|
The
Biggest Loser: Fired Judge in $54 Million Pants Sui By The Associated Press Roy Pearson claimed that the District used the fact that he was being vilified in the media to cut him out of his $100,000-a-year job as an administrative judge. But U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle wrote in an opinion last week that Pearson alleged "a host of facts that only serve to totally undercut his claims." The District's judicial commission did not cite the pants lawsuit as the reason for firing Pearson. But Huvelle suggested there was a "strong basis" to do so. Pearson
claimed in his $54 million suit that the owners of a dry-cleaning
business lost a pair of his favorite pants and that their
"Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign was deceptive. New York Lawyer The District's Court of Appeals has denied a request for a second appeals hearing for a former U.S. judge who sued a dry cleaner for $54 million over a lost pair of pants. Roy Pearson Jr.'s request for a second hearing before the entire nine-judge panel was rejected Monday. In December, three judges on the court unanimously rejected Pearson's initial appeal, saying he failed to show the store's promise of "satisfaction guaranteed" amounted to fraud. None of the remaining six judges objected to the previous ruling, in effect rejecting Pearson's request. Pearson's final option is to request a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Maybe
It's in His Jeans: Ex-Judge By The Associated Press WASHINGTON — An appeals court says there will be no new trial for a former Washington judge who tried to sue his dry cleaners for $54 million over a lost pair of pants. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals rejected the request Thursday from Roy L. Pearson to overturn a 2007 ruling that denied him damages. Pearson had argued that Custom Cleaners failed to live up to its promise of "Satisfaction Guaranteed." Three appellate judges agreed Pearson failed to show the store's advertising amounted to fraud and said his argument defied logic. Pearson still can ask the entire nine-judge appellate court to review the case or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Pearson did not immediately respond to an e-mail or telephone message seeking comment. Targets
of Judge's $54 Million Suit By The Associated Press WASHINGTON -- The owners of a dry cleaner who were sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants have closed and sold the business involved in the dispute. The Chungs' attorney, Chris Manning, is citing a loss of revenue for Custom Cleaners and the emotional toll of defending the lawsuit. The trouble began in 2005 after a pair of pants the plaintiff brought to the cleaners in Northeast Washington went missing. But a week later, the Chungs said the pants had been found. Roy Pearson, an administrative law judge, said those were not his pants and decided to sue. The lawsuit originally demanded $67 million but was reduced to $54 million. A judge rejected it in June. Manning said the Chungs have closed two of their three dry cleaning businesses since the lawsuit began. Pantsed
Judge Just Won't Quit, By Brendan Smith D.C. administrative law judge Roy Pearson Jr. won't give up after losing his $54 million lawsuit against a local dry cleaner over a missing pair of pants. Pearson filed an appeal Tuesday with the D.C. Court of Appeals, although the Chung family on Monday withdrew its motion seeking to compel Pearson to pay more than $82,000 in attorney fees. The Chungs have raised close to $100,000 through fundraisers and donations to help cover their legal fees and business losses after international media attention focusing on the case. Pearson is soldiering on after losing a two-day bench trial in June where he wept over his missing pants, which he'd had altered because he gained weight while he was unemployed before becoming an administrative law judge in 2005. Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, released a statement Tuesday: "The Chungs have done everything possible to put this nightmare behind them and return to their normal lives. They have won resoundingly at trial, raised donations from gracious private donors to pay for their litigation costs, let Mr. Pearson off the hook for personally paying their expenses and extended an olive branch to Mr. Pearson in hopes that he would end this matter and not appeal." Manning added that Pearson has chosen "desperate irrationality over common sense and decided to appeal, unnecessarily costing the parties more wasted time and the D.C. taxpayers more wasted money." The D.C. Court of Appeals isn't known for issuing timely decisions, so the wait for the Chungs to put this case behind them may stretch even longer. The average overall time for appeals increased from 562 days in 2005 to 575 days last year. So even if they hit the average, the Chungs will be waiting more than 18 months for a decision. Even then, Pearson could appeal to the Supreme Court if he loses again in the District. Loser of
