D.C. Judge sues for 65 million over lost pants

[watermock]

Only in D.C. I guess. The cleaners offered him 300 bucks for a new pair, then more. How do you have tousands of pages of litigation and have to lease a car for 10 years? Was he driving around in his underwear? If it was with a matching suit, so be it. This clown is a disgrace to the bar. Go get a new suit and bill the cleaners. The judge should have him stripped from the waist down and paraded down pennsylvania avenue. Mental anguish, legal costs? Isn't he a lawyer himself? I suppose he's billing himself 300 an hour.

This breaks new ground for frivolous lawsuits. The owners did everything including offering to buy him a brand new suit. All this prick had to do was order by phone, have it delivered and send the bill to the cleaners. We should be so lucky. What an asshole. Like he's the only person that has had issues with a dry cleaners. They should of thrown an iron at his ass.

Judge sues cleaner for $65M over pants
By LUBNA TAKRURI
Associated Press Writer

Jacquelyn Martin
Ki Chung, left, takes a dry cleaning order from Hyun Soo Lee inside of the Chung's dry cleaning business, Custom Cleaners, in Washington on Wednesday, May 2, 2007. The Chung's are being sued for 65 million dollars over a contentious pair of pants belonging to a local judge, and for using signs that the judge claims were deceptive.

http://www.CustomCleanersDefenseFund.com
The Chungs, immigrants from South Korea, realized their American dream when they opened their dry-cleaning business seven years ago in the nation's capital. For the past two years, however, they've been dealing with the nightmare of litigation: a $65 million lawsuit over a pair of missing pants.

Jin Nam Chung, Ki Chung and their son, Soo Chung, are so disheartened that they're considering moving back to Seoul, said their attorney, Chris Manning, who spoke on their behalf.

"They're out a lot of money, but more importantly, incredibly disenchanted with the system," Manning said. "This has destroyed their lives."

The lawsuit was filed by a District of Columbia administrative hearings judge, Roy Pearson, who has been representing himself in the case.

Pearson did not return phone calls and e-mails Wednesday from The Associated Press requesting comment.

According to court documents, the problem began in May 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alteration to Custom Cleaners in Northeast Washington, a place he patronized regularly despite previous disagreements with the Chungs. A pair of pants from one suit was not ready when he requested it two days later, and was deemed to be missing.

Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than $1,000.

But a week later, the Chungs said the pants had been found and refused to pay. That's when Pearson decided to sue.

Manning said the cleaners made three settlement offers to Pearson. First they offered $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000. But Pearson wasn't satisfied and expanded his calculations beyond one pair of pants.

Because Pearson no longer wanted to use his neighborhood dry cleaner, part of his lawsuit calls for $15,000 - the price to rent a car every weekend for 10 years to go to another business.

"He's somehow purporting that he has a constitutional right to a dry cleaner within four blocks of his apartment," Manning said.

But the bulk of the $65 million comes from Pearson's strict interpretation of D.C.'s consumer protection law, which fines violators $1,500 per violation, per day. According to court papers, Pearson added up 12 violations over 1,200 days, and then multiplied that by three defendants.

Much of Pearson's case rests on two signs that Custom Cleaners once had on its walls: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service."

Based on Pearson's dissatisfaction and the delay in getting back the pants, he claims the signs amount to fraud.

Pearson has appointed himself to represent all customers affected by such signs, though D.C. Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz, who will hear the June 11 trial, has said that this is a case about one plaintiff, and one pair of pants.

Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Association, has written a letter to the group of men who will decide this week whether to renew Pearson's 10-year appointment. Joyce is asking them to reconsider.

Chief Administrative Judge Tyrone Butler had no comment regarding Pearson's reappointment.

The association, which tries to police the kind of abusive lawsuits that hurt small businesses, also has offered to buy Pearson the suit of his choice.

And former National Labors Relations Board chief administrative law judge Melvin Welles wrote to The Washington Post to urge "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."

"There has been a significant groundswell of support for the Chungs," said Manning, adding that plans for a defense fund Web site are in the works.

To the Chungs and their attorney, one of the most frustrating aspects of the case is their claim that Pearson's gray pants were found a week after Pearson dropped them off in 2005. They've been hanging in Manning's office for more than a year.

Pearson claims in court documents that his pants had blue and red pinstripes.

"They match his inseam measurements. The ticket on the pants match his receipt," Manning said.

[watermock]

One day dry cleaning and alterations are two different things completely.

According to court documents, the problem began in May 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alteration

First, why didn't the store that he bought them from do the alterations? Dry cleaners are not tailors. That's what any sane person that wants a tailored suit does. Why did he think he was going to get one day service on an alteration. It could of been outsourced. You just have it tailored at the fancy store you bought it from. He's a complete jackass.

