Judge Roy “Fancy Pants” Pearson is probably crying his poor, litigious little eyes out this morning. He’s lost his infamous $54 million lawsuit against a local DC dry cleaner. Pearson originally sought $65 million in damages after the cleaner allegedly gave him the wrong pants.
He later changed tactics, asking for only $54 million and focusing on the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign that was placed in the cleaner’s window. From the AP:
District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the Korean immigrant owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city’s Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson’s expectations of the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign that was once placed in the store window.“Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr.,” the ruling read.
During the trial, Pearson emotionally recalled the moment someone else’s pants were substituted for his own, tears welling up in his eyes. He also produced a witness who compared Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung to Nazis. —MEGHANN MARCO
Dry cleaner wins in missing-pants case [Yahoo!] (Thanks, Everyone Who Sent This In!)
(Photo: Inside Edition)
What. A. Fucking. Douche. I hated this guy the moment I heard about him. How the hell is he actually a judge???
test
The reason why Mr (ex Judge) Pearson lost the case was because the Chungs didn’t lose the suit. Jus the pants.
Judge Pearson challenged Godwin and lost. You don’t challenge Godwin over pants. Lesson learned? Probably not.
I don’t understand why he was adding in the cost to rent a vehicle every day to drive to the dry cleaners when it stated that he didn’t have a car of his own. It wasn’t the dry cleaners’ decision to make Pearson rent a car so that he could drive to their establishment. The guy has been photographed in a jogging suit, so it’s not as if he’s physically unable to get from point A to point B. Think of what the outcome might have been had he won: everyone who walks or takes public transportation would be able to rent a car and possibly have their employers pay for it all.
I think that the judge’s decision makes it clear that ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’ does not establish a foundation for limitless claims and financial compensation, but rather what would be expected by a “reasonable person”. The Chung family made multiple offers of up to $12000 that go well beyond what a reasonable person could expect to satisfy their claim and Pearson clearly demonstrated that he had either an agenda or was seriously delusional. I think that it is also interesting that Pearson had a similar incident with the Chung family years earlier and they paid him $150 asking him to take his business elsewhere.
@nachas101: “Certainly you don’t think that an attorney should be persecuted for bringing a suit that he felt had merit, do you?
No, I think he should have his license pulled for abuse of process ONE HE BROUGHT THE SUIT, not for bringing a potentially meritorious suit.
Nifong’s criminal case was potentially meritorious as well. He, too, abused the system, although his abuses (particularly hiding evidence) were more egregious.
“Try to stay calm here.”
I wasn’t wound up, but if had I been, I’d still find this comment fairly offensive. I’m a fan of justice and I don’t really think “justice” (like “truth” and “freedom”) are things we should “stay calm” about.
Why whenever anyone is passionate about anything is there some asshole who has to come in and be all, “don’t get excited! It’s no big deal!” Are you FRIGHTENED of people being committed to abstract ideas? Or are we just not supposed to talk about ideals in public? That whole attitude disgusts me, because clearly what this country needs is more anomie and apathy.
“You swore a ‘friggin oath’?
Come on. Seriously.”
I did. Seriously. I was there for it.
“And if you are a practicing attorney, you should know that what he did happens all the time, all over the country with frightening regularity.”
Yes. And “everybody’s doing it” is an EXCELLENT reason not to crack down on people abusing the justice system. Fine principle of law you’ve got there.
Y’all know that if Joe Blow brings the same lawsuit, it gets tossed in a nanosecond.
I think the Judge should get to spend a night in the same jail cell as Paris Hilton. They deserve each other.
@Eyebrows McGee:
The reason I said to calm down is because the way you write, you sure seem all wound up.
Maybe thats the way you express ‘passion’, but all I see is a hotheaded loon, eager to vent some frustration. And I sense that this happens frequently from this gem:
“Why whenever anyone is passionate about anything is there some asshole who has to come in and be all, “don’t get excited! It’s no big deal!” “
So let me get this straight, I’m an asshole now?
Wow.
Fine. I agree with you. Let’s all get batshit crazy about it and hang this motherfucker before the sun goes down.
Spaz.
Saying ‘settle down’ doesn’t mean I disagree with your passion or think you are necessarily wrong – it can mean many things. You know, like “hey dude, let’s not have a fucking aneurysm about it.”
You are right – this was an abuse of justice and the legal system.
You are also right – he should be punsihed further.
But you are wrong – I’m not an asshole. And I’m not offended by or upset with your passion.
But there are better ways to express your passion without coming off like a shreiking lunatic.
‘Are you FRIGHTENED of people being committed to abstract ideas?’
No. And I didn’t say that you shouldn’t be excited or passionate either. I said “Try to stay calm here.” because it is pretty clear that you are about ready to jump off the deep end about what amounts to a trivial, nonsensical case here. We both agree that Pearson is a yutz. So who are you yelling at and why are you using a strawman argument to prove your logical mettle?
‘Or are we just not supposed to talk about ideals in public?’
Umm. What? Case. In. Point. Never said it. Never implied it.
Are you an attorney? Really? They didn’t teach you to seperate logical arguments from strawman arguments?
