Print Columns   |   Web Chats   |   Blog Archives   |  

Pants Trial Day Two: We See The Pants


At noon precisely on Day Two of the $54 million pants case, we saw The Pants. Defense attorney Christopher Manning unveiled the suit trousers that Roy Pearson says are not his and that the owners of Custom Cleaners say are indeed the ones that Pearson submitted for a $10.50 alteration back in 2005.

The dramatic moment in Courtroom 415 at D.C. Superior Court revealed that yes, the pants look like they are part of a suit, and yes, the dry cleaners attached to these pants a tag with the same numbers that appeared on the receipt Pearson got for his suit. But Pearson still denies these are his pants, and still demands $54 million, though he has not yet wept today.

Pearson finally completed his lengthy testimony this morning and Manning proceeded to conduct a short but withering cross-examination in which Pearson, himself an administrative law judge for the D.C. government, revealed his unusual beliefs about the relationship between merchants and customers:

Pearson told the defense lawyer that if the tables were turned and he were in the place of the Chung family, the owners of the Northeast Washington cleaners who purportedly lost Pearson's pants, he would have immediately written a check for $1,150--the replacement value of the Hickey Freeman suit to which the pants belonged--to provide the satisfaction that the store's "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign promised.

It took more than 10 minutes and numerous attempts by both Manning and Judge Judith Bartnoff to get Pearson to answer a question about whether anyone has the right to walk into any cleaners and claim $1,150 simply by saying that their suit had been lost. Finally, Pearson said that the law requires that "The merchant would have an obligation to honor their demand."

"So your answer is Yes?" Manning asked.

"Yes," Pearson said.

The courtroom, in which it's hard to discern any support for Pearson except from his mother and her friend, broke up in laughter. Derisive laughter.

Manning pushed ahead: Does Pearson believe that people should interpret signs "in a reasonable way?"

"Depends on the circumstances," Pearson said.

Asked to answer yes or no, Pearson said, "No."

And just to drive home just how odd Pearson's view of the world might be, Manning asked whether a reasonable person would interpret a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign to mean that the merchant will do his best and if problems arise, will try to fix the situation, and if he can't, will compensate the customer, Pearson replied: "No."

This ended Pearson's case and defense lawyer Manning used the break in the action to ask Judge Bartnoff to toss out the whole case because it fails as a matter of law. After lengthy discussion, Bartnoff ruled that "It's a close call," but she would let the case proceed, but for one small part that she threw out. Pearson had argued that the cleaners' sign saying "Same Day Service" was misleading and fraudulent, but Bartnoff said he produced no evidence of that and indeed he had never asked for same day service on any of his garments.

"All Same Day Service says is that same day service is an available service," the judge ruled, freeing D.C. cleaners of any chance that they might suddenly be required to wash and repair every single garment in town in a single day.

Bartnoff has handled Pearson with a disarming and delightful mix of humor and stern direction. Sometimes incredulous, sometimes gently joshing, she has repeatedly lured Pearson out of his tendency to go off on long, incomprehensible recitations about the minutia of the District's consumer protection law. But Bartnoff has been careful to let Pearson state his odd notions of law with few limitations.

This is known as giving someone all the rope they need to hang themselves.

"Your position," Bartnoff said to Pearson this morning, "is that 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' means they have to satisfy whatever you demand, with no limitations, absolutely unconditionally?"

"That's correct," Pearson replied.

"I have grave doubts about that," said the judge.

More later.

By Marc Fisher |  June 13, 2007; 1:36 PM ET
Previous: Virginia Voters: Low Turnout, High Dudgeon | Next: Pants Update: Trial Over, Verdict Next Week

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Thank you for update for tis case.
I want to hire him as my attoney. So, if he does not satisfy me, I can get $ 54 million.

Posted by: Don | June 13, 2007 2:08 PM

Thank you for update for this case.
I want to hire him as my attoney. So, if he does not satisfy me, I can get $ 54 million.

Posted by: Don | June 13, 2007 2:09 PM

Thank you for update for this case.
I want to hire him as my attoney. So, if he does not satisfy me, I can get $ 54 million.

Posted by: Don | June 13, 2007 2:09 PM

it seems like this guy has some twisted sense of entitlement. anyone who walks into a dry cleaner and claims that the item isn't theirs is entitled to whatever amount they ask? is the guy nuts?

Posted by: entitlementsrus | June 13, 2007 2:10 PM

It would have given us some perspective to determine the basis for the defense motion, i.e., WHY the defense thought that Pearson's claim failed as a matter of law -- given that the blog yesterday stated that Pearson was very meticulous in adducing his case, thus implying that Pearson was establishing the necessary points of his claim. But then, that would constitute ``reporting`` and I guess no one reads WaPo or Marc for that anymore. . .much easier to spout opinion and project one`s own opinion into the story.

Posted by: RL | June 13, 2007 2:12 PM

I'd like to demand a same-day alteration to this blog entry:

It's "all the rope they need to HANG themself." Not "hand."

I won't demand money for this error... yet.

Posted by: TC | June 13, 2007 2:15 PM

Thank you for update for this case.
I want to hire him as my attorney. So, if he does not satisfy me, I can get $ 54 million.

Posted by: Loyola 2L | June 13, 2007 2:18 PM

Thanks for the update - keep them coming!

Posted by: Custom Cleaner Junkie | June 13, 2007 2:21 PM

Don, I'm with you buddie! This guy should go into private practice - his client list would be HUGE. Hope he carries "satisfaction" insurance!

Posted by: Mr. D | June 13, 2007 2:22 PM

As for letting Pearson go on and on, it is not a matter of giving him enough rope -- it is because he has zero legal costs as his own attorney and he is demonstrably litigious, at least as regards this matter. Any defense objection upheld by the judge would be instant grounds for an inevitable appeal. So the defense doesn't object, so as to save the Chungs the costs of defending an appeal that objection would create. The judge understands this, so I predict a minimal judgment for Pearson that will basically force him to end this matter by denying him grounds for appeal [determinations of fact at trial are basically not appealable].

Litigation has been described as a contest where two parties throw silver dollars into a river until one cries uncle. The REAL story of this case is that, [a] as his own counsel, Mr. Pearson has a mint in his basement and [b] this happens EVERY DAY -- justice is compromised by the financial burden of prospective litigation. A determined, well-financed defendant can frustrate a wronged plaintiff indefinitely until that plaintiff is forced to walk away with a pittance. And a well-financed, vexatious plaintiff can force an innocent defendant into bankruptcy.

Maybe the Post should have assigned a reporter with a legal background instead of a gossip.

Posted by: RL | June 13, 2007 2:22 PM

Here is why I believe the plantiff will get nothing. It seems to me he said he dropped the pants from lawsuit, so that would seem to me, rule out possibility he gets any compensation, be it $1000, $3000, or $12,000 for the pants. He is now basing just on the signs, but the judge assigned to his case says he has offered no real proof yet. If it continues to go on like that, the plantiff, a judge himself, might be looking at not only not getting anything, but paying court and attorney's fees for the other side.

Posted by: Thuyen | June 13, 2007 2:28 PM

RL,

I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish here, or how you might think you are coming across. What I would almost guarantee is that you are failing in one instance, and wrong in the other.

Posted by: Frank | June 13, 2007 2:29 PM

I think that the judge in this trial is also giving Pearson every opportunity to demonstrate why he shold not be reappointed as an administrative law judge.

Pearson is wacko!

Posted by: Mister Methane | June 13, 2007 2:30 PM

Notwithstanding the absurdity of this case and the comic relief it provides, it still raises a serious and important question, e.g., how did this fellow manage to land a job as an administrative law judge in the first place? As a Hearing Examiner and member of the National Association of Administrative Judiciary, [and I take my role very seriously], I'd like to see some investigation into that obvious question.