Pants, $54 Million Lawsuit Files Appeal Associated Press WASHINGTON - A judge who lost a $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner over a missing pair of pants continues to press his suit. Roy Pearson, a District of Columbia administrative law judge, filed a notice of appeal Tuesday. Jin Nam Chung and Soo Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners, had hoped Pearson would back off the case after withdrawing their demand Monday that he pay their legal fees, their attorney said. Pearson, who did not immediately respond to an e-mail message seeking comment, has claimed that the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign that once hung in the Chungs’ shop was misleading and violated the city’s . Pearson’s two-page filing Tuesday presented no new arguments. He is expected to present his appeal once the D.C. Court of Appeals schedules briefings in the case. The trouble began in 2005 after a pair of Pearson’s pants that he brought to the cleaners went missing. But a week later, the Chungs said the pants had been found and refused to pay. Pearson said those were not his pants and decided to sue. The lawsuit originally demanded $67 million but was reduced to $54 million. A judge rejected it in June. First, Pants Man Loses Case. Next, His Job Associated Press August 2, 2007 By the middle of next week, Roy Pearson, the D.C. administrative law judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaners for $54 million and lost, will receive a letter that starts the process of putting him out of a job. City sources tell me that a marathon meeting of the commission that reviews the performance of administrative law judges (ALJs) ended last night with unanimous agreement to meet again next Monday to revise and finalize the wording of 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 panel had expected to complete work on the Pearson case last night, but discussions were complicated by a series of conflicting recommendations to the Commission on Selection and Tenure of ALJs by the chief ALJ, Tyrone Butler. In rapid succession this spring, Butler told the commission that "I do not oppose" Pearson's reappointment, that "I recommend reappointment," and that "I do not recommend" reappointment, according to sources who have seen the letters. The first switcheroo came as a result of the commission notifying Butler that he had not complied with the law that requires the chief judge to submit a yes or no recommendation to the commission that decides whether judges' performance merits an extension of their time on the bench. ALJs sit on cases involving disputes between city agencies and between citizens and those agencies. But after Butler came back with a pro-Pearson letter, Pearson sent a series of emails within the ALJ staff disparaging the chief judge, calling him "evil" and mean-spirited. That helped sway Butler to switch yet again, to a recommendat-ion against reappointment. Within the commission, the discussion about Pearson's future has focused on when and whether it is right to measure a judge's performance by his behavior outside the courtroom. The panel looked specifically at whether Pearson's extraordinary zeal in pursuing the case against the Chungs was so frivolous and embarrassing to the judicial system that it should be taken as evidence of his lack of judicial temperament. "A judge has a right to bring a lawsuit like any other citizen," said a source close to the commission, "but he doesn't have a First Amendment right to bring a frivolous lawsuit." The commission is expected to address the Chung case specifically in its letter to Pearson, pointing out that his no-holds-barred pursuit of mega-millions in a case stemming from a $10.50 alteration on a pair of suit pants raises serious questions about his judicial temperament and raises public questions about judicial ethics and standards. Following receipt of the letter, Pearson would then have the right to a hearing before the commission. Only after that hearing would the commission formally move to end Pearson's tenure as a judge. Pearson has not been sitting as a judge since the end of April, when his first term on the bench expired. Rather, he is now technically considered an "attorney advisor" to the Office of Administrative Hearings. Asked what Pearson does in that position, a high-ranking city official said, "Zippo." Separately, Pearson is preparing an appeal of Judge Judith Bartnoff's rejection of his case against the Chungs. Meanwhile, at a fundraiser for the Chungs last week, donors contributed more than $62,000 toward the legal fees the family incurred in their defense against the Pearson suit. Another $30,000-plus came in from Post readers and others who made contributions to a defense fund around the time of the trial in June. The total comes close to covering the Chung's bills for the first round of the case, but Pearson's push to appeal the ruling will mean further legal fees for the immigrant family. The commission's chairman, D.C. Superior Court Judge Robert Rigsby, declined to comment on the specifics of Pearson's case, saying only that "We met for several hours last night and discussed the vacancies and the reappointments of 11 ALJs. We worked well into the night and will do so again on Monday." He said the commission will finish its work on Pearson and the other ALJs up for new terms on Monday night. As satisfying as it would be to see Pearson lose his post over his obsessive pursuit of the Chungs, the downside for the owners of the dry cleaners is that with Pearson out of a job, their chances of ever recovering the court fees that Pearson has already been assessed and the attorney's fees that he may yet be ordered to pay would be severely diminished. As has happened at every stage of this sorry case, it is possible to win the legal battle while still being destroyed by the process.
