Ressurection of the Pearson Circus
Quote:
View: Judge in pants lawsuit sues to get job back
Source: Edition
created with FASS, the unofficial TFP post generator
Judge in pants lawsuit sues to get job back
May 2, 2008
by Paul Courson
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The former judge who last year lost a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against a dry cleaners over a missing pair of pants wants his job back.
art.cleaners.afp.gi.jpg
Roy Pearson sued the owners of this dry cleaning business for $54 million over a missing pair of pants.
Roy Pearson was not reappointed after his term expired as an administrative law judge in the District of Columbia.
He filed a lawsuit Thursday in federal court accusing city government and others of an "unlawful demotion and subsequent termination."
Pearson was taken off the bench in May 2007, during his unsuccessful $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaning business, which he accused of failing to meet its promise of "satisfaction guaranteed."
As an administrative law judge, Pearson would hear cases involving zoning law and certain business disputes.
A city panel that decides reappointments had notified Pearson during the controversial lost trousers trial that his status was under review.
A source on that panel said at the time that any judge must meet certain standards of conduct "on and off the bench."
The source, who was among the members of the panel at the time of Pearson's review, said "a judge is a judge 24/7; whether or not they use good judgment in all aspects of their lives is what we can consider."
The civil case, in which Pearson represented himself, sought punitive and compensatory damages against a small family-owned dry cleaners that once posted signs promising "satisfaction guaranteed."
A pair of trousers that hung by the witness stand was a featured part of the trial last summer. The owners testified that the pants belonged to Pearson, who denied under oath that they were his.
The judge found in favor of the dry cleaners and disagreed with Pearson that the satisfaction promise was unconditional. Pearson then lost an appeal filed at D.C. Superior Court, but consideration of his federal appeal has been delayed at his request.
In court documents made available Friday at U.S. District Court in Washington, Pearson, again acting as his own attorney, relies on what he considers Washington's "Whistleblower Protection" law to try to establish illegal retaliation.
The trial over the lost trousers generated a storm of criticism among fairness advocates, who accused Pearson of abusing the system. The latest litigation has begun to produce the same reaction.
"He lost his job because he proved he did not have the legal requirements to fill the job, namely a judicial temperament," said Darren McKinney of the American Tort Reform Association.
Pearson did not return a message left at home.
In his suit seeking to regain his job, he also seeks "compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, in excess of $75,000 from all defendants jointly and severally," as well as an unspecified amount of punitive damages "to be determined at trial."
Efforts to seek reaction from the individuals named in the lawsuit were unsuccessful. No initial hearing date has been set in the civil case assigned to U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan.
|
Oh holy hell. I just got caught up on this circus. I just can't believe this nonesense. Yes it is terrible that this guy lost his job but I think he went a little over board with this lawsuit.
Court finds missing pants not worth $54M click to show
Quote:
View: Court finds missing pants not worth $54M
Source: Money
created with FASS, the unofficial TFP post generator
Court finds missing pants not worth $54M
June 25 2007
by http://money.cnn.com/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A judge in the District of Columbia has dismissed a case against a dry cleaner that claimed $54 million in damages for a pair of missing pants.
The case was brought by Roy L. Pearson, himself a judge. He originally sought $67 million from the Chung family, owners of Custom Cleaners. He calculated the amount by estimating years of law violations, adding almost $2 million in common law claims for fraud.
The Chungs denied Pearson's allegations and insisted that the pants they tried to give him were those he had brought in.
The saga began in May 2005, when Pearson took several pairs of pants to Custom Cleaners for alteration as he prepared to start his new job as an administrative law judge. He alleged that he'd brought in a pair of trousers from a blue and maroon suit, but when he came to collect them the Chungs tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants that he said were not his.
'Project Runway' for the t-shirt crowd
During a two-day trial earlier this month, Pearson said that when he took the pants to Custom Cleaners, his financial situation was ruinous - he had just been ordered to pay $12,000 in attorney's fees to his ex-wife and his credit cards were at their limit.
