August 14, 2007
Pants Update: Chung Family Nicer Than Most People
Ah, the Pearson Pants Saga. It's a story that will forever be inextricably linked with our memories of the summer of '07, and is, much like the season, thankfully not over yet. Administrative law judge Roy Pearson, who still has his job but has been officially notified by the panel that will decide his fate that he may soon be fired, has until Wednesday to file his notice of appeal in the $54 million law suit he lost against Custom Cleaners over a pair of misplaced pants. Ever since the ruling came down, Chris Manning, the attorney for the Chung family, has expected Pearson to appeal, but in a move designed to make Pearson look like an even bigger buffoon than he already does if he goes forward, the Chungs have now withdrawn their petition to be awarded more than $80,000 in attorney fees. The Chungs say they want to be able to move on with their lives, and characterize the withdrawn petition as an "olive branch."
Of course, it helps that the Chungs have been able to raise nearly all of the money they owe Manning through a fundraising effort sponsored by tort reform advocates -- an alliance that a few observers have noted with some discomfort, though no real outrage, as few could argue that this lawsuit isn't frivolous nor that this family doesn't deserve all the help it can get. But surely it takes a special kind of saint not to counter sue Pearson for the two plus years of legal torture he's put the Chungs through, let alone being willing to drop a reasonable request to have their legal fees covered in a case no one, save Pearson, believes will be overturned.
So will Judge Pearson, on the brink of being the first administrative law judge to be fired in the District of Columbia, go forward with his appeal even now that he could walk away from the suit with virtually no financial liability to the Chungs? We'll find out tomorrow, but if we've learned anything about Roy Pearson this summer, it's that there's no telling how far he's willing to go.
UPDATE: We've just heard that Judge Roy Pearson filed an appeal on the pants lawsuit decision this afternoon. More later ... Yep, the Post has more. Looks like Pearson filed the necessary paperwork to keep the case alive, though it's actually just a notice of an intent to appeal at this point.
|
How do we, as DC residents, chime in on this man's future as a judge? Do we the "voters" (a term I use loosely in the District) have any say in who should be assigned to such prominent positions of power? I suspect the majority of DC residents want to see this man fired, or not "rehired". However, this is DC, and I do not profess to understand how or why anybody is able to retain civil service posts here.
Dollars to donuts this disgusting son of a bitch goes ahead with his appeal anyway despite their "olive branch". I hope his psychotic ass gets canned faster than you can say "frivolous litigation".
This is the city that kept Marion Barry around as a mayor.
Skin color and popularity is all that matters here, competence and morality aren't even considered as criteria.
How did Jim Graham come around?
Actually, the Chungs are quite reasonable. I would have made it contingent upon Mr Pearson withdrawing the case as they may still have to incur the costs of the appeal. It's far better to have the money to pay their lawyer than to rely upon Mr Pearson to cough it up after the appeal is denied.
I don't suppose Manning is volunteering any of his time? I'm sure he'll get a nice end-of-year bonus based on his billable hours from this case.
Re Guest[5] - Manning is one of the two partners in his four-attorney firm. I would imagine that the Chung's fees won't be going to upgrade a modern art collection in the lobby.
Nobody can accuse them of not making an effort to please the customer.
This embarassment of a pseudo-judge will be reappointed. In the end the city will decide that it is not worth the hassle of fighting him (and his inevitible lawsuit if he is not appointed) and just keep him on the city payroll.
This means that sometime next year, some unsuspecting person will get into some sort of minor dispute with a city agency that will come before this mockery of a judge. He will rule in some manner that is so inconsistent with the law and good judgement that it will laughable. Well laughable to everyone except the person involved who will have to then file suit in Federal Court and while they will certainly win, they will have incurred more headaches and more costs because this city doesn't have the guts to fire employees who don't do their jobs.
Welcome to city government, 2007.
So in the end, Pearson still doesn't have to pay anything for wasting the city's time and money. The Chungs' expenses, which any reasonable person would expect him to pay after such a solid defeat, were covered by others and he's unlikely to lose his job because there's no way in Hell he'd go away without a fight.
More than a little sad.
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.
"Skin color and popularity is all that matters here."
And apparently, grammar does not matter. Please feel free to keep your anonymous racist thoughts to yourself.
Can you imagine having to deal with Roy Pearson? I can understand why people love cats and dogs and fish. Dealing with Humanity really sucks.
I'm sorry, but can we call an end to the "Raw Fisher"-esque discussion of how much "Money this is costing the city"?
As I said a month ago, and Mike Licht (I think) essentially affirmed, the costs are in providing a substitute for Pearson (if necessary) when he's in court and not on the job. Given that most people don't want him in his job in the first place, I would imagine that's welcome, and not a great burden.
So - if you're so scandalfied about the costs that the Pearson lawsuit imposes on the city, do tell - what costs? Detail them. Then we can have a discussion about whether you think we can recover all that lost "time and money."
Otherwise, knock it off.
Is there a way to have this man committed so that he gets the (mental health) care he DESPARATELY needs?