By Lubna Takruri The Associated Press New York Lawyer July 9, 2007 An administrative law judge who lost a $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner over a missing pair of pants is not giving up his fight against the South Korean immigrant owners of the business. Roy L. Pearson notified their defense attorney of his plans to file a motion this week asking that District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff reverse or clarify her verdict. Bartnoff ruled last month that Pearson should be awarded nothing. Pearson is arguing that Bartnoff failed to address his legal claims when she ruled that the owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson's expectations of a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store. The shop owners' defense attorney, Chris Manning, said the lawsuit already has created enough distress for his clients, Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung. He is pleading with Pearson to drop the case and move on. "He does not appear to be giving up anytime soon," Manning said. "This is very unfortunate for the Chungs, the D.C. taxpayers and for Mr. Pearson himself." Pearson did not immediately return an e-mail request for comment. Meanwhile, Manning has filed a motion in D.C. Superior Court asking the court to require Pearson to pay for the Chungs' tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Tort Reform Association are sponsoring a July 24 fundraiser for the family. The case, which drew international attention, began in 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alterations to Custom Cleaners. A pair of pants from one suit was missing when he requested it two days later. A week later, the Chungs said the pants had been found, but Pearson denied that they were his and decided to sue. Pearson's suit, which originally asked for $67 million, was based on a strict interpretation of the city's consumer protection law -- which imposes fines of $1,500 per violation. It also included damages for inconvenience, mental anguish and attorney fees for representing himself. In Case of Missing Trousers, Aggrieved Party Loses Again By Ariel Sabar
Jin Chung, owner of Custom Dry
Cleaners in Washington, D.C., held up Judge Judith Bartnoff of Superior Court ruled that Judge Roy L. Pearson Jr. failed to prove that Custom Cleaners misled consumers with its "satisfaction guaranteed" sign. For that matter, Judge Pearson was not even able to convince her that they had lost his pants. "The court finds that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever," Judge Bartnoff wrote. She ordered Judge Pearson to pay the defendants’ court costs, such as transcript and filing fees, which their lawyer said Monday could run as high as $5,000. But Judge Bartnoff has yet to rule on their motion for lawyers’ fees, which could top $100,000 and will hinge on whether she deems the lawsuit frivolous. Judge Pearson, who represented himself, rejected a settlement offer of $12,000 in March. He had asked for damages as high as $67.3 million, using a formula charging each of the store’s owners with multiple breaches of Washington’s consumer protection law. He later lowered his claim to $54 million. He did not answer his phone or his door or respond to an e-mail message Monday. Though Judge Pearson is expected to appeal, the verdict brings at least momentary pause to a case that has inspired international ridicule and calls for legal reform. Since he sued in June 2005, the case has cycled through two judges, three settlement offers, dozens of exhibits and hundreds of pages of court filings. A two-day trial that saw both plaintiff and defendant shed tears ended earlier this month. "We are very, very pleased with the results today," Soo Chung, a Korean immigrant who owns Custom Cleaners with her husband and son, said Monday at a news conference outside their shop in Northeast Washington, speaking through a translator. "It’s been such a hard past two years." Mr. Pearson, then fresh on the job as an administrative law judge, had accused the Chungs of losing a pair of suit pants he had brought in for a $10.50 alteration job. He said that Washington’s consumer protection law, one of the nation’s most consumer friendly, entitled him to thousands of dollars for each day over nearly four years in which signs at the shop promised "same day service" and "satisfaction guaranteed." Mrs. Chung said she found his pants a few days after they were lost. But Judge Pearson claimed they were a cheaper gray pair she had tried to substitute for his pinstriped Hickey