Posted by: LAWPOOL | June 13, 2007 2:34 PM

"This is known as giving someone all the rope they need to hang themselves." That might be the reason Judge Bartnoff deliberately chose to let this case go to trial. Perhaps she felt that letting Pearson embarrass himself in front of the world might discourage other frivolous lawsuits. While I don't claim to be a legal expert, I suspect that most such lawsuits are filed by "cranks," an old term used to describe people with chips on their shoulders.

Posted by: Tonio | June 13, 2007 2:34 PM

It's common knowledge that in this case it was the customer, Pearson, who was rude, unreasonable and irate with the cleaners, even to the point of screaming threats literally "in their face" on several occasions. The business owners attempted to be more than fair and reasonable by not only finding and returning the original pants, but also offering 3 times their value, then 4 times and finally 12 times ($12,000). But this crazy, wacko, freeloading crybaby decided to get greedy and ask for a ridiculous $54 million.

It's time to put an end to frivolous lawsuits by making an example of this lowlife judge.

Posted by: Al | June 13, 2007 2:37 PM

Where does Pearson's reappointment stand?

Posted by: Judge Pearson? | June 13, 2007 2:41 PM

This guy is an Asian racist. End of story.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 2:41 PM

Judge Bartnoff is giving Pearson his right to be heard, as is everyone's right. Unfortunately, he just sounds silly.

Indeed he probably has some sort of basis for his claim, but for goodness sakes, he has no common sense!

Most of us would have said, ok, we'll take the pants, or the money. I think he needs to perform public service (say with habit for humanity in N. Orleans) to realize that there are more important things in life than a stupid pair of pants, and feeling like a victim.

Posted by: well my 2 cents | June 13, 2007 2:43 PM

I think you put an end to frivolous lawsuits by either tossing them out where warranted or letting them fall on their face at trial, as Pearson is doing here. The strength of our civil justice system will again be revealed when Pearson loses.

Posted by: NW | June 13, 2007 2:44 PM

A cleaners lost my pants and I say the pants are priceless. Now I demand $100 million, not a penny more or less. Better yet, I'm paying for a PC at BestBuy but it doesn't meet it's specs after my testing, now I want $100 million.

Posted by: Pentrix2 | June 13, 2007 2:47 PM

It's just so sad to know that Mr Pearson has the power to decide other peoples lives as a judge. Hope this case ends with some harsh lessons to judge Pearson.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 2:47 PM

I hope the Chungs made on an official offer of judgement with that 12,000 settlement offer. If they followed the rules and if DC has an offer of judgment rule like the federal courts - if he recovers less than their offer the Chungs would be entitled to have their attorneys fees paid by this idiot. He should lose his appointment as an ALJ and he should be investigated by the DC bar for engaging in this abusive lawsuit. He brings shame on our profession.

Posted by: GWLawyer | June 13, 2007 2:48 PM

Yet another example of why DC is a lost cause. The fact this guy is on the DC payroll in the first place is amazing. The fact he was allowed to bring this to a court in DC and piss away the DC taxpayers money is a crime.

Posted by: Glad I live in Maryland | June 13, 2007 2:48 PM

Do you really think that Pearson feels, or has the ability to feel, embarrassed? Also, in order to persuade someone you would have to reach some level of reason with that person. People like Pearson clearly do not dwell in the realm of reason and therefore can not be persuaded from doing something.

Posted by: Chris | June 13, 2007 2:49 PM

There is a similar Supreme Court case, in which the plaintiff won: Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors.

The case involved a merchant seaman who had been wrongfully discharged by his employer, as well as a statute that specifically said how to calculate the damages (multiplied by number of days he went unpaid--and it was years). As a result, something like $400 in back pay came out to be something like $250 thousand in damages. The dissent said this was an "absurd result," which is usually legalese for "we should ignore the exact words of the statute," but the majority said essentially, "If that's what the statute says, that's what we'll do. The Congress meant to deter such wrongful discharges."

The pre-trial statement in this current case about pants (at http://www.vamedmal.com/library/65,000,000%20lawsuit%20pretrial%20statements.pdf) makes this look similar.

So, if those aren't his pants (which is a big question) and if this is a true violation of the DC consumer protection statute (another big question), then the judge is going to have to decide if this statute produces an "absurd result" that shouldn't be enforced.

It may look obvious here, but it's a big deal to dismiss the plain meaning of the statute. That would open the judge up to being called an "activist judge" who ignores the law and is anti-democractic. (Note: That is not my view, but lots of people think so.)

Posted by: Tim | June 13, 2007 2:53 PM

There is a similar Supreme Court case, in which the plaintiff won: Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors.

The case involved a merchant seaman who had been wrongfully discharged by his employer, as well as a statute that specifically said how to calculate the damages (multiplied by number of days he went unpaid--and it was years). As a result, something like $400 in back pay came out to be something like $250 thousand in damages. The dissent said this was an "absurd result," which is usually legalese for "we should ignore the exact words of the statute," but the majority said essentially, "If that's what the statute says, that's what we'll do. The Congress meant to deter such wrongful discharges."

The pre-trial statement in this current case about pants (at http://www.vamedmal.com/library/65,000,000%20lawsuit%20pretrial%20statements.pdf) makes this look similar.

So, if those aren't his pants (which is a big question) and if this is a true violation of the DC consumer protection statute (another big question), then the judge is going to have to decide if this statute produces an "absurd result" that shouldn't be enforced.

It may look obvious here, but it's a big deal to dismiss the plain meaning of the statute. That would open the judge up to being called an "activist judge" who ignores the law and is anti-democractic. (Note: That is not my view, but lots of people think so.)

Posted by: Tim | June 13, 2007 2:54 PM

There is a similar Supreme Court case, in which the plaintiff won: Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors.

The case involved a merchant seaman who had been wrongfully discharged by his employer, as well as a statute that specifically said how to calculate the damages (multiplied by number of days he went unpaid--and it was years). As a result, something like $400 in back pay came out to be something like $250 thousand in damages. The dissent said this was an "absurd result," which is usually legalese for "we should ignore the exact words of the statute," but the majority said essentially, "If that's what the statute says, that's what we'll do. The Congress meant to deter such wrongful discharges."

The pre-trial statement in this current case about pants (at http://www.vamedmal.com/library/65,000,000%20lawsuit%20pretrial%20statements.pdf) makes this look similar.

So, if those aren't his pants (which is a big question) and if this is a true violation of the DC consumer protection statute (another big question), then the judge is going to have to decide if this statute produces an "absurd result" that shouldn't be enforced.

It may look obvious here, but it's a big deal to dismiss the plain meaning of the statute. That would open the judge up to being called an "activist judge" who ignores the law and is anti-democractic. (Note: That is not my view, but lots of people think so.)

Posted by: Tim | June 13, 2007 2:55 PM

This recently divorced Mr. no pants would be well served by the services of Deborah Jeane Palfrey. IS a better courtroom romance possible? we can only speculate...

Posted by: mL | June 13, 2007 2:58 PM

I hope the poor owners of the cleaners get to countersue this idiot for $54 million. He's basically ruined their lives lately for what amounts to one of the most frivolous and ridiculous lawsuits ever. They should be able to clean this guy out of everything he has.

Posted by: dan | June 13, 2007 2:58 PM

This is the same as the lawsuits from the recording industry. I agree with RL in that the REAL story is about whomever has the bigger legal war-chest has the advantage. The music studios have huge resources in going after people with limited legal resources - therefore they can harass people in the same way as this petty man with the pants suit. I lose faith in our legal system every day.

Posted by: RP | June 13, 2007 2:59 PM

It is tragic that a "NUT" can bring a suit that can ruin a hard working family. I just hope that the Court can see this suit for what it is, and award the Plaintiff NOTHING, but make him pay for all Court costs and legal fees for the Defendants.

