada suit."  Though not specifically alleged, the implication is that said purse and shoes, and each of them, are now also worthless.

Now, this may well be a valid claim, although (according to "experts" around the office) there might be an issue whether the accessories are really useless.  But it clearly belongs in small-claims court (here, claims of up to $7,500), and doesn't belong even in the superior court's "limited division" (up to $24,999).  Nay, only the "unlimited division" could contain this matter, it appears, else Justice could not be done.  (I expected maybe a claim for emotional distress - I mean, we are talking about Prada here - but there doesn't seem to be one.)

Interestingly, the State Bar FAQ on small-claims court says the following:

1. What kinds of disputes can I take to small claims court?

[Y]ou might want to "file a claim" in small claims court if:

  • Someone dents your fender and refuses to pay for repairs.
  • Your new sofa comes apart at the seams, and the store will not fix it or give back your money.
  • The dry cleaner ruins your favorite shirt and will not pay you anything.
  • The landlord will not return your security deposit, even though you left the apartment in good condition.

(Emphasis added.)  Plaintiff's counsel probably knows that, but I guess if a guy is representing his wife in a Prada-related matter, as this one seems to be, he might want to at least appear to be taking the case very, very seriously indeed.

Link: Berland v. Peninou French Laundry & Cleaners, Inc., CGC-10-49620 (S.F. Super. Ct. filed Jan. 22, 2010) (PDF) (also now listed in the Lowering the Bar Pleading Archive)

Full post as published by Lowering the Bar on January 25, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.026 secs (new cache)