June 12, 2007
Pearson Pants Trial Standing-Room Only
The civil trial for D.C. administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson's lawsuit against local dry cleaning business Custom Cleaners, in which he's now asking for $54 million — as opposed to the original $67 million suit he filed in April — is underway right now at the at D.C. Superior Court. WTOP's Neal Augenstein reports that the courtroom is currently standing-room only.
Pearson's original suit sought damages for the loss of his pants, as well as claiming the city's consumer protection laws were violated. He later modified his complaint to focus on the consumer protection aspect, focusing on the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service" promises made by signs hung up inside the shop. A lawyer for the Chung family, which owns Custom Cleaners in Northeast D.C., says no reasonable person would interpret the signs as an unconditional promise of satisfaction. Pearson is representing himself in the case. Just in from WTOP:
In the opening statement of his civil trial, Roy Pearson told the judge, in an overpacked courtroom, that his claim focuses on three misleading signs posted in the store that guaranteed customer satisfaction.
The attorney for the family that owns the dry cleaner says Pearson filed the suit because he was recently divorced and had significant financial hardship. The lawyer for the Chung family calls Pearson's claim, in his words, "patently unreasonable and honestly ridiculous."
UPDATE: The Post's Emil Steiner is also live-blogging the trial.
Throughout the opening statements, the judge had a subtle smile. I took it to mean that he was well aware of the ridiculousness of the proceedings, but he was willing to hear this case out, either because it was the the fair thing to do or because it would be fairly entertaining. Or perhaps both.
Photo by Ryan Orr
|
Standing room only? Well at least that will preserve the crease in your trousers and save you money on dry cleaning.
Help stop frivolous lawsuits. Let’s make an example of this freeloader by counter suing for all the damage and grief he has caused.
Every article re. Roy Pearson should mention that he remains on the D.C. payroll collecting an annual salary of over $100,000. It's sickening.
Does anyone know if his judgeship was renewed? He's not listed on the OAH website anymore, so I'm guessing not, but I don't know for sure.
oah.dc.gov/oah/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=593365&oahNav=%7C
Sorry, Al, but the majority of "frivolous" lawsuits are very low proportionately in the United States right now. The physical number of lawsuits has increased merely due to increased numbers of companies, manufacturers and businesses operating within the U.S. and also that unofficial payoffs are no longer the preferred method of companies keeping themselves out of the courts.
I might add that if an attorney files a frivolous lawsuit, they can get disbarred by the ethics committee. Apparently, this lawsuit had at least legal merit, if not devoid of any moral merit.
That being said, some of the Trial Lawyer organizations have already started legal defense funds for the Chungs since they deem the lawsuit to be a perfect example of what a morally frivolous lawsuit really is.
The idea of "Frivolous Lawsuits" is propoganda generated by The US Chamber of Commerce and their buddies in the Defense Research Institute. Think Enron, Tyco and about 10,000 of their buddies.
re: The DC Gov site search engine lists Pearson's bio page but it links to "The requested article is no longer published." I think that says it all.
More irony: the man was an attorney with federally-funded Neighborhood Legal Services, representing low-income D.C. residents, for 24 years. Did he sue laundromats on behalf of the poor? They don't do much dry cleaning.
It renews my faith in humanity that we are nearly unanimous in our belief that this guy Pearson is a wacko. I feel like I am in the twilight zone, its just amazing that this guy can get up every morning, look at himself in the mirror and somehow convince himself that what he is doing is right.
Ryan: More amazing (and frightening) is the fact that Pearson ruled on police brutality and other substantive matters. In light of the Case of the Precious Pants, I wonder if records of his rulings will now be reviewed with greater scrutiny.
This guy definitely deserves to be disbarred - unfortunately, the DC Ethics Committee seems to be overworked and understaffed (to put it in the most kindly light) - I doubt they will get to this guy anytime soon. I do hope he gets fired though - and that no one ever hires him again. I can't imagine trying to scam someone for this much! I can see him threatening suit to scare up a small settlement, but this is patently ridiculous.
- a lawyer who thinks very few lawsuits are frivolous
I'm glad you mentioned that - Are there warning bells going off somewhere, at the ABA, the DC Bar, in the chambers of some wise, old, judge that a man with this warped sense of reality should not be allowed to interpret the law or decide the fate of anything, not even a parking ticket? I'm waiting for Pearson to come out and admit this is just a sad, sick joke and that we've all been had, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Yes, ALJ Pearson is still employed by the D.C. government. He is employed at his same salary in "an administrative capacity." I don't know what that means, but the fact is that he is still employed by the District.
He is carried as an Administrative Law Judge.
Hmmm, breach of the warranty of guaranteed satisfaction, Ay? This reminds me of the time Homer Simpson wanted to sue the Sea Captain for throwing him out of the Captain's "all you can eat" buffet after 10 or so hours of eating. His estimable attorney, Lionel Hutz, told him that he had a stronger case than the cases arising out of the movie, "The Never Ending Story. . ."
I hate to break it to the defense attorney, but working in excess of 70 hours per week at a dry cleaners is not the American dream.
From the Wikipedia article:
"On June 12, 2007, the trial began. Pearson broke down in tears during an explanation about his frustration after losing his pants, and a short recess had to be declared."
Come on people, have some sympathy for the guy. I mean, he lost a pair of pants and kinda lost it; can you really blame him?
Just kidding. What a douche.