Posted by: Manuel Cebollero | June 13, 2007 3:02 PM

What scares me, and should all of us I think, is that this gentleman is a Judge in the DC legal system. Just how valid can his rulings in his courtroom be given his demonstrated nonsensical approach to legal interpretation? And yet they are nonetheless legal rulings that likely would be appealed to even higher courts at some cost to the taxpayer. Our tax dollars at work.

Posted by: Michael Wolozyn | June 13, 2007 3:03 PM

Why is it that I see so many duplicate (and triplicate) postings in the comments section of Washington Post stories? Is it a software bug or are people just repeating themselves to make a point?

Posted by: Josey | June 13, 2007 3:03 PM

There was a question asked about why the defense asked for a judgment as a matter of law. I am pretty sure that it is normal for the defense to ask for a judgment as a matter of law after the plaintiffs case (regardless of if it is warranted or not...kind of like tossing the dice to see if the judge agrees with you)

Does anyone know if this administrative "judge" is a lawyer, or not? (you don't have to be one to be a judge). If he is, I think he must have some real issues, becuase a frivolous case like this, is easliy enoguh to get him hauled before the Bar Association of whatever state he is licensed in (losing your law license over a pair of pants does not seem to be the acts of a rational person)

Posted by: Twoos | June 13, 2007 3:05 PM

I think the real Pearson is lost in Bizarro World. Bizarro Pearson is on the stand.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 3:05 PM

My apologies for the repeats: I can't tell if it's a software bug from the Post, an incompatibility with Apple, or just my mistake: I was trying to post the comment, and the screen froze. I thought it hadn't gone through. I'll be more careful in the future.

Posted by: Tim | June 13, 2007 3:06 PM

Tim, gimme a break. First of all, the way Pearson calculated the "damages" was absurd. He's charging them for the cost of renting a car to drive to another dry cleaners. He's tripling the damages by charging the mom, dad, and their SON. And he rejected their offer of 12 thousand dollars compensation.

Your overly literal interpretation of the law only shows that there is no room for COMMON SENSE in our judicial system. You should be Pearson's poker buddy.

Posted by: "activist judge"? C'mon! | June 13, 2007 3:07 PM

A possible concern with making an offer of judgment for 12,000 is that then they would open themselves to having to pay his attorney's fees if he accepted. The offer of judgment covers only the merits and not the fees. Given the number of hours he claims he has been working on this case the defense may not have wanted to take the risk.

Posted by: 1L | June 13, 2007 3:08 PM

Make him try on the pants- if the pants don't fit you must acquit.......

Posted by: Rick | June 13, 2007 3:11 PM

"Why is it that I see so many duplicate (and triplicate) postings in the comments section of Washington Post stories? Is it a software bug or are people just repeating themselves to make a point?"

Most likely, the poster is getting an error and reposting without checking to see if it went through OR they aren't patient enough to wait and re-click the submit button.

Posted by: To Josey | June 13, 2007 3:13 PM

I agree that there needs to be common sense here. I don't support his suit. I think he should lose.

But on page 12 of the pre-trial statement, he lays out a specific formula of how to calculate the damages under the statute--and that's where the millions come from. If that formula is the right one (I haven't read the statute), if those aren't his pants (and I obviously don't know), and if this is found to be a violation (and I certainly don't know), then the judge will have to find a way out from under the statute.

Use common sense? Great idea. But that gets you called an "activist judge" when you're interpreting statutes. Go back and read some of the comments of Republican Senate Judiciary members when they were refusing to confirm judges under the Clinton Administration. There's a lot of common sense that gets labeled "activist."

(And I don't play poker outside the family. It doesn't make common sense to me.)

Posted by: Tim | June 13, 2007 3:13 PM

This is the most blatant case of fraudulent advertising since my suit against the film, "The Never-Ending Story".

Posted by: Lionel Hutz | June 13, 2007 3:16 PM

"If it continues to go on like that, the plantiff, a judge himself, might be looking at not only not getting anything, but paying court and attorney's fees for the other side."

Here's hoping. That asshat Pearson deserves worse.

Posted by: Eric | June 13, 2007 3:16 PM

Um, is anybody curious as to how this guy got a judgeship after being unemployed for several YEARS? If there's any justice he'll soon be unemployed again, because he should be disbarred.

Posted by: CMA | June 13, 2007 3:17 PM

I feel so so sorry for the family that is basically being harrassed by this nut job who doesn't have a life!

I can't believe he actually cried on the stand yesterday - what a whacko!

Posted by: Emily | June 13, 2007 3:19 PM

so, do the pants belong to the suit or not? Is the defense calling any fabric experts to prove they are his pants?

What would Judge Judy do?

Posted by: Glenn | June 13, 2007 3:21 PM

Correction, "if the pants do fit, you must acquit."

Posted by: 3Lplus | June 13, 2007 3:22 PM

Tim, the judge won't have to find a way out from the statute. All she needs to do is point out that a reasonable person would expect to be compensated for the cost of the pants and suit. The supposed "damages" all stem from the fact that Pearson refused the settlement offer of 12 grand and decided to rent a car and do other silly things that supposedly cost him. Nobody forced Pearson to rent a car. Nobody forced Pearson to spend hundreds of hours on this case. All of his supposed "costs" are things of his OWN DOING. What's next? Should the Chung's reimburse Pearson for the pizza he bought last night because he was hungry from the trial? Maybe they should reimburse him for the telephone calls he made to him mother when he called her to discuss this case.

And then there's the opportunity cost: If Pearson hadn't spent those hundreds of hours on this case, he could have worked a second job and made additional money. So the Chung's should reimburse him for his potential second salary!

Posted by: activist judges | June 13, 2007 3:23 PM

I saw his nickname in somewhere...
"Sponge Roy NO Pants"

Posted by: Don | June 13, 2007 3:23 PM

They should get a fabric expert to take samples from the jacket and the pants and determine they are from the same bolt of fabric.

Posted by: I agree with Glenn | June 13, 2007 3:24 PM

It's sad to see how the well-educated take advantage of the hard-working individuals.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 3:27 PM

One more comment: Who the heck rents a CAR just to go to the dry cleaners?

And why is there so much confusion over whether the pants belong to him? If they are part of a suit, then there is a matching JACKET to go with the pants somewhere. Someone should just get a search warrant for Pearson's home and see if they can find the jacket that matches the pants. If they find it, then case closed. Send the nut to the looney bin.

Posted by: activistjudges | June 13, 2007 3:28 PM

Is Pearson a Bush appointee?

Posted by: Dan Fahey | June 13, 2007 3:28 PM

The judge in this case has been described as patient, but that should be the norm. Judges are supposed to listen to both sides before deciding upon a case. I think that in the end, the judge will offer the Pearson a choice: either take the pants or take a small amount in settlement. She most likely will ignore calculated fees as the the Chungs have been more than reasonable in trying to resolve this dispute. I don't know the laws of DC but in some courts, the judge has power to fine someone for frivolous lawsuits. If such a law is on the books, I would hope she enforces it.

Posted by: Austin | June 13, 2007 3:28 PM

Those pants wouldn't be worth $54M even if this idiot was in them! What a waste of the taxpayers money! how did this even make it to Court!

Posted by: Mary Q | June 13, 2007 3:29 PM

If $1200 lost pants are worth $54 million law suit, what would a $40,000 lost car worth ? Let's see, $54 mil divide by 1200 = 4500. This means my lost car is worth $1.8 billion law suit. This is U.S. legal system at its best.

Posted by: An Asian bystander | June 13, 2007 3:31 PM

"Yet another example of why DC is a lost cause. The fact this guy is on the DC payroll in the first place is amazing. The fact he was allowed to bring this to a court in DC and piss away the DC taxpayers money is a crime.
Posted by: Glad I live in Maryland"

Yeah, I'm glad you live in Maryland too - you're delusional. Nobody in MoCo has ever been incompetent or unreasonable?