Freemans. In her verdict Monday, Judge Bartnoff said she found Mrs. Chung more credible than Judge Pearson. Further, she disputed Judge Pearson’s claim that a "satisfaction guaranteed" sign entitled unhappy customers to unlimited compensation. "A reasonable consumer would not interpret ‘satisfaction guaranteed’ to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer’s unreasonable demands," she wrote. In Case of Missing Trousers, Aggrieved Party Loses Again By Ariel Sabar WASHINGTON — A District of Columbia administrative law judge who filed a $54 million lawsuit against his neighborhood dry cleaner over a pair of missing pants will not get a penny, a court here ruled Monday. Judge Judith Bartnoff of Superior Court ruled that Judge Roy L. Pearson Jr. failed to prove that Custom Cleaners misled consumers with its "satisfaction guaranteed" sign. For that matter, Judge Pearson was not even able to convince her that they had lost his pants. "The court finds that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever," Judge Bartnoff wrote. She ordered Judge Pearson to pay the defendants’ court costs, such as transcript and filing fees, which their lawyer said Monday could run as high as $5,000. But Judge Bartnoff has yet to rule on their motion for lawyers’ fees, which could top $100,000 and will hinge on whether she deems the lawsuit frivolous. Judge Pearson, who represented himself, rejected a settlement offer of $12,000 in March. He had asked for damages as high as $67.3 million, using a formula charging each of the store’s owners with multiple breaches of Washington’s consumer protection law. He later lowered his claim to $54 million. He did not answer his phone or his door or respond to an e-mail message Monday. Though Judge Pearson is expected to appeal, the verdict brings at least momentary pause to a case that has inspired international ridicule and calls for legal reform. Since he sued in June 2005, the case has cycled through two judges, three settlement offers, dozens of exhibits and hundreds of pages of court filings. A two-day trial that saw both plaintiff and defendant shed tears ended earlier this month. "We are very, very pleased with the results today," Soo Chung, a Korean immigrant who owns Custom Cleaners with her husband and son, said Monday at a news conference outside their shop in Northeast Washington, speaking through a translator. "It’s been such a hard past two years." Mr. Pearson, then fresh on the job as an administrative law judge, had accused the Chungs of losing a pair of suit pants he had brought in for a $10.50 alteration job. He said that Washington’s consumer protection law, one of the nation’s most consumer friendly, entitled him to thousands of dollars for each day over nearly four years in which signs at the shop promised "same day service" and "satisfaction guaranteed." Mrs. Chung said she found his pants a few days after they were lost. But Judge Pearson claimed they were a cheaper gray pair she had tried to substitute for his pinstriped Hickey Freemans. In her verdict Monday, Judge Bartnoff said she found Mrs. Chung more credible than Judge Pearson. Further, she disputed Judge Pearson’s claim that a "satisfaction guaranteed" sign entitled unhappy customers to unlimited compensation. "A reasonable consumer would not interpret ‘satisfaction guaranteed’ to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer’s unreasonable demands," she wrote. Look at
the Bawls on That Guy: By Lubna Takuri WASHINGTON -- A judge had to leave the courtroom with tears running down his face Tuesday after recalling the lost pair of trousers that led to his $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner. Administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson had argued earlier in his opening statement that he is acting in the interest of all city residents against poor business practices. Defense attorneys called his claim "outlandish." He originally sued Custom Cleaners for about $65 million under the District of Columbia consumer protection act and almost $2 million in common law claims. He is no longer seeking damages related to the pants, instead focusing his claims on two signs in the shop that have since been removed. He alleges that Jin Chung, Soo Chung and Ki Chung, owners of the mom-and-pop business, committed fraud and misled consumers with signs that claimed "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service." Pearson, representing himself, said in opening that he wanted to examine the culture that allowed "a group of defendants to engage in bad