More on "Mr. $54 Million For My Lost Pants"

[Strong Bad]

This guy seriously needs the shit beat out him BAD! If ever there was justification for a major ass whoopin, this is it!I would love to drive down to DC and do it myself! How can this case have even gotten this far??? No wonder our judicial system is the laughing stock of the world!


WASHINGTON - The customer is always right, said a judge who testified Wednesday in his $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner who lost his pants. Administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson argued that he is acting in the interest of all city residents against poor business practices. Attorneys for the dry cleaner call his claim "outlandish."

Under cross-examination, Pearson said the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act, under which he is suing Custom Cleaners, should grant a customer whatever he or she wants if there is a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign.

Pearson, 57, originally sued Custom Cleaners for about $65 million by adding up violations under the act and almost $2 million in common law claims. He is no longer seeking damages related to the pants, focusing his claims on two signs in the shop that have since been removed.

Defense attorney Chris Manning asked Pearson repeatedly whether, if he was a merchant, he would pay any customer who asked for compensation. Pearson kept responding with convoluted legal language, and each time Judge Judith Bartnoff instructed him to answer the question. Finally, he said, "Yes."

"So does that make sense, for you instead of going down the street to another dry cleaner, to sue a business for $67 million?" Manning asked.

Pearson said it did.

"Does that make any sense at all?" Manning asked, to laughter from the courtroom.

Bartnoff ruled Wednesday that the "Same Day Service" sign was no longer to be considered, leaving "Satisfaction Guaranteed" the only issue in question.

Pearson alleges that Jin Chung, Soo Chung and Ki Chung, owners of the small business, committed fraud and misled consumers because they put up the signs but did not meet the satisfaction of several customers, including him.

Manning portrayed Pearson as a bitter man with financial troubles stemming from a recent divorce who is taking out his anger on a hardworking family.

Manning went into the details of Pearson's divorce on Wednesday. Under questioning, Pearson confirmed he had only $1,000 to $2,000 to his name when his problems with the dry cleaners started. Pearson said he did not have a job at the time and was collecting unemployment benefits.

Pearson says his problems with Custom Cleaners began in May 2005 when he brought in several suits for alterations. A pair of pants from a blue and maroon suit was missing when he requested it two days later. The Chungs say they found the pants soon after and tried to give them to Pearson, but Pearson insists those are not his. The charcoal-gray, cuffed pants are now evidence.

"I haven't worn pants with cuffs since the 1970s," Pearson said Wednesday. He also submitted into evidence a photograph of every pair of pants in his home to show that he does not like pants with cuffs.

Pearson said Wednesday that he wants only $2 million in damages for himself _ for his mental anguish and inconvenience _ plus $500,000 in attorney's fees for representing himself. Anything more that Bartnoff might award him would go into a fund "to educate people of their rights under the Consumer Protection Act," he said.

[daboyz]

Dude needs a gavel shoved straight up the nether region. A$$ for those of you playing at home.

[m00npie]

More frivolous lawsuits... :mad:

[steveinaz]

What an asshole.

[Toxis]

how is a dry cleaner company ever going to get 54mil?

[Danny Tse]

Just imagine if this Pearson dude wins.....nah :D

Can't wait til the verdict comes in.

[DAGLJAM6]

Just imagine if this Pearson dude wins.....nah :D

Can't wait til the verdict comes in.


The bad thing is ,at this point, regardless of the verdict the family is financially ruined.

[RuSsMaN]

I hope someone sees him crossing the street and runs him over.

[bobman1235]

I hope someone sees him crossing the street and runs him over.

But that would ruin his pants!

[skipf]

Too bad DC doesn't have the same law as Oregon regarding frivilous lawsuits. In Oregon if a plantiff's suit is deemed frivilous, they pay all court costs, the defendants legal fees and a healthy fine. This needs to be instituted nationwide. It costs thousands to defend yourself against these ridiculous suits, and even when you win the case, you lose your legal fees.

[daboyz]

But that would ruin his pants!

I know a good dry cleaner:rolleyes:

[petrym]

Dry Cleaner wins! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_re_us/67_million_pants) :D

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.

[bobman1235]

Now, if that guy would just get hit by a bus, I'd be truly happy.

[ohskigod]

the dry cleaner owners already spent so much on legal fees, I hope they can try to seek legal fees from the plaintiff.