Posted by: E in DC | June 13, 2007 3:32 PM

The pants are part of a law suit?
Is he pressing his claims?
He seems hot under the collar, fit to be tied. I would cut the drycleaner some slacks. The case is really socking it to the drycleaner.

Posted by: Rich Rosenthal | June 13, 2007 3:33 PM

Ok, here's my theory on why the pants supposedly don't match the suit Pearson says he brought in...

His son testified yesterday that he used to 'shop' in his dad's closet for work clothes so here goes.

Son borrower's 2 suits, son switches pants & jackets. Dad takes suit to cleaners still on the hanger w/out checking to see PANTS DON"T MATCH. Cleaners briefly misplace pants, when found they don't match the jacket & therefore Pearson claims they are not his.

That's my theory, the pants they tried to give him back really are his pants, just from a different suit.

Posted by: js | June 13, 2007 3:33 PM

The pants are part of a law suit?
Is he pressing his claims?
He seems hot under the collar, fit to be tied. I would cut the drycleaner some slacks. The case is really socking it to the drycleaner.

Posted by: Rich Rosenthal | June 13, 2007 3:33 PM

this trial puts a whole new meaning to: being taken to the cleaners.

Posted by: Steveo | June 13, 2007 3:33 PM

1L suggested that the defendants may not have made an offer of judgment for the 12,000 because of the risk of having to pay his attorney's fees if he accepted.

Are you sure about that? I thought the rule applies only if the eventual judgment is less favorable than the offer. If you make an offer of judgment and it's accepted, all parties pay their own fees.

But then, Civ. Pro. is a long time ago. Can anyone shed any light?

Posted by: BK | June 13, 2007 3:33 PM

Judge Judy would call him a pompous ass

Posted by: crazytown | June 13, 2007 3:35 PM

Judge Judy would call him a pompous ass

Posted by: crazytown | June 13, 2007 3:35 PM

Judge Judy would call him a pompous ass

Posted by: crazytown | June 13, 2007 3:35 PM

Yank his license to practice law for filing a frivolous suit. Have him disbarred. This never should have gone past small claims court. It's a perfect example of what is wrong with this country. Meanwhile former workers at Rocky Flats suffering from cancer due to radiation exposure are dying while waiting for the benefit approvals. Where are the priorities in this country?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 3:36 PM

And I thought Patent Law was strangling small businesses! I want to sue for so many things now that I've heard this. I remember that slow driver in front of me who made me late for a job interview in 1979. With back pay, interest and the irrepairable harm I suffered from the embarrassment of being late, I think 6 billion should be sufficient...your honorable. (Smile)

And what about that kid who broke my pencil in a pencil fight in 6th grade. I was just starting my lifelong novel that day...sniffle, sniffle. With no pencil to write, I lost all my momentum. I coulda made zillions I tell ya! (Smile)

Seriously, if I could find some way to sue an oil company for the sunburn I got via the hole in the ozone layer, man we could all get paid. Hmmm?

Posted by: WIll I. Sue | June 13, 2007 3:36 PM

To "Activist Judges":

Let me be really clear: He should lose. This is a ridiculous suit.

But on page 23 of the pre-trial statement (I was wrong about the page number earlier), he lists a "statutory minimum" of $1,500 per day, and cites a provision of DC Code. If the pants aren't his, if this is actually a violation of the Code, then apparently the formula has to kick in. Common sense says it's ridiculous, but if the statute is truly a minimum, then a strict textual interpretation will require the millions be paid.

The Griffin case is almost exactly the same. The dissent was right in calling it an "absurd result," and practically begging for common sense. The dissent even said that the plaintiff should have settled for less and been reasonable. But the statute had a formula and the Supreme Court said it had no choice but to implement it.

That's the danger of strict adherence to text. Sometimes it produces absurd results. But one person's "absurd result" is another person's "judicial activism."

I hope that this case doesn't get there. Maybe these are his pants. Maybe the DC Code doesn't count an unsatisfied customer as being the victim of fraud. Maybe this guy will come to his senses and withdraw.

But if everything breaks his way, then I would like to hear what Justice Scalia (aka "text, text, and only text) would say.

The end. I've beaten this dead horse.

Posted by: Tim | June 13, 2007 3:38 PM

Interesting note: Roy Pearson's name is NOT on the current list of the Administrative Law Judges at the OAH website.

[http://oah.dc.gov/oah/cwp/view,a,3,q,593365,oahNav_GID,1856,oahNav,|34118|,,.asp] link to the above.

Is he not now a judge?

This might be a reason that he is pushing so hard, if he does not have a job. Or it could be he's just an idiot.

Posted by: Dave | June 13, 2007 3:39 PM

Is the mental capacity of the judge going to be examined once this farce is over? He may be suffering from dementia.

Posted by: Jackie | June 13, 2007 3:40 PM

i can't believe he actually rejected 12,000 - he could've bought 10 more HF suits. he must be very confident in his claim.

Posted by: me | June 13, 2007 3:40 PM

Rich,
Enough with the off the cuff comments. His case is falling apart at the seams! But I think it might be tailor made for television.

Posted by: Maryland | June 13, 2007 3:41 PM

Here's a question. The Chungs don't have 54 million dollars, so what exactly will he accomplish? Bankrupting the Chungs and collecting on whatever money they have left over after paying legal fees??????

Posted by: dc | June 13, 2007 3:42 PM

Pearson is an administrative law judge?

What are the basic requirements to fill such a position? Functioning organs?

...'Cos if it's a matter of using logic and reason, then I am going to have my 6 month old daughter apply.

Posted by: This is lame | June 13, 2007 3:42 PM

All I have to say is that the Founding Fathers are currently rolling in their graves! This is making a mockery of our justice system.

Posted by: Founding Father | June 13, 2007 3:42 PM

This judge (the plaintiff) must have a mental illness. It is sad he has chosen to torture an innocent family because of his personal problems. Take him off the bench and house him in a mental hospital before he resorts to violence as his next step.

Posted by: Amy | June 13, 2007 3:46 PM

Only in DC could this unemployable moron land a job as an ALJ, or any government job at that. However, I would have expected this to happen under Barry, who, ironically was also in court yesterday. Oh yeah, what every happened to the crack head who worked for Barry (another irony) who recently drive over 40 people at a fair?

Posted by: Chris | June 13, 2007 3:47 PM

DC asked: Here's a question. The Chungs don't have 54 million dollars, so what exactly will he accomplish? Bankrupting the Chungs and collecting on whatever money they have left over after paying legal fees??????

Answer: If there's any poetic justice, he'll take over the dry cleaners and the Chungs can drop off their laundry every day until a button goes missing and they can sue for $100 million.

Posted by: Fiona | June 13, 2007 3:47 PM

What a farce. All the serious problems facing this country and we're paying this much attention to a guy who has come unhinged because a dry cleaning firm lost an ordinary pair of pants?? At a minimum, he deserves to be completely ignored.

Posted by: Bob F. | June 13, 2007 3:48 PM

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Posted by: hahahaha | June 13, 2007 3:48 PM

The Chung's lawyer appears to have this case all sewn up.

Say, who is crazier, Pearson or Keith Washington, the PG county cop who shot the movers and pulled his gun on a home appraiser?

Posted by: tooskinneejs | June 13, 2007 3:50 PM

Pearson is using the legal system to carry out a hate crime.

The judge overseeing this case is just letting Pearson spill out all his crazy for the record so that his insanity will be a matter of public record.

His career is over. His reputation is in the gutter.

Only someone with some form of insanity would have done this to himself.

I hope the family can stay in the USA and not give up hope. If I lived in their city I would give them my business and apologize to them on behalf of that pig.

Posted by: Nancy | June 13, 2007 3:50 PM

Lionel Hutz...hilarious, cheers mate.