Pearson, representing himself during the trial, claimed millions of dollars in attorney fees and millions more in punitive damages for what he called fraudulent advertising under the law.
He also claimed that a sign in the store's window that promised "Satisfaction Guaranteed" was an unconditional warranty that required the defendants to honor any claim by any customer without limitation.
The Chungs' attorney argued that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to mean an unconditional promise of satisfaction. District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff agreed.
In a 23-page conclusion, Bartnoff ruled that Custom Cleaners had not violated the city's Consumer Protection Act. She wrote: "A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands or accede to demands that the merchant has reasonable grounds to dispute."
Pearson had "not met his burden of proving that the pants the defendants attempted to return to him were not the pants he brought in for alteration" she said.
Bartnoff awarded court costs to the defendants. The Chungs - who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on the case - are attempting to have their attorney's fees paid by Pearson.
Their attorney, Chris Manning, said his clients "are relieved that we are past this stage. Judge Bartnoff has spoken loudly in suggesting that, while consumers should be protected, abusive lawsuits like this will not be tolerated. Judge Bartnoff has chosen common sense and reasonableness over irrationality and unbridled venom."
He added: "Hopefully Mr. Pearson doesn't take this any further on appeal, but we expect him to."
During the two-day trial, Soo Chung said that "economically, emotionally and healthwise as well, it has been extremely hard for us." She started the business with her husband after they moved to the United States from South Korea in 1992.
|
Judge tosses $54 million suit over missing pants click to show
Quote:
View: Judge tosses $54 million suit over missing pants
Source: Edition
created with FASS, the unofficial TFP post generator
Judge tosses $54 million suit over missing pants
June 26, 2007
by http://edition.cnn.com/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A judge in the District of Columbia has dismissed a case against a dry cleaner who was sued for $54 million in damages over a pair of missing pants.
Roy L. Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chung family, owners of Custom Cleaners. He claimed they lost a favorite pair of his suit trousers and later tried to give him a pair that were not his.
Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign displayed in the store window, Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled.
Pearson claimed that a sign was an unconditional warranty that required the defendants to honor any claim by any customer without limitation.
He calculated the amount of damages by estimating years of violations, then adding almost $2 million in common-law claims for fraud.
At a news conference in front of Custom Cleaners, Soo Chung said through an interpreter that she was "very pleased" with the verdict, adding that she and her husband have no plans to move back to Korea.
When asked if she would accept Pearson as a future customer, Soo Chung said through her translator, "If he wants to continue to use our services, then yes, they would accept him as a customer."
During the trial, the Chungs denied Pearson's allegations and insisted that the pants were the same pair he brought in to be altered in May 2005.
Pearson represented himself during a two-day trial earlier this month and claimed millions of dollars in attorney fees and millions more in punitive damages for what he claimed was fraudulent advertising.
Pearson said that when he took the pants to Custom Cleaners, his financial situation was ruinous. He had just been ordered to pay $12,000 in attorney's fees to his ex-wife and his credit cards were at their limit.
The Chungs' attorney argued that no reasonable person would interpret the sign to mean an unconditional promise of satisfaction, and Bartnoff agreed.
In a 23-page finding of fact, Bartnoff wrote: "A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands or accede to demands that the merchant has reasonable grounds to dispute."
Pearson had "not met his burden of proving that the pants the defendants attempted to return to him were not the pants he brought in for alteration," the judge concluded.
Bartnoff awarded court costs to the Chungs, who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on the case. They are attempting to have their attorney's fees paid by Pearson.
"Judge Bartnoff has spoken loudly in suggesting that, while consumers should be protected, abusive lawsuits like this will not be tolerated," said the Chungs' attorney, Chris Manning. "Judge Bartnoff has chosen common sense and reasonableness over irrationality and unbridled venom."
Soo Chung said during the trial that "economically, emotionally and healthwise as well, it has been extremely hard for us." She started the business with her husband after they moved to the United States in 1992.
It's not known whether Pearson will appeal the ruling.
|
|