I heard that the plaintif will probably not be an administrative jusge too long. they are not recomending him to be renewed for his position. sweet :D

[Bill Ayotte]

I hope the Chungs get every dime they spent back, maybe some extra....

[Fireman32]

I'm glad that asshole did not win.

[JimBRICK]

someone whould kick him in the pants

[Danny Tse]

I'm glad to see the Chungs won this lawsuit. There is justice in the world, after all.

Pearson needs to be sued for the Chungs' legal fees.

[petrym]

They are going to put in a motion for Chung's fees. A simple way to remedy frivolous lawsuits is to have the loser pay all court costs, that would stop 99% of this cr@p from ever clogging the courts.

[Strong Bad]

I hope the Chungs get every dime they spent back, maybe some extra....


Like pain and suffering on their part. A couple Million like asshole wanted for his P&S should suffice.

John

[bobman1235]

They are going to put in a motion for Chung's fees. A simple way to remedy frivolous lawsuits is to have the loser pay all court costs, that would stop 99% of this cr@p from ever clogging the courts.

Not exactly simple - that would basically prohibit an individual from ever trying to sue a large corporation, since the corporation and its team of lawyers would most likely win (right or wrong), and subsequently bankrupt the plaintiff with millions in court fees.

[George Grand]

Anybody hears of a fund that we can contribute to and help get those poor people back on their feet, sing out.

[bobman1235]

Anybody hears of a fund that we can contribute to and help get those poor people back on their feet, sing out.

They had a defense fund (http://www.customcleanersdefensefund.com/) set up, I don't know what the situation is now that the lawsuit is over.

[George Grand]

Thank you!

[MacLeod]

Not exactly simple - that would basically prohibit an individual from ever trying to sue a large corporation, since the corporation and its team of lawyers would most likely win (right or wrong), and subsequently bankrupt the plaintiff with millions in court fees.

I dunno dude - it seems that anytime a person brings a suit against a big company, the individual usually seems to win.

I think the loser pays system would work just fine. If not that then have it to where if you were sued and won, you could sue the person that sued you for time, expense and pain and suffering! This A-hole should be paying out his a-hole for the rest of his life for nearly ruining these peoples lives.

[bobman1235]

I dunno dude - it seems that anytime a person brings a suit against a big company, the individual usually seems to win.

Tell that to anyone who's tried to sue Disney.

I still say it's not realistic, unless you have guidelines on what can be reimbursed. If I'm wronged by a company, I will be at a severe disadvantage if hte possibility of my losing means I have to pay MILLIONS to cover their legal fees.

[Sami]

Not exactly simple - that would basically prohibit an individual from ever trying to sue a large corporation, since the corporation and its team of lawyers would most likely win (right or wrong), and subsequently bankrupt the plaintiff with millions in court fees.

Cover "reasonable" lawyer costs would the correct way, meaning a corporation could spent millions on lawyers if they chose to but only the reasonable part would be repaid if they won.

Do these rediculous lawsuits go through a screening process where lawyers aren't involved? Blame the system for this to ever getting this far. Individual person does need some protection from court costs. I am already building my finances in a way where I can leave the country, or file bankruptcy with most of my money save if there ever is a need due to a large liability.

[fatchowmein]

The Korean folks should countersue as a hate crime. I'm sure that judge has experienced what he's considered poor customer service someplace else that posts "Satisfaction Guaranteed" but I'm sure most of those places involve large corporations. Why pick on these little business owners? Because they're easy targets?

Stupid.

[F1nut]

The Korean folks should countersue as a hate crime.

That would be a hoot as Pearson is black and the Chung's are Asian. Can one minority be charged with a hate crime against another minority? I thought only whites could be charged with a hate crime. Equal justice for all....yeah right!

That whole hate crime thing is ridiculous anyway. If someone commits a crime against another, of course they don't like the other person.

Of interest, when Pearson filed his suit, he had about a thousand dollars to his name and was going thru a divorce. Puts things in perspective, eh!?! I hope the putz has to eat out of a dumpster for the rest of his sorry ass life.

[mrbigbluelight]

One of my joys in life is seeing life play out as it could be and should be.

Life is good. :)

[fatchowmein]

[QUOTE=F1nut;659501]That would be a hoot as Pearson is black and the Chung's are Asian. Can one minority be charged with a hate crime against another minority? I thought only whites could be charged with a hate crime. Equal justice for all....yeah right!
[QUOTE]

Poetic? Sure. Justice? Not so sure. Hoot? Yep. Unlikely? Yep, yep, yep.