Posted by: Kate | June 13, 2007 3:52 PM

Wash Post, why dont you put in the story where exactly this clown is a judge and what capacity. Anyone who has been through this guys court could instantly appeal their decision based on this guy's bias's, mental thought process, and craziness.

Posted by: Hung Jurror | June 13, 2007 3:53 PM

isn't affirmative action wonderful? first john q. taxpayer puts this fool through school, then hands him a job, and now spends tens of thousands of dollars for the courts to hear this case -- in a crime-ridden city that clearly could better use its judicial resources. frightening. absolutely frightening.

Posted by: roc | June 13, 2007 3:55 PM

On top of all else he enlisted his own son to lie on the stand. This is a tragic situation. I fail to see the humor in it anymore.

Posted by: Todd | June 13, 2007 3:56 PM

Tim, Pearson can lay out whatever cost he wants. What people are saying is that his cost is bogus. Just because he lays out the cost does not mean they are valid, even if the judge were to find for him does not make his cost valid. That is the point. You seem hung up on the fact that he laid out his cost as if that means anything. Any judge, even if ruling for the plaintiff can determine if the cost is reasonable. One cost that would definetly get thrown out is the car rental to go to a cleaners. He could have caught the bus, he could even have gone back to those cleaners. I'm not a lawyer but i think you were so intent on showing a similiar case, you failed to see where the disagreement with your post were.

Posted by: the anti-tim | June 13, 2007 3:57 PM


Is Pearson's job in jeopardy? It SHOULD be - he's a nut and shouldn't be in a position to decide ANYTHING in a courtroom.

Posted by: Maureen | June 13, 2007 3:57 PM

This judge smells dirty to me.

Posted by: T Soprano | June 13, 2007 3:58 PM

My verdict would be:

Bailiff takes the pants and hands them to the plaintiff.

Matter of pants now resolved.

Now plaintiff pays 100% of legal fees for defendants.

Case closed.

Posted by: Carol | June 13, 2007 3:58 PM

Rick said: "Make him try on the pants- if the pants don't fit you must acquit......."
I say: Well done, Rick.

Posted by: still | June 13, 2007 3:58 PM

"all the rope they need to hand themselves"

Hand themselves? Sounds dirty!!!

Posted by: jeffResistor | June 13, 2007 3:58 PM

can someone fire the plaintiff from his judges gig? They should - he clearly hasn't a clue how the reasonable world works...

Posted by: Fire him | June 13, 2007 3:58 PM

This is not a frivolous lawsuit. If it was, it would have been tossed out. Only lawsuits with merit proceed to trial

Posted by: Big Ron | June 13, 2007 3:59 PM

This is not a frivolous lawsuit. If it was, it would have been tossed out. Only lawsuits with merit proceed to trial

Posted by: Big Ron | June 13, 2007 3:59 PM

Ok, so what it comes down to really is if the Chung's Satisfaction Guaranteed sign constituted fraud under the current statute and if it did then he can use the calculation in the statute to come up with this ridiculous $54 million figure?

If I remember correctly from yesterday's testimony, during previous run-ins w/the plaintiff the Chungs had tried to exercise their right to refuse service to him. Mr. Pearson begged them to allow him to keep coming to their business because it was the only one within walking distance to his home (Mr. Pearson does not drive). It would appear that even Mr. Pearson did not think their sign constituted fraud.

Posted by: js | June 13, 2007 3:59 PM

Next week, Mr. Pearson will be suing the grocery store for selling Red Delicious apples that were not red enough or delicious enough.

Posted by: Katie | June 13, 2007 4:00 PM

Bob F.,

What gets me are the people who cry "I can't believe people are spending time on this matter when there so many other important things to worry about...blah blah blah," all the while spending time reading those very same stories, reading through peoples posts, and spending time writing posts. If you don't care then why are you here?!?!?!

Posted by: Scott | June 13, 2007 4:01 PM

Of course this guy is nuts,he's part of our messed up American Judicial System serving as a Law Judge for the DC Government.

It makes complete sense....

American Judicial System- screwed up and full of nuts!

DC Government- screwed up and allows Marion Barry to still have a vote!

Posted by: Mitch | June 13, 2007 4:01 PM

The Judge, Prosecutor, Plaintiffs and the defendants should be lock up for wasting tax payer's money. This is what America has become.

Posted by: Rivers | June 13, 2007 4:02 PM

Tim, the formula may be right but the $1500 per day fine only pertains if the judge rules that posting a sign saying "Satisfaction guaranteed" is a violation of the law, and that isn't going to happen. As was so ably pointed out by the Chung's attorney, such signs are meant to be read and understood according to a "reasonable person" standard, and for the judge to rule the way Pearson wants her to on the meaning of that sign would be to overturn a hundred years or more of common law and precedent.

Posted by: Tom | June 13, 2007 4:03 PM

Big Ron:

He can technically get this before a judge. That does not mean he actually has a winning case.

Posted by: anne | June 13, 2007 4:04 PM

This guy is insane and as a result should be disbarred/fired. If he's representing all of the residents from the district then I expect a cut of the $54 million!

Posted by: Jasmin | June 13, 2007 4:04 PM

Katie, I once bit into a red "delicious" apple that was all mealy and tasteless, which made me feel cheated. My case got thrown out of court because it wasn't the grocer that named the product. Turns out it was a farmer from Pennsylvania who died over 100 years ago who came up with the name. Maybe they were tastier back then.

Posted by: jeffResistor | June 13, 2007 4:04 PM

I am going to sue all of you posters for not satisfying my need for entertainment in middle of the day

Posted by: 2 Funny | June 13, 2007 4:04 PM

Pearson, What a loser!

Posted by: HORN | June 13, 2007 4:05 PM

The judge is going to deliver a legal smackdown of epic proportions. I'd love to be there.

Posted by: Heath | June 13, 2007 4:06 PM

Rick stole that from me!

I won't claim it's that original, but mine got published first:

"S. Rockville, Md.: The "judge" shouldn't wear the suit jacket, what if the cleaner really has the pants, as he claims?

If the pants fit, you must acquit!

Marc Fisher: I may have to stand and shout that out at the appropriate moment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/06/06/DI2007060601764.html

Posted by: S. Rockville, MD | June 13, 2007 4:06 PM

To "Anti-Tim" (Anti-Tim??? Really? Did I strike that much of a nerve? Sorry. I'm actually a nice guy who's just avoiding his real work.):

Lots of parts of his claim can be thrown out. The car to the dry cleaners is particularly ridiculous.

But, if he wins his claim, you can't throw out the the part that the statute says is "a minimum." Unless the judge says that the statutory minimum produces an "absurd result," which of course it does.

All I'm saying (apparently not very well) is that if the statute requires something ridiculous, then the judge should have some discretion to say, "That's ridiculous," and disregard it. Judges should be able to do justice. But that's not the general trend in politics and judges these days.

(And the similar case is probably forty years old. I should have said that. And it's federal, not DC, so it's not really the same. The argument just seemed remarkably similar.)

Posted by: Tim | June 13, 2007 4:06 PM

I thinks Pearson should be disbarred.

If you think so as well, then contact the D.C. Bar whose web address is:

http://www.dcbar.org/

Monica D. Potter
Email: PotterM@dcobc.org
Case Manager
Office of Bar Counsel
515 5th Street, NW
Building A, Room 117
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 638-1501
(202) 638-0862 -- Fax

Couple of other DC Bar email addresses:

ethics@dcbar.org
kmazzaferri@dcbar.org

Posted by: Don | June 13, 2007 4:07 PM

by that i mean Bartnoff.

Posted by: Heath | June 13, 2007 4:07 PM

What is happening in court now? Emil Steiner was a better reporter!Come on, give us the story.

Posted by: dasmaks | June 13, 2007 4:08 PM

good thing he never expected "good food" in an Army Mess Hall he could file a alwsuit 3 times a day for years he would never have been satisfied rofl

Posted by: mikey30919 | June 13, 2007 4:08 PM

Thanks Don, I'm on it right now.

