The $54 Million Dollars Pants Saga Continues!!!

Update 08/03/07:
Washington Post reports that Roy Pearson will receive a letter that starts the process of putting him out of a job. City sources told of a marathon meeting of the commission that reviews the performance of administrative law judges (ALJs) ended last night with unanimous agreement to meet next Monday to finalize 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 chief ALJ, Tyrone Butler wanted to recommend Pearson's reappointment, but it would seem that Pearson decided to send a series of emails to all ALJ staff disparaging the chief judge, calling him "evil" and mean-spirited. This led to Butler switching his recommendation.

Meanwhile, Mr. Friviolous Lawsuit is preparing an appeal of Judge Judith Bartnoff's rejection of his case against the Chungs.

Fortunately, enough people and fundraising have helped contributed more than $92,000 to cover legal feeds the family incurred in their defense against the Pearson suit. But because of Pearson's appeal, it would mean further legal fees for the immigrant family.

Pearson is making a mockery of our judicial system as well as causing harm and injury to a decent family trying to survive in this country.

Roy Pearson refuses to let this die peacefully. The D.C. administrative judge who fought and lost a $54 million lawsuit against the Korean immigrants who own his neighborhood's dry cleaners chose the Fourth of July holiday to file a motion (via his attorney) arguing that D.C. Superior Court Judge Bartnoff failed to address Pearson's legal claims and asking the judge to reverse her verdict in the case.

At the conclusion of the original case which was found in favor of the Chungs, they have been saddled with more than $100,000 in legal expenses.

The Chungs' defense attorney, Christopher Manning, has beseeched Pearson to consider moving on. Unfortunately, Pearson stated that he will continue to fight in the best interests of all Washington residents. (Or is that long-speak for "in particular my own interests.)

He is still doing this despite a CLEAR finding by Judge Bartnoff that his lawsuit against Custom Cleaners HAD NO MERIT!

He is still doing this despite the fact that the Chungs have been wiped out financially.

This two-year jihad against the Chungs must end.

The Chungs found his wayward pants and tried to return them to Pearson. He continues to say that those pants are not his.

Despite a settlement offer of $12,000 by the Chungs, Pearson wanted to still go to court.

Of course, he changes his reasoning that the lawsuit was not about the pants, but the sign that promised "satisfaction guaranteed."

Plus, to end this story, the panel that will determine whether Pearson is to be re-appointed for a full, 10-year term as an administrative judge has not issued their opinion. At Mayor Adrian Fenty's request, the panel put off consideration of Pearson's case until the mayor had a chance to fill a vacancy on the commission on the tenure of ALJ's. Now that Fenty has filled up the commission, the decision on re-appointment will be made pretty soon.

Let's fervently hope that the commission decide NOT TO EXTEND Pearson's term as administrative judge.

Please note that the Institute for Legal Reform and the American Tort Reform Association are co-hosting a fundraiser on Tuesday, July 24 in Washington, D.C. Click here for more information.

Also, click here for the Custom Cleaners Defense Fund.

This is one example why we need reform. This is one example to show that there are people out there willing to destroy the American dream for others. This is one example where people try to twist the law to fit their personal vendetta.

I even believe that Pearson just wants to bankrupt the Chungs regardless.

Washington Post: The $54 Million Pants Suit That Wouldn't Die

Michelle Malkin: Support the dry cleaners!

Update 7/14/07

In more detail, Roy Pearson accused the judge Judith Bartnoff for committing a "fundamental legal error." He stated that she failed to address his legal claims. "The court effectively substituted a guarantee of satisfaction with 'reasonable' limits and preconditions for the unconditional and unambiguous guarantee of satisfaction the defendant-merchant chose to advertise for seven years," Pearson wrote.

If Bartnoff rejects his appeal, he will take the matter to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

So "Satisfaction Guaranteed" would mean unconditional, unlimited promise on his interpretation. Judge Bartnoff disagreed by saying that such a statement must be considered in the context of a 'reasonable' customer.

I would agree such a thing would mean that if you are not happy with the transaction, you can demand to have your money back. Yet Pearson decides to employ his own calculation in determining the penalty which resulted in the $54 million dollars based on some sort of literal analysis of the D.C. consumer law in the books.

At this point, it wouldn't matter since the Chungs are effectively bankrupt by this case, so Pearson wouldn't really see a cent. But he continues to justify this on principle not on the monetary amount, unless he believes that such a high financial amount would deter other dry cleaners from trying to rip off the same customers like him.

Now, it is possible that there could be a District Judge that may side with Pearson if the reasoning is based on some sort of literal analysis of the current law. Then the Chungs would appeal forcing it to the Court of Appeals hoping that the verdict can be dismissed because it was unreasonable and that the law was used 'out-of-context.'

The whole thing is pretty ridiculous. I just hope that the Court of Appeals can see past Pearson's friviolous lawsuit and back up Judge Bartnoff's call.