[Danny Tse]

You would think this case has ended....think again!!

ALJ thinks the judge made "fundamental legal error" in judgement (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19734546/?GT1=10150)

[bobman1235]

Good, I hope he keeps this in the spotlight as long as possible, so he can face real legal ramifications for his actions.

[xsmi]

Definitions of Hate Crime on the Web:

Crime of aggravated assault, arson, burglary, criminal homicide, motor vehicle theft, robbery, sex offenses, and/or crime involving bodily injury in which the victim was intentionally selected because of the victims' actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability.
www.otterbein.edu/resources/security/crime_stats/UCRdefinitions.asp
An offense committed against another person, with the specific intent to cause harm to that person due to their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or culture, etc.
www.hss.state.ak.us/djj/jomis/glossary.htm
A hate crime (bias crime), loosely defined, is a crime committed because of the perpetrator's prejudices. This is a controversial political issue within the US. The US Congress (HR 4797 - 1992) defined a hate crime as: "[a crime in which] the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

Get his sorry ass!

[Danny Tse]

From the Washington Post - First, Pants Man Loses Case. Next, His Job. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/08/first_pants_man_loses_case_nex.html)

By the middle of next week, Roy Pearson, the D.C. administrative law judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaners for $54 million and lost, will receive a letter that starts the process of putting him out of a job.

City sources tell me that a marathon meeting of the commission that reviews the performance of administrative law judges (ALJs) ended last night with unanimous agreement to meet again next Monday to revise and finalize the wording of a letter that will state the panel's doubts about granting Pearson the 10-year reappointment that he has been seeking throughout the last months of his battle against Custom Cleaners and its owners, the Chung family.

The panel had expected to complete work on the Pearson case last night, but discussions were complicated by a series of conflicting recommendations to the Commission on Selection and Tenure of ALJs by the chief ALJ, Tyrone Butler. In rapid succession this spring, Butler told the commission that "I do not oppose" Pearson's reappointment, that "I recommend reappointment," and that "I do not recommend" reappointment, according to sources who have seen the letters.

The first switcheroo came as a result of the commission notifying Butler that he had not complied with the law that requires the chief judge to submit a yes or no recommendation to the commission that decides whether judges' performance merits an extension of their time on the bench. ALJs sit on cases involving disputes between city agencies and between citizens and those agencies.

But after Butler came back with a pro-Pearson letter, Pearson sent a series of emails within the ALJ staff disparaging the chief judge, calling him "evil" and mean-spirited. That helped sway Butler to switch yet again, to a recommendation against reappointment.

Within the commission, the discussion about Pearson's future has focused on when and whether it is right to measure a judge's performance by his behavior outside the courtroom. The panel looked specifically at whether Pearson's extraordinary zeal in pursuing the case against the Chungs was so frivolous and embarrassing to the judicial system that it should be taken as evidence of his lack of judicial temperment. "A judge has a right to bring a lawsuit like any other citizen," said a source close to the commission, "but he doesn't have a First Amendment right to bring a frivolous lawsuit."

The commission is expected to address the Chung case specifically in its letter to Pearson, pointing out that his no-holds-barred pursuit of mega-millions in a case stemming from a $10.50 alteration on a pair of suit pants raises serious questions about his judicial temperment and raises public questions about judicial ethics and standards. Following receipt of the letter, Pearson would then have the right to a hearing before the commission. Only after that hearing would the commission formally move to end Pearson's tenure as a judge. Pearson has not been sitting as a judge since the end of April, when his first term on the bench expired. Rather, he is now technically considered an "attorney advisor" to the Office of Administrative Hearings. Asked what Pearson does in that position, a high-ranking city official said, "Zippo."

Separately, Pearson is preparing an appeal of Judge Judith Bartnoff's rejection of his case against the Chungs.

Meanwhile, at a fundraiser for the Chungs last week, donors contributed more than $62,000 toward the legal fees the family incurred in their defense against the Pearson suit. Another $30,000-plus came in from Post readers and others who made contributions to a defense fund around the time of the trial in June. The total comes close to covering the Chung's bills for the first round of the case, but Pearson's push to appeal the ruling will mean further legal fees for the immigrant family.

