D.C. Judge Seeks $67 Million for Lost Pants

[voivod]

April
Roy L. Pearson, Jr. and the $65 million pants

Attorney (and now administrative judge) Roy L. Pearson, Jr. paid $10.50 to have some pants altered at his dry cleaners', but was dissatisfied with the results, so sued them on grounds that their "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign was consumer fraud. Among his claimed damages is the need for a car to find a new dry cleaner. Pearson at first demanded $1150 for a new suit, but turned down offers from the dry cleaner to settle for $3000, for $4600, and for $12000, and claims DC consumer protection law entitles him to $65 million. The Chung family has removed their "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign.

__________________________

May 1st

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - D.C. Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson Jr. is suing his dry cleaner — over a supposedly lost pair of pants — for more than $65 million. (LINK)

The pants were found long ago and are readily available to Pearson. What may become unavailable to him, unless he drops this wholly outrageous and abusive lawsuit, is a reputation as an ethical, high-integrity officer of the court.

Since my organization, the American Tort Reform Association, works to limit this kind of abusive litigation that so hinders small and large businesses alike, we’re offering to raise the necessary funds to buy Pearson a high-quality suit of his choosing if he’ll just do the right thing.

But since our generous offer may not do the trick, ATRA also wrote Monday to the four men who will decide this week if Pearson will be reappointed to a 10-year term with a handsome salary at taxpayers’ expense.

Our letter to Chief Administrative Law Judge Tyrone Butler and the three men who make up the Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges — Robert Rigsby, Henry Levine and Peter Wilner — read as follows:

Dear Judge Butler and Commissioners Rigsby, Levine and Wilner:

On behalf of the American Tort Reform Association, which works to combat lawsuit abuse, I urge you to carefully reconsider the reappointment of Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson Jr. to a 10-year term, scheduled to commence in three days on May 2.

As you are almost surely aware by now, thanks to extensive local and national media coverage, Judge Pearson has chosen to exploit the District’s well-intentioned but loosely worded Consumer Protection and Procedures Act in suing a family-owned D.C. dry cleaner for more than $65 million — over a lost pair of suit pants.

Though the pants have long since been found and made available to him, Judge Pearson has stubbornly continued to waste precious Superior Court resources in a clearly misguided effort to extort a hardworking family that provides a service to its community and tax revenue to the District government.

In a letter to the editor in today’s Washington Post, former National Labors Relations Board chief administrative law judge Melvin Welles urged “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.”

To those of us who carefully study the litigation industry’s growing abuse of consumer protection laws around the country (see ATRA general counsel Victor Schwartz’s recent article from Executive Counsel magazine, “Consumer Protection Acts Are a Springboard for Lawsuit Abuse,” enclosed) and to everyday D.C. taxpayers who collectively provide Pearson with a considerable salary, his persistence in this lawsuit raises serious question about his capacity to serve the city as a “fair, impartial, effective, and efficient” judge, as required by the Office of Administrative Hearings Establishment Act.

If Pearson goes ahead with his lawsuit, any party who comes before him in future administrative hearings could understandably lack confidence in his judgment and judicial temperament. Furthermore, this case will become fodder for late-night comics, various members of Congress and other assorted critics of D.C. government if this case, scheduled for trial June 11, remains in the headlines.

Judicial temperament is a critical characteristic of an outstanding jurist. Any individual who chooses to pursue a case such as Pearson’s, at a minimum, calls into question his or her’s. As you consider his reappointment, we strongly urge you to examine closely his judicial temperament and decide whether it is sufficient to serve the people of the District of Columbia properly as an administrative law judge.

Pearson has a litigation history; commenter Monica points us to this reported opinion stemming from his divorce.

Update, May 2, from ABC News:

[The Chungs] have spent thousands of dollars defending themselves against Pearson's lawsuit.

"It's not humorous, not funny and nobody would have thought that something like this would have happened,'' Soo Chung told ABC News through an interpreter.

Her husband agreed.

"It's affecting us first of all financially, because of all the lawyers' fees,'' Jin Chung said. "For two years, we've been paying lawyer fees... we've gotten bad credit as well, and secondly, it's been difficult mentally and physically because of the level of stress.''