Posted by: Amy | June 13, 2007 4:08 PM

Marc, please do some research into how exactly this man went from being unemployed for several years to landing a job as a judge in DC. Oh, and buying a suit that cost $1,150 to wear under the robe on his first day "back at the office."

Posted by: jeffResistor | June 13, 2007 4:09 PM

Why aren't there any updates?
Its 4:00pm on the east coast.
What's going on in the trial?

Posted by: Yikes! | June 13, 2007 4:10 PM

Tom,

I agree.

Posted by: Tim | June 13, 2007 4:11 PM

Yikes, i think the reporters are afraid to leave the courtroom until the judge renders a decision.

Posted by: Janey | June 13, 2007 4:13 PM

Marc,
update??

Posted by: harry | June 13, 2007 4:14 PM

Someone should look into the rulings this guy presided over as a judge and the outcomes to see if there's any agenda or pattern of abuse on his part. Some might say he's suing for the "spirit" of consumer advocacy. I say he's suing because he's definately got self-esteem issues, issues with Asians and litigious lunacy. I wonder what Ralph Nader say on this issue, hmmmmm?

Posted by: Tony | June 13, 2007 4:14 PM

Don,

I'm not sure he's a barred attorney. However, I believe an ethic charge has already been filed against him. I hope he gets some good court room experience out of this. He'll need it.

Tim,

I think you're point is a little off. Judges do have discretion when it comes to civil judgements. This isn't a constutional law case. If you're trying to say you don't like strict constitutionalists that's fine but this doesn't really relate to that. I think that's where people are getting hung up on your posts.

Posted by: Chris | June 13, 2007 4:15 PM

Re pants fitting: He won't try on the pants because he knows they are his. If they truly were not his pants he would put them on. They would be the wrong length/fit if they belonged to someone else. That would be my first movie if they really were not my clothes. This guy is a loser in every sense of the word.

Posted by: sam | June 13, 2007 4:15 PM

I think Pearson is just using this arena to bring attention to a gripe he has with false advertisement in general, pulling the ole bait and switch. Don't we all see this every day? And shouldn't merchants be held accountalbe?
If he was suing for 12000 or even 100,000 I don't believe this would be getting this attention/reaction, which is what he wants. And if he attempted to make his point by suing a large Telesomething firm it would have never made it to court. So this is how he is going about it. I don't agree with him, but it makes sense.

Posted by: Perhaps | June 13, 2007 4:17 PM

Tim, i did not have a catchier name :-). People rarely rile me up (it's one of the qualities i have that exasperates my girlfriend.. sometimes, i seem too calm).. i wanted to make sure you'd know i was replying to you. I think another point someone was making was that most of his cost was due to him, not the cleaners so even if the judge followed the law, he still should not get much. He could have settled... after he refused to settle, all cost subsequent are his.. he cannot claim the cost is because the dry cleaners lost his pants when they were clearly willing to replace his pants many time over. It would be like going to macdonalds after they made a bad sandwich, complaining, having macdonalds offer you a free sandwich plus a coupon for free food for a month, refusing it, then scheduling a trip in space and then suing macdonalds for the trip in space cause it happened after you refused the free sandwich and coupon offer.. the law does not work that way and this has nothing to do with common sense.. the law just does not work that way.

Posted by: anti-tim | June 13, 2007 4:17 PM

He does have an ethics charge against him already. But don't let that stop all of you from voicing your opinion to all parties involved. If they can get Jericho back on the air we can get this guy off the bench.

Posted by: Donald | June 13, 2007 4:18 PM

Not enough bad things can happen to this admin law judge.

Posted by: JD | June 13, 2007 4:20 PM

When Pearson is disbarred,the biggest joke will be all the cases he heard being thrown outdue to his insanity.

Posted by: EGM | June 13, 2007 4:21 PM

Chris:

I know it's not Constitutional. If it were, there would be a lot more room for a judge's discretion in the world of Scalia. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito--they all look to something more than just plain text in the Constitution.

But not in the area of statutory interpretation, which is where the formula part of this case comes from. In that world, Scalia wants only to know what the statute says, not what it meant to the Congress or what the Congress intended. (Roberts seems a little more flexible on that point.) And the minimum penalty (if it ever kicks in--see Tom's comment above about why it probably won't), is in the DC statute, the statute that the judge may have to interpret.


Posted by: Tim | June 13, 2007 4:21 PM

I can't see where the code says anything like what Pearson claims, although IANAL. Anyone else want to have a crack at it?

http://occ.dc.gov/occ/frames.asp?doc=/occ/lib/occ/CPPA.pdf

Posted by: The Cosmic Avenger | June 13, 2007 4:21 PM

Perhaps.

The law is NOT on Pearson's side. They offered him 12 thousand worth of satisfaction. Not good enough.

Reasonable interpretation is just as big a part of the law as customer satisfaction.

This man is a vindictive monster and anyone who thinks he is just an unhappy customer sticking it to The Man is just as pathetic as him.

Posted by: Joe | June 13, 2007 4:22 PM

The fact that the judge on this case has been seen laughing should tell us what is coming.

Posted by: Ben | June 13, 2007 4:23 PM

I hope the Chungs sue him for emotional pain and suffering. I think they'd have a great chance of winning!

Posted by: Barbara | June 13, 2007 4:24 PM

I'm suing Disneyland. They said it was the HAPPIEST PLACE ON EARTH and it most certainly was NOT!!!

That's at least 900 trillion dollars right there. Cha Ching!

Posted by: holly | June 13, 2007 4:25 PM

Chris or anybody who is curious about Mr. Ponge Roy No Pants,

Mr. Sponge Roy No Pants is a barred attoney.
I think he should be disbarred.

Posted by: Don | June 13, 2007 4:25 PM

Does anyone know who the doctor is who testified? I can't find any listings for the doctor in the area.

Posted by: Ned | June 13, 2007 4:26 PM

I didn't think judges wore anything under their robes. Eeeeeek!

Posted by: readytogohome | June 13, 2007 4:28 PM

I can see here that no one has had their favorit thing distroyed by
the very people you trust will enhance or refresh your item. May not be worth millions but I understand the mental pounding that tolls.

Posted by: William P Marseglia | June 13, 2007 4:28 PM

I'm going to see that doctor who testified and then sue the living bejeezus out of her.

Posted by: Kelly | June 13, 2007 4:28 PM

RL, the blog does explain why as a matter of law the defense moved for dismissal (first, they do that automatically no matter how strong the plaintiff's case is to preserve the issue for appeal). After Mr. Pearlman gave an absurd definition of how h'd have to interpret "satisfaction guaranteed" to get that they, in his case, did not satisfy him by searching for the pants and recovering them and later offering financial settlements, his interpretation and great understanding of the law was irrelevant. The "fraud" was the violation of their own signs, and no reasonable person would interpret the signs that way. Ergo, no fraud, no matter how meticulously he explained what the violation would have been had there been fraud.

Posted by: eek | June 13, 2007 4:28 PM

It's all comes down to this he is a moma boy thumbs down for his act and two thumbs down for his screen play

Posted by: Tim Scott | June 13, 2007 4:29 PM

William P Marseglia

They have his stupid pants. He is doind this because he is a racist pig.

Posted by: jennifer | June 13, 2007 4:29 PM

Tim,

Now I'm not the biggest Scalia supporter but I do believe he looks at the Congressional record quite a bit. I'm pretty sure he does if the statute is unclear. That might be as far as he goes.

Posted by: Chris | June 13, 2007 4:29 PM

To Cosmic Avenger:

I am not a lawyer either, but it looks like the code says "treble damages or $1,500" whichever is less. Section 3905 k 1 A

Posted by: Fiona | June 13, 2007 4:29 PM

So, let me get this right. If my right finger needs amputation due to an accident, and my surgeon removes the wrong finger, can I claim a malpractice lawsuit of $54 million?
Probably not, unless the hospital loses my pants when I am discharged from the hospital!