The commission's chairman, D.C. Superior Court Judge Robert Rigsby, declined to comment on the specifics of Pearson's case, saying only that "We met for several hours last night and discussed the vacancies and the reappointments of 11 ALJs. We worked well into the night and will do so again on Monday." He said the commission will finish its work on Pearson and the other ALJs up for new terms on Monday night.

As satisfying as it would be to see Pearson lose his post over his obsessive pursuit of the Chungs, the downside for the owners of the dry cleaners is that with Pearson out of a job, their chances of ever recovering the court fees that Pearson has already been assessed and the attorney's fees that he may yet be ordered to pay would be severely diminished.

As has happened at every stage of this sorry case, it is possible to win the legal battle while still being destroyed by the process.

[F1nut]

His goose is cooked!

[Lasareath]

I have a friend, him and his wife all they do is sue people, that's how they make their living. They each have done it 3 times that I know of.

[anonymouse]

I have a friend, him and his wife all they do is sue people, that's how they make their living. They each have done it 3 times that I know of.


I sincerely hope he has other redeeming qualities to earn him the privilege of being your "friend".

[George Grand]

Great observation anonymouse.

[mrbigbluelight]

Lasareath, I think the correct syntax to use in this instance would be:

"I HAD a friend".....

;)

[Danny Tse]

Just happened....

By Keith L. Alexander
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 31, 2007; Page B04

Roy L. Pearson Jr., the administrative law judge who lost his $54 million lawsuit against a Northeast Washington dry cleaner, lost his job yesterday and was ordered to vacate his office, sources said.

Pearson, 57, who had served as a judge for two years, was up for a 10-year term at the Office of Administrative Hearings, but a judicial committee last week voted against reappointing him.

The panel had a seven-page letter hand-delivered to Pearson about 3:30 p.m., directing him to leave his office by 5 p.m. Pearson's term ended in May, at the height of his battle with the dry cleaners. Since then, he has remained on the payroll, making $100,000 a year as an attorney adviser.

A source familiar with the committee's meetings said Pearson's lawsuit played little role in the decision not to reappoint him.

Instead, the committee said it had reviewed Pearson's judicial decisions and audiotapes of proceedings over which he had presided and found he did not demonstrate "appropriate judgment and judicial temperament," according a source who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case.

Sources said Pearson also was criticized for displaying a "combative" nature with supervisors and colleagues and for failing to comply with policies in drafting opinions.

Administrative law judges hear cases involving city agencies and commissions.

The Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges first notified Pearson in August that it might not reappoint him, several weeks after he lost his civil suit against the dry cleaners. Pearson was asked to provide witnesses on his behalf. However, no witnesses testified.

The group met last week at D.C. Superior Court and officially voted not to reappoint Pearson.

Pearson has not responded to recent requests for comment.

Pearson waged a legal battle against Custom Cleaners, alleging that the shop on Bladensburg Road NE lost a pair of pants he brought in for $10.50 worth of alterations. Pearson sued the owners, Soo Chung and her family, and lost when a D.C. Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the Chungs.

The judicial committee was made up of its chairman, D.C. Superior Court Judge Robert R. Rigsby; Judge Anita Josey-Herring, presiding judge of Family Court; and Peter Willner, a senior policy analyst at the nonprofit Council for Court Excellence. Two others serve as nonvoting members: Tyrone T. Butler, chief administrative law judge, and George Valentine, a senior lawyer in the D.C. attorney general's office.

[F1nut]

Karma!

[venomclan]

Too bad they did not sentence him to work at the dry cleaners for free for a 5 year term. :D

[cfrizz]

Now we have to wait to see if he sues OAH, or the Judiciary Committee!

[Face]

He still needs a good beating.

[thejck]

Too bad they did not sentence him to work at the dry cleaners for free for a 5 year term. :D

he probably would steal or damage other peoples pants and then give them legal counsil as a side job to sue the cleaners.

[venomclan]

he probably would steal or damage other peoples pants and then give them legal counsil as a side job to sue the cleaners.

That is why I would out a stipulation in the sentence that said he needed to perform in a way that kept him employed. If he was fired by the owner, he would carry out the sentence in prison. :D

[Strong Bad]

He still needs a good beating.

Agreed! This knucklehead is preparing an appeal which would further cost the Chung's legal fees.

I have to wonder what goes through his mind that makes him believe he is in the right to do this.

[Sherardp]

Kick his ass Seabass.

[dudeinaroom]

Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!