business practices for five years." An attorney for the Chungs portrayed Pearson as a bitter man with financial troubles stemming from a recent divorce who is taking out his anger on a hardworking family. "This case is very simple. It's about one sign and the plaintiff's outlandish interpretation," attorney Chris Manning said. The Chungs were to present their case Wednesday. Manning asked D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff to award them reimbursement for their legal costs if they win. Pearson called several witnesses Tuesday who testified that they stopped going to Custom Cleaners after problems with misplaced clothes. Pearson also called himself as a witness, saying his problems began in May 2005 when he brought in several suits for alterations. A pair of pants from a blue and maroon suit was missing when he requested it two days later. He said Soo Chung tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants. As Pearson explained that those weren't the pants for the suit, he choked up and left the courtroom crying after asking Bartnoff for a break. Pearson originally asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit, which was more than $1,000. But because the Chungs insisted the pants had been found, they refused to pay. Manning has said the cleaners made three settlement offers to Pearson, but the judge was not satisfied and increased his demands -- including asking for money to rent a car so he could drive to another business. (How can they say judges are underpaid when they
spend over $1000. for a suit!) Judge Lost Pants and Composure By Hasani Gittens A D.C. judge suing the pants off a dry cleaners broke down and cried in court yesterday as he recalled a missing pair of trousers from his blue and maroon suit. Weepy administrative law Judge Roy Pearson is representing himself in his bizarre $54 million case against Custom Cleaners in Washington. In his opening, he argued that he is acting in the interests of all city residents against poor business practices. Pearson called several witnesses - including himself - who testified that they stopped going to Custom Cleaners after problems with misplaced clothes. Pearson said the pants from his suit turned up missing when he went to get them in May 2005. He said the owners tried to give him a pair of charcoal-gray pants instead. As Pearson described the alleged pants-switch, he choked up and left the courtroom crying after asking D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff for a break. Pearson alleges that Jin Chung, Soo Chung and Ki Chung, the owners of the mom-and-pop business, committed fraud and misled consumers with signs that claimed "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service." An attorney for the Chungs portrayed Pearson as a bitter man with financial troubles stemming from a recent divorce who is taking out his anger on a hardworking family. "This case is very simple. It's about one sign and the plaintiff's outlandish interpretation," attorney Chris Manning said.
The Judge With the $65 Million Pants WASHINGTON — D.C. administrative law judge Roy Pearson Jr. isn't making many new friends with his $65 million lawsuit against a local dry cleaner for losing a pair of his pants. The American Association for Justice, the renamed Association of Trial Lawyers of America, filed an ethics complaint against Pearson last week with the D.C. Bar. This isn't the first time Pearson has filed tons of documents and demanded payment in a court case. Just ask his ex-wife. In 2005, the Virginia Court of Appeals denied Pearson's appeal seeking at least $10,000 in spousal support in his divorce from Rhonda VanLowe, legal counsel for Rolls-Royce North America. Pearson wanted VanLowe to help support him because he was receiving unemployment benefits in 2003 before he was appointed as an administrative law judge in 2005. The trial judge also had ordered him to pay $12,000 in legal fees to VanLowe because Pearson excessively drove up legal costs by "creating unnecessary litigation" and threatening both VanLowe and her lawyer with disbarment, the appeals ruling stated. Judge Sues Cleaner for $65 Million Over Pants By Lubna Takruri
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. 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. |
WASHINGTON
— A District of Columbia administrative law judge who filed a $54
million lawsuit against his neighborhood dry cleaner over a pair of
missing pants will not get a penny, a court here ruled Monday.
WASHINGTON -- 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.