Get a life, you lowlife judge!

Posted by: Paul | June 13, 2007 4:30 PM

1)Sorry about all those wedgies, RL. Not!
2)Tim: Scalia would turn to his three-fifths of a colleague Thomas, shout "Arrrrgh" and embark on a privateering career with his letters of marque.
3)The double and triple postings are from the distinguished members of the bar actually having to type something themselves... you see the results.
4)Don't pants, once they touch someone else's butt, lose their value? They may have cost him $1000 at some point, but that was 20 pounds, and two asses (the son) ago.

Posted by: Clarence Darrow | June 13, 2007 4:30 PM

He hasn't worn those pants in two years. Good chance he's fattened up quite a bit...therefore, those pants may not fit.

Posted by: Chris | June 13, 2007 4:32 PM

I went to McDonald's and I found that I wasn't "lovin' it" Do I get to sue someone?

Posted by: Shelly | June 13, 2007 4:32 PM

Chris wrote at 4:15:

"Don,

I'm not sure he's a barred attorney. However, I believe an ethic charge has already been filed against him. I hope he gets some good court room experience out of this. He'll need it."

Chris (and everyone else who is wondering whether Roy Pearson passed the bar exam anywhere), just do a quick Google search or check out Wikipedia. Roy Pearson passed the Washington DC bar exam in 1978 and practiced law for 24 years doing public interest work before becoming a contract examiner handling police complaints. Incredibly, he also directed a clinical program at Georgetown Law School for a short time.

Even more incredibly, Pearson is a graduate of Northwestern Law School, normally reputed to be one of the Top 10 - 15 law schools in the country.

If I were a Northwestern Law alumnus, or even a Georgetown Law alumnus, I would be very ashamed right now. Just goes to show you that supposedly prestigious law schools make gigantic admissions mistakes sometimes by letting in insufferable, colossal jackasses.

Posted by: Roy Pearson Is An Idiot | June 13, 2007 4:33 PM

I agree with JD.

Posted by: Sam | June 13, 2007 4:33 PM

hey WP, give Marc Fisher a laptop with wireless--why else is he not posting regular updates??

Posted by: 21st century | June 13, 2007 4:35 PM

Tim,

Doesn't the statute give the court the option to provide "any other relief the court deems proper" 28-3905(k)(1)(F)? Shouldn't the "or" after the semicolon follwing (k)(1)(E) makes anything in (k)(1)(A)-(E)optional for the court, even with a finding for the plaintiff?

Posted by: Not a legal scholar, but I play one in comments | June 13, 2007 4:35 PM

Roy Pearson Is An Idiot,

It's called Affirmative Action.

Posted by: Shawn | June 13, 2007 4:36 PM

Blogs are supposed to be running commentaries. Why us a blog, rather than a regular story, to cover the case, if there aren't going to be any incremental real-time updsates?

Does anyone know what time court adjourns?

Posted by: Yikes! | June 13, 2007 4:36 PM

Did this "Judge" actually go to law school? If so, which one? They must be dying of embarrassment.

Posted by: gasmonkey | June 13, 2007 4:37 PM

21st century, in a courtroom??? No. I have a feeling if you get up and leave you lose your seat and there's no way anyone's gonna do that.

Posted by: Danny | June 13, 2007 4:38 PM

Blogs are supposed to be running commentaries. Why cover the case in a blog if there aren't going to be any incremental real-time updates?

Does anyone know what time court adjourns?

Posted by: Yikes! | June 13, 2007 4:38 PM

The fact is "Satisfaction Guaranteed" is rubbish. It means nothing and always has. It's simply impossible to guarantee satisfaction. It's possible to compensate people for not being satisfied, but it can never be guaranteed. If someone ruins my favorite suit and then pays me what it cost or is worth, it's compensation, not satisfaction. I still have to go out and buy that suit again and have it tailored again ... if they even still make the suit. So I'm not going to be satisfied and no one can ever guarantee it.

Posted by: Mike | June 13, 2007 4:39 PM

This is what happens when universities are FORCED to let in subpar candidates because of affirmative action.

Posted by: Joseph | June 13, 2007 4:39 PM

He should try on the pants. "If the pants don't fit, you must not acquit." :-D

Posted by: Kate | June 13, 2007 4:40 PM

This half-you know what, so-called "judge" is a DISGRACE to D.C. He must be removed from the bench!

Posted by: Chris Keeley | June 13, 2007 4:40 PM

RPIAI,

That has to be a different Roy Pearson!!! I can't believe this guy got through law school let alone actually passed the bar. How is that possible? Will the real Roy Pearson please step forward?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 4:41 PM

If the Chungs win their case because PEarson's case is frivolous can Chungs countersue for mental anguish and stress for million bucks? I'd like to see Pearson get taste of his own bad medicine

Posted by: Chungs should countersue! | June 13, 2007 4:41 PM

If I don't get the best bang for my buck can I sue the girl I gave the buck too?

Posted by: Richie | June 13, 2007 4:42 PM

well how did eric steiner post all day long yesterday? http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/

surely the audience was just as packed then...if the case continues, the blog beat should revert to eric. marc's not getting the job done.

Posted by: 21st century | June 13, 2007 4:42 PM

Honestly, if you were running any type of business in this guy's neighborhood would you let him in the door? I wouldn't. Then he would sue me for discrimiation. Although if you put up a sign saying Reserve Right to Refuse Service then you would be covered.

Posted by: Daniel | June 13, 2007 4:43 PM

Will this *ss lose his law license for this absurd abuse of our court system? If there is any justice in the world -- and this case will surely prove that question -- this case is a win for the defendent and they will make this idiot judge pay the attorney's fees for the defendent, and they will fine this plainiff for his abuse of the system. Never in the history of mankind has the legal profession looked so bad!

Posted by: colorado kool aid | June 13, 2007 4:44 PM

21st century.
Today is the verdict, much different situation. you cannot post messeges from the courtroom. No way no how.

Posted by: Jonah | June 13, 2007 4:45 PM

Here is a link to a blogger from the courtroom that actually is posting updates, unlike Marc Fisher:

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1165063

Soo Chung apparently cried on the stand describing the hardship and pain this litigation has put her and her family through, and her tears, unlike Pearson's, were probably justified. Manning finished his direct examination of Soo Chung.

Roy Pearson had no cross-examination of her, probably because even an insufferable, colossal jackass like him knew that if he asked any questions, Soo Chung would look even more sympathetic, and Pearson would look like even more of a bully than he already is.

Closing arguments are apparently underway. Maybe they are finished by now.

Posted by: Roy Pearson Is An Idiot | June 13, 2007 4:45 PM

Am I the only one who is 100% convinced that Pearson will appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court, if he can?

Posted by: Thin Man | June 13, 2007 4:46 PM

A reporter would have to be a total fool to give up his space right now. I'm sure they are itching to have this done and get out and report but nobody is going to move until the judge hits the gavel.

Posted by: Kevin | June 13, 2007 4:46 PM

Well Joe you seem angry- I was just attempting to see another side of it. I also said I don't agree with him. Let me ask you- should we all have the same exact level of satisfaction? Do you think we should be told what is satisfying to us as individuals?
I really don't know enough about him to label him a vindictive monster, but apparently you do.

Posted by: perhaps | June 13, 2007 4:46 PM

I think its pretty obvious President Bush is to blame here. I'm just waiting for someone from the left to link him to all this. Give it time... it will happen.

Posted by: Craig O | June 13, 2007 4:47 PM

I'm dying. Please let this have a very happy ending. Everyone pray with me.

