Dog Bites Lawyer Tits

A Fort Lauderdale attorney has sued a Plantation family after he said their dog bit his right nipple. According to the suit, Billy Dickless needs the money to pay for medical treatment, loss of income and for general damages for pain, suffering, physical disfigurement and "loss of sexual comfort and desire. My wife refuses to suck my nipples now, she says they don't look right anymore. I used to have a very active sex life, and my hot body just looks disfigured now because my bitten nipple is pointing sideways. I can't perform sexually anymore, and I am seeing a therapist."

Dickless said he got attacked after he grabbed the dog off a girl who was bitten moments earlier. The suit, filed Monday, claims that Steven Bush, his wife, Cindy, and father, Ronald, are responsible for the March 3rd bite at Mizner Park, Boca Raton's dog park. Dickless is seeking damages of at least $15,000. He estimates in the suit that damages for medical treatment and for general lifetime damages for pain, suffering, physical disfigurement could reach $1 million. "I'm not a litigious person. I was just looking to do the right thing," said Dickless, 31, referring to him keeping Spazz, the 3-year-old terrier, off the girl. "I was just trying to protect this little girl. He was hurting her. She was screaming and crying.""I never, ever would pick up someone else's dog," he added.

Dickless said he was there with his dog when he saw Spazz attack the child and her puppy. Steven Bush took Spazz away but moments later the dog ran back and bit the girl's puppy and then her, Dickless said. Dickless grabbed Spazz off the girl and the dog bit him. But according to the Bushes, Dickless was at fault for grabbing their Jack Russell terrier during a doggie scuffle. Spazz was playing and running around during his first outing to the dog park at Military and Banyan trails, Steven Bush, 39, said. "He's a typical terrier. They tend to be active and can be territorial, but that's normal," Cindy Bush, 38, said of her adopted pooch.


At some point that morning, Spazz and some other dogs got into a tiff, which was quickly broken up. After a while the dogs got into it again."Then Billy Dickless decided to pick up my dog, and he in turn got bit on the nipple," Steven Bush said. "He was kind of like: 'Ow. That kind of hurt.' The Bushes said they didn't see blood on Dickless' shirt and he didn't appear to be seriously hurt. They assured Dickless that their dog was vaccinated and exchanged their information to fax him a copy of Spazz's records. "I got his business card, and that's when I saw he was a shyster," Steven Bush said. "He laid down for a few minutes and was shouting at people to call an ambulance, but everyone ignored him."


Dickless said it didn't happen that way. While still at the park, he asked the couple if the dog was vaccinated. They said yes, but Dickless didn't see a tag on Spazz and he wanted to make sure he was indeed vaccinated. So he gave them his card and asked them to send Spazz's vaccination records. Fearing for the worst, Dickless went to the Shriner's Hospital in Boynton Beach where he got shots. Two days later, Dickless got the records from the Bushes. Dickless wanted them to pay for his medical expenses, including a screening for STDs; but they never did. So he sued. The lawsuit claims Spazz bit Dickless without warning and that the dog had a habit of "viciously biting lawyers and vagrants." But Cindy Bush said Dickless grabbed her dog unexpectedly. Spazz hasn't bitten anyone before or since, said Bush, who adopted the dog a week before he bit Dickless. "We like Spazz. He's good. Any dog that bites a lawyer is special," Cindy Bush said. "We're glad Dickless got his shots, he looked like he had rabies."

Judge Sues Dry Cleaners for $65 Million

WASHINGTON -- The Chungs, immigrants from South Korea, realized their American dream when they opened their dry-cleaning business seven years ago in the nation's capital. For the past two years, however, they've been dealing with the nightmare of litigation: a $65 million lawsuit over a pair of missing pants. Jin Nam Chung, Ki Chung and their son, Soo Chung, are so disheartened that they're considering moving back to Seoul, said their attorney, Chris Manning, who spoke on their behalf. They're out a lot of money, but more importantly, incredibly disenchanted with the system," Manning said. "This has destroyed their lives." The lawsuit was filed by a District of Columbia administrative hearings judge, Roy Pearson, who has been representing himself in the case.

Pearson did not return phone calls and e-mails Wednesday from The Associated Press requesting comment. According to court documents, the problem began in May 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alteration to Custom Cleaners in Northeast Washington, a place he patronized regularly despite previous disagreements with the Chungs. A pair of pants from one suit was not ready when he requested it two days later, and was deemed to be missing. Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than $1,000. But a week later, the Chungs said the pants had been found and refused to pay. That's when Pearson decided to sue.

Manning said the cleaners made three settlement offers to Pearson. First they offered $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000. But Pearson wasn't satisfied and expanded his calculations beyond one pair of pants.
Because Pearson no longer wanted to use his neighborhood dry cleaner, part of his lawsuit calls for $15,000 - the price to rent a car every weekend for 10 years to go to another business. "He's somehow purporting that he has a constitutional right to a dry cleaner within four blocks of his apartment," Manning said.

But the bulk of the $65 million comes from Pearson's strict interpretation of D.C.'s consumer protection law, which fines violators $1,500 per violation, per day. According to court papers, Pearson added up 12 violations over 1,200 days, and then multiplied that by three defendants.
Much of Pearson's case rests on two signs that Custom Cleaners once had on its walls: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service." Based on Pearson's dissatisfaction and the delay in getting back the pants, he claims the signs amount to fraud. Pearson has appointed himself to represent all customers affected by such signs, though D.C. Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz, who will hear the June 11 trial, has said that this is a case about one plaintiff, and one pair of pants.

Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Association, has written a letter to the group of men who will decide this week whether to renew Pearson's 10-year appointment. Joyce is asking them to reconsider.
Chief Administrative Judge Tyrone Butler had no comment regarding Pearson's reappointment. The association, which tries to police the kind of abusive lawsuits that hurt small businesses, also has offered to buy Pearson the suit of his choice. And former National Labors Relations Board chief administrative law judge Melvin Welles wrote to The Washington Post to urge "any bar to which Mr. Pearson belongs to immediately disbar him and the District to remove him from his position as an administrative law judge."

"There has been a significant groundswell of support for the Chungs," said Manning, adding that plans for a defense fund Web site are in the works.
To the Chungs and their attorney, one of the most frustrating aspects of the case is their claim that Pearson's gray pants were found a week after Pearson dropped them off in 2005. They've been hanging in Manning's office for more than a year. Pearson claims in court documents that his pants had blue and red pinstripes. "They match his inseam measurements. The ticket on the pants match his receipt," Manning said.