[gunns]

Maybe they were his lucky pants.

[watermock]

He bought several suits, why didn't he have them tailored at the store?

They will be lucky pants if this creep can get 65 million for them. BTW, why are they "pairs" of pants?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Good thing they didn't lose his $10 million socks while they were at it.

[Needa Pass Rush]

Biography
Roy L. Pearson, Jr.
Administrative Law Judge

Roy L. Pearson, Jr. began serving as an Administrative Law Judge for the District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings on ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.orangemane.com/BB/ /><st1:date Month=May 2, 2005</st1:date>. Before his appointment he served for two years as a contract hearing examiner for the DC Office of Police Complaints.

Judge Pearson was an attorney with the Neighborhood Legal Services Program (“NLSP”) from July 1978 through July 2002; the last 13 years as the Assistant Director for Legal Operations. In the latter capacity Judge Pearson was responsible for training and supervising a legal and support staff of 20-60 persons in neighborhood offices throughout the <st1:State><st1:place>District of Columbia</st1:place></st1:State>. NLSP provides civil legal assistance to indigent residents of the <st1:State><st1:place>District of Columbia</st1:place></st1:State>. During his tenure with NLSP Judge Pearson obtained jury verdicts in excess of $1 million dollars in both the DC Superior Court and the US District Court for the <st1:State><st1:place>District of Columbia</st1:place></st1:State>. His landmark Superior Court verdict of $15.9 million for nine clients was settled, after partial reversal and remand, on confidential terms.

Judge Pearson has been active in the <st1:place><st1:City>Washington</st1:City>, <st1:State>DC</st1:State></st1:place> community for decades and has served as counsel or board member for such organizations as the Columbia Heights Youth Club, the Fort Lincoln Civic Association, Inc., Black Seeds, Inc., the Washington Council of Lawyers, and the DC chapter of the National Council of Black Lawyers.

Judge Pearson earned his undergraduate degree from <st1:place><ST1:PLake Forest</st1:place>. He earned his JD from Northwestern University School of Law. After graduation, he was first a graduate teaching fellow, and then assistant director, of a clinical program at the Georgetown University School of Law. The clinical program provided legal research, policy analysis and drafting assistance to committees of the Council of the <st1:State><st1:place>District of Columbia</st1:place></st1:State>, to the Mayor, and to various <st1:State><st1:place>District of Columbia</st1:place></st1:State> agencies. Judge Pearson has been a member of the <st1:State><st1:place>District of Columbia</st1:place></st1:State> Bar since 1978, and of the US Supreme Court Bar since 1985.

[Needa Pass Rush]

The $65 million pants: Judge Roy Pearson update


(Earlier (http://www.overlawyered.com/2007/04/roy_l_pearson_jr_and_the_65_mi.html).) Commenter Becky points us to this Sherman Joyce letter in the Examiner (http://www.examiner.com/a-704031~Sherman_Joyce__Judge_Pearson__we_will_buy_y ou_a_new_suit.html), to which we have added hyperlinks: Dear Judge Butler and Commissioners Rigsby, Levine and Wilner:
On behalf of the American Tort Reform Association (http://www.atra.org/), 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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901149_2.html), 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 (http://www.shb.com/FileUploads/252939_final_1729.pdf),” 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 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=va&vol=0561044&invol=1).

Update, May 2, from ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3119381): [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.''


http://www.overlawyered.com/2007/05/the_65_million_pants_judge_roy.html

[watermock]

This is amusing:

On May 23, 2003, husband requested pendente lite spousal support, stating that he was

receiving unemployment benefits from the District of Columbia, his former employer, and

requested a lump sum of $5,000 from wife to retain counsel, and $5,000 for support and

maintenance. The trial court denied the motion.

On July 18, 2003, husband requested that sanctions be imposed pursuant to Code

8.01-271.1 against wife and her attorneys because her bill of complaint was not well grounded

in fact nor warranted by existing law. On December 27, 2003, husband filed his third motion to

compel discovery and for sanctions, alleging that he was prejudiced by wife's failure to timely

produce financial information. On January 7, 2004, at the final pretrial hearing on discovery, the

trial court denied husband's motion to compel wife to respond to his two hundred forty-eight

requests for admissions, ruling that the number of requests was excessive on its face. The trial

court also required wife to comply with its previous order compelling the production of her

resume. At the same hearing, the trial court reserved ruling on husband's motion to compel

discovery and for sanctions, pending either party's demonstration of prejudice in the absence of

wife's missing tax returns or credit card statements at trial.