“That whole attitude disgusts me, because clearly what this country needs is more anomie and apathy.”
Good point. It has nothing to do with what I said, but a good point. Your sarcasm is not lost on this asshole.
“Yes. And “everybody’s doing it” is an EXCELLENT reason not to crack down on people abusing the justice system. Fine principle of law you’ve got there.”
And you claim to be an attorney.
I say that this case is not like the Nifong case, where disbarment was clearly a reasonable outcome, and you present a part of it as a strawman argument.
Hey, I bet you are great at being an attorney. Not so great at posting at the consumerist, but likley a good attorney.
Odd, though, since you seem to have skipped the logic classes.
I never said what you seem to have believed me to say.
Go back, re-read it, maybe dump out the coffee and switch to decaf, and relax. I too am passionate about law. I just don’t scream and stomp around calling others asshole for no reason.
@superbmtsub:
I can’t believe it took so long for the thread winner to show up.
I don’t think there are grounds for disbarment here. The grounds for disbarment typically involve harm to an attorney’s client, either by stealing funds or affirmatively causing harm to a client’s case. If Pearson committed a wrong, it would be abuse of process. Courts usually punish abuse of process by imposing monetary sanctions on the offending attorney. It is difficult for me to see why those aren’t sufficient here. A professional admonishment may be appropriate, but disbarment seems extreme in this case (as far as I can tell). I’m not in a position to know, but I don’t see a pattern of abuse here that might warrant a stronger response by the court.
@Eyebrows McGee: “There is hardly a canon of legal ethics he has left unbroken” That’s a strong statement, especially when it’s based on information about the case gleaned entirely from news reports. I’m curious to hear the specifics of your charge.
@nequam:
“That’s a strong statement, especially when it’s based on information about the case gleaned entirely from news reports. I’m curious to hear the specifics of your charge. “
My dad, an attorney for 30+ years, always says:
Read half of what you believe in the papers, and when it’s about the law, don’t believe a word.
Early in his legal career, he worked for the states attorneys office. Reporters were always looking for quotes. After having what he said be misquoted half a dozen times, he stopped giving them.
Simply put – you can’t build a case for the ‘canon of legal ethics’ being broken from any of this.
He abused the system. He should know better. He’s likely to lose his appointment as an administrative law judge. He’s going to have a VERY difficult time getting clients to trust him for a long time.
That’s likely enough, for now.
In the immortal words of Nelson Muntz:
HA HA!
I can’t believe that some people even think they can sue for that kind of money, for something as trivial as pants.
Did they remove this man’s position as a judge yet? Sounds to me like he has some serious psychological problems. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be before this guy in court. What sane person cries when recalling the moment when the cleaners produced the wrong pair of pants (and then thinks his ‘anguish’ is worth 54 million.) I’d be very interested to see if the state does the right thing and takes any action against him. At the very least he should get temporary suspension pending a mental health test. No matter what happens though he still made himself look like a complete fool in front of the entire world. How is it that people like this end up with positions of power in our legal system?
Yea. He’s been disbarred.
And thanks @ bpark. There was no suit involved at all. Jus pants.
@superbmtsub: wtf are you talking about? He hasn’t been disbarred.
@superbmtsub: really? Well that’s good to know. I haven’t yet been able to find an article about the disbarment. I’d love it if you’d share your source
Based on another WaPo Article:
A panel of four D.C. officials is considering the reappointment of administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson Jr. in light of devastating publicity about a court case he brought.
…
Moreover, this is not the first case involving Mr. Pearson that has raised such questions. The Virginia Court of Appeals, in a 2005 review of Mr. Pearson’s divorce proceedings, upheld findings that he created “unnecessary litigation” in a relatively simple case and was responsible for “excessive driving up” of legal costs.
There was no other way this could have turned out. The precedent an opposite ruling would have set would most surely sink our economy, then who would we sue for that boondoggle?
Bong Hits for Buddha
Perhaps next he’ll sue his relatives for childhood trauma, because he obviously has been abused if not being able to wear his own pants makes him cry in court, at his age.
America, I have hope for you yet. Don’t stop now.
@superbmtsub:
Not disbarred.
No mention of it at all in any news source on the web.
While he deserves to lose his position as an administrative law judge, disbarring him is silly and pointless.
My bad guys.
[news.bbc.co.uk]
I read that article in a hurry. Hopefully disbarred and let someone a bit less insane to take over his position.
I was really just wishing that after all this the cleaners were forced to just pay for a new suit or pants or whatever it was and their legal expenses.
The main suit was ridiculous but letting them off scot-free just sends a message to cleaners of the sort, which have a reputation for being difficult that it is ok to be mean to consumers.
@bnissan97: Yes, but they already offered to pay him up to $12K for the pants, and he rejected their multiple settlement offers. His fault for not keeping it in small-claims court, and for acting like a lunatic.
Also, what do you mean by “cleaners of the sort”?
I think the crux of the matter is that, despite all his wrangling and yelling, he never even managed to prove that the pants they returned to him were not the pants he gave them. The judge had no choice but to conclude that, if he wasn’t satisfied, there was nothing on earth the Chungs could have done to make him satisfied.