[LegallyInsane]

As an attorney, I am ashamed to share the same profession as this asshole. His case should be tossed, sanctions imposed under the Federal Rules of Procedure for filing a frivolous suit, and he should be disbarred. The good news at least is that this moron is only an administrative judge and faces the possibility that he will not get another term. While even I enjoy a good lawyer joke, the fact is that this guy has made a joke of the system and his profession.

[ZeoBandit]

You have got to be kidding me.......

[Kevy5150]

Only in America.

[Menlow]

This guy should have to pay the dry cleaners legal expenses.

[chefcraig]

Yup, saw this on ABC news last evening, and actually said out loud: "WHAT? " If ever there was an example of a butt-fuckingly insipid, frivolous and time wasting lawsuit, this is it.

For shame.

For further reading, here's a link to the ABC site: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3119381&page=1

[voivod]

Dry cleaner wins missing pants case

WASHINGTON - A judge ruled Monday in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants.

The owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's consumer protection law by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store window, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled.

"A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands" or to agree to demands that the merchant would have reasonable grounds for disputing, the judge wrote.

Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung.

Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs, claiming they lost a pair of trousers from a blue and maroon suit, then tried to give him a pair a pair of charcoal gray pants that he said were not his. He arrived at the amount by adding up years of alleged law violations and almost $2 million in common law fraud claims.

Bartnoff wrote, however, that Pearson failed to prove that the pants the dry cleaner tried to return were not the pants he taken in for alterations.

Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.

The court costs amount to just over $1,000 for photocopying, filing and similar expenses, according to the Chungs' attorney. A motion to recover the Chungs' tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be considered later.

Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, praised the ruling, which followed a two-day trial earlier this month.

"Judge Bartnoff has spoken loudly in suggesting that, while consumers should be protected, abusive lawsuits like this will not be tolerated," Manning said in a statement. "Judge Bartnoff has chosen common sense and reasonableness over irrationality and unbridled venom."

Pearson did not immediately respond to a call and an e-mail seeking comment.


Administrative law judge Roy Pearson, left, is questioned by a member of the media as...

[chefcraig]

Thank heavens.
Now if he can just be disbarred...

[ZeoBandit]

Finally, the justice system gets something right.

[FORD]

Congratulations to the Chung family. This has to be the most ridiculous lawsuit I ever heard of. And that asshole has no business being a judge.

[muffdiver]

What a fucking prick.....

Talk about fucking with people just to be a dick.He needs a good kick in the clackers....

[chefcraig]

There is justice in the world! Does anyone recall this asshole?

Judge who sued over pants loses job

Wed Nov 14, 12:29 AM ET

WASHINGTON - A judge who lost a $54 million lawsuit against his dry cleaner over a pair of missing pants has lost his job, District of Columbia officials said.

Roy Pearson's term as an administrative law judge expired May 2 and the D.C. Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges has voted not to reappoint him, Lisa Coleman, the city's general counsel, wrote Nov. 8 in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from The Associated Press.

Pearson was one of about 30 judges who worked in the Office of Administrative Hearings, which handles disputes involving city agencies. He had held his position for two years.

The Washington Post and The (Washington) Examiner, citing sources familiar with the case, reported the commission's decision last month.

Pearson's lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court claimed Custom Cleaners, owned by South Korean immigrants, did not live up to Pearson's expectations of "Satisfaction Guaranteed," as advertised in store windows.

Pearson demanded repayment for the lost pants, as well as damages for inconvenience, mental anguish and attorney's fees for representing himself. He calculated his losses initially at $67 million but lowered his request to $54 million.

Pearson did not immediately respond to an e-mail from The Associated Press requesting comment.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071114/...js2dmCSPUsQE4F

[ZeoBandit]

Finally, justice is served!!!

[Tyler_279]

Yup, saw this on ABC news last evening, and actually said out loud: "WHAT? " If ever there was an example of a butt-fuckingly insipid, frivolous and time wasting lawsuit, this is it.

For shame.

For further reading, here's a link to the ABC site: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3119381&page=1

thank you, that made me laugh

[LLFHS]

Pearson demanded repayment for the lost pants, as well as damages for inconvenience, mental anguish and attorney's fees for representing himself. He calculated his losses initially at $67 million but lowered his request to $54 million.

I'd like to kick him in the nuts 67 times....once for each million he tried to get.

I would be willing to reduce it to 54, though.