The trial court awarded wife a final decree of divorce on the ground that the parties lived

separate and apart, without any cohabitation and without interruption for a period in excess of

one year from October 15, 1999, with an alternative date of October 21, 2001. The trial court

denied husband's request for spousal support, denied his request for Code 8.01-271.1 sanctions

and discovery sanctions, and ordered him to pay $12,000 in attorney's fees to wife.

The trial court entered the final decree on February 12, 2004 with husband's exceptions

attached, including his assertion that the trial court erred in failing to grant him a reservation of

spousal support.

[watermock]

This who we want on the Bench?

He's a federal judge and sued for spousal support. I guess a city that re-elected marion barry deserves him.

[JCMElway]

If I were the Chung's I would counter sue in a heartbeat.

[Dr. Broncenstein]

I hope he dies screaming

[Dukes]

What a scumbag.

I just heard on the news that they offered him 12k.

I hope he gets cancer

[scorpio]

The very pants...he was about to return.

http://shinymedia.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/kramerseinfeld.jpg

[watermock]

They come to this country for a fair shake and get shaken down by a federal judge that has been returned complete with tag"

This is why they escaped the Korean mafia. How were they to know a federal judge would be the next Godfather?

How many dime suits can you buy with 12k?

I'm livid. It's a ****ing pair of pants!

They were not first day service because there was ALTERATION.

Satisfaction means or your money back. Not 65 million. God I would countersue. I'm going to call Fox.

[watermock]

Fox is all over this so I think I'll let them do the dirty work.

[watermock]

http://shinymedia.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/kramerseinfeld.jpg

I remember when Kramer got the series 2000 AC and it fell on something. I don't think it was George's car...I think that was a suicide jumper out of a high rise.

[BKK]

They should dissbar him and throw his ass out of the country, this chunk of scum is lower than low.

[footstepsfrom#27]

This who we want on the Bench?

He's a federal judge and sued for spousal support. I guess a city that re-elected marion barry deserves him.
Nah...he's not a federal judge...he's local...handling administrative disputes with DC agencies like the health department and taxi-cab commission. He sounds like a certified nut job though.

[watermock]

After a nap and a couple drinks, I had a rare moment of clarity.

Hy-Vee, a relatively local chain of grocery stores has an incrdibly irritating gingle "Hy-Vee-Hy-Vee, where there's a helpfull smile in every isle..."

I think I have a sure fire lawsuit. They are NOT in hardly any aisles, and anyone familiar with stockers know they don't smile.

This is a clear case of false advertising.

[dbfan4life]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19414287?GT1=10056

Dry cleaner wins in $54 million suit for pants
Judge rules plaintiff must pay court costs

Updated: 59 minutes ago
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 Act 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.

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 suit trousers and later tried to give him a pair that he said was not his. He arrived at the amount by adding up years of alleged law violations and almost $2 million in common law claims.

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

Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, argued that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to mean an unconditional promise of satisfaction.

The Chungs said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule.

The two-day trial earlier this month drew a standing-room-only crowd and overshadowed the drunken driving trial of former Mayor Marion Barry.

[JCMElway]

Well how do you like that? There is justice in the world after all.

[Beantown Bronco]

Well how do you like that? There is justice in the world after all.

....because it was a bench trial and wasn't left up to a jury.

[Drunk Monkey]

The dry cleaner is still going to get screwed unless Pearson has to pay their legal bills also.

[Beantown Bronco]

The dry cleaner is still going to get screwed unless Pearson has to pay their legal bills also.

He does...it's in the article.

[Hotrod]

They should now counter sue for 60 bazillion dollars on the grounds of stupidity

[Jason in LA]

"The Chungs said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule."

I'd say this was the point of the law suit. The judge knew he wouldn't win case, but he got back at them big time. The results from all of this media attention and the amount that the Chungs had to pay in legal fees is far greater than if they just paid the guy for his pants. The judge knew what he was doing. Even though it cost him some money, I'd say he's still the winner in this one. The judge is pretty slick.

[Drunk Monkey]

He does...it's in the article.

he had to pay the court cost not the lawyer's fees. That decision is still pending.

[epicSocialism4tw]

"The Chungs said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule."

I'd say this was the point of the law suit. The judge knew he wouldn't win case, but he got back at them big time. The results from all of this media attention and the amount that the Chungs had to pay in legal fees is far greater than if they just paid the guy for his pants. The judge knew what he was doing. Even though it cost him some money, I'd say he's still the winner in this one. The judge is pretty slick.

A pretty big douchebag.

All this over some pants?

This crackpot needs to get a life. Vindictive, petty old snots like this bag of worthlessness are exactly what is wrong with our country.

This should have been settled on Judge Judy.

[dbfan4life]

If thier lawyer was worth a dime, he would counter sue for those legal fees. A law degree and a judgeship is not a free pass to be a bully.