Posted by: Samantha | June 13, 2007 4:48 PM

By ruling that his case was not ridiculous enough to be dismissed as a matter of law, the judge probably protected him from any ethics claim. Obviously, his legal skills are not that subpar if he has been able to adduce enough evidence to let such a frivolous claim survive being dismissed this long.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 4:48 PM

No wonder the legal system is held in contempt. Hopefully the judge will rule for the cleaners and order Mr. Pearson to pay legal costs for the cleaners as well as damages for emotional distress and anything else one can think up.

As well, are there not requirements to go to court? The Bar Association should examine this case with care.

Posted by: Rudolfo | June 13, 2007 4:49 PM

Pearson is greedy, abusive, and mentally ill. He needs to be disbarred! He is taking advantage of taxpayer's money, draining county resources, and taking time away from other serious matters. What is equally disgusting is Pearson's abuse towards the Chungs over a pants. He needs to be sent to prison for all the hurt and suffering he has caused for the Chung family and the citizens of D.C.

Imagine what Pearson is like as a judge. He is nothing but a corrupted, opportunist who should be disbarred. How can an irrational, money hungry, malicious, sleezy person make sound judgement in court?

Pearson needs to pay back the county by doing time in prison. He is disgusting!!

Posted by: JS | June 13, 2007 4:49 PM

Pearson is greedy, abusive, and mentally ill. He needs to be disbarred! He is taking advantage of taxpayer's money, draining county resources, and taking time away from other serious matters. What is equally disgusting is Pearson's abuse towards the Chungs over a pants. He needs to be sent to prison for all the hurt and suffering he has caused for the Chung family and the citizens of D.C.

Imagine what Pearson is like as a judge. He is nothing but a corrupted, opportunist who should be disbarred. How can an irrational, money hungry, malicious, sleezy person make sound judgement in court?

Pearson needs to pay back the county by doing time in prison. He is disgusting!!

Posted by: JS | June 13, 2007 4:49 PM

I mean seriously, how can this be the same Roy Pearson? He must have had some huge mental breakdown which would explain his years of "unemployment."

Posted by: Chris | June 13, 2007 4:50 PM

perhaps . Give me your name, address and number and I'll find something to sue you for. Your yard is ugly so it reduces my home's value. You looked at me funny. I'll say you shoved me. Then let's see how you feel about the abuse of the legal system.

Posted by: Joe | June 13, 2007 4:51 PM

satisfied? I'll let you be the Judge

Posted by: perhaps | June 13, 2007 4:52 PM

I would much rather watch this play out on Court TV rather than the Phil Spector trial. Thank you for the updates.

I must, however comment on your statement "But Bartnoff has been careful to let Pearson state his odd notions of law with few limitations.

This is known as giving someone all the rope they need to hand themselves."

This is just another example of biased reporting. Please consider writing just the facts. Then if you feel compelled, feel free to log in here and add your "personal" thoughts about the case where comments are encouraged and accepted.

Posted by: All about truth | June 13, 2007 4:56 PM

Can I sue if:

10.) My KFC was not finger licking good?
9.) I couldn't have my burger my way at Burger King!
8.) I didn't love the chicken from Popeyes
7.) I wasn't "lovin it" at McDonalds
6.) My Wendy's hamburger was not fresh, yet frozen which was not right!
5.) My Taco Bell was inside the bun!
4.) I didn't eat fresh at Subway
3.) My Papa Johns didn't have better ingredients?
2.) My Miller Lite was more filling and less taste!
1.) I didn't get the most bang for my buck with the girl I gave it too!!!

Posted by: Mitch | June 13, 2007 4:57 PM

The rule on a $12,000 offer of judgment would be, if accepted, that each party pays its own fees. The winner (the plaintiff in that case) might petition for costs, but those would be minor. The only way fees could be awarded upon acceptance of an offer of judgment would be if it were a fee shifting case, such as civil rights matters.

If the offer of judgment is rejected and the verdict comes in below that, the only fees that would be awarded Pearson would be those that accrued after the offer was made.

Posted by: Offer of Judgment | June 13, 2007 4:57 PM

The name of this blog is "Raw Fisher" yet there is no sushi involved. I'm suing.

Posted by: Devin | June 13, 2007 4:57 PM

I'm waiting for Bill O'Reilly (the self professed independent) to lay the blame at activist judges or secular progressives.. i am shocked you yourself did not take the opportunity to blame the looney left or the secular progressives (who are anyone that pretty much disagree with Bill). I'll be watching the "factor : the high spin zone" for updates on how secular progressives are responsible for this mess.

Posted by: hey craig | June 13, 2007 4:58 PM

take a breath joe-
I don't agree this should be a court case- I was merely saying that he is using it to draw attention to his personal gripe. AND if that's what he is doing it makes sense to do it this way- because it is getting attention. make sense? will pictures help?

Posted by: perhaps | June 13, 2007 4:59 PM

All about truth.

That's why this is called a BLOG.

Posted by: Ken | June 13, 2007 5:00 PM

yes Mitch you can- but you shouldn't win

Posted by: perhaps | June 13, 2007 5:01 PM

perhaps. I'm still waiting for that address.

Posted by: Joe | June 13, 2007 5:01 PM

It's all comes down to this he is a moma boy thumbs down for his act and two thumbs down for his screen play. The other day My gandson and myself went to pick up my two shirts and they could not find them they were miss place and they ask me for my phone to let me know if they have found them as we left my grandson ask me was I mad and I said yes and no and he stop and look at me and I told him why, yes that the workers couldn't find my shrits and they were mad and she said to me I am sorry I told her no problem and I also told him that if they could not find the two shirst that I could reorder two more and still go back for there services. To me It's like this why do I need to act like the big (N) word and jump up and down for nothing what point would that prove not a dam thing and my grandson said cool

Posted by: Tim Scott | June 13, 2007 5:01 PM

Craig O,
You are right-it is George Bush's fault. You see, Pearson applied for a U.S. attorney position but was rejected because his political views weren't in line with the current administration. This rejection led to his obvious mental health problems, and coincidentally, caused him to become a consumer advocate. Thus, you have the present lawsuit--all thanks to the President.

Posted by: still | June 13, 2007 5:01 PM

Correction -- the only fees that would be awarded the Chungs would be those accruing after the offer was made.

And can someone please stop the racist "affirmative action" messages? I mean, jeez, you think because an african american has a job he must have had help? Please go back to your hole in the wall, or please enter the 21st century.

Posted by: Offer of judgment | June 13, 2007 5:02 PM

In response to Tim, I think the Griffin vs. Ocean Contractors might be a little different. I think the question in play isn't necessarily the formula, as to whether or not there is a violation at all. In the Griffin case there was a WRONGFUL discharge. Keyowrd WRONGFUL. And in that case, the formula that applies is not ridiculous because this is what he would have made had he still been employed in the first place ($400 x number of days working). This is similar to the economic worth or human life value lawyer will sue you for in a wrongful death suit I believe (dead person's income x working years?, something like that, I'm sure there's more to the calculation anyways). So that's the reasoning behind the formula. The question in this case seems to be whether or not the formula should even be applied? Don't forget this guy stated that he'd be paying himself at least $500,000.00 in attorney's fees if he won.

Personally, I think Pearson is looking for a way to trample his personal debt by exploiting the law and others. Is was revealed in Chris Manning's cross examination that the dude was already in debt from a divorce (which he also sued for a ridiculous amount). It also called into question his view of logic or reason which is TOTALLY disjointed with the real world.

Now in response to PERHAPS, and the notion that this guy is just an activist trying to save the world...$500,000 for attorney's fees (himself?), $15,000 for a car for the case? That is not activism, that's entitle ment.

Posted by: Victor | June 13, 2007 5:02 PM

This is why we need "loser pays" reform to our tort system.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 5:03 PM

Even the judge (the good one) in this case told that idiot he had to stop saying "we" beacuse there is no "we" in this case. He is not suing for the consumer or making a statement, he wants the cash. End of story. Anyone who would use their own son to further this case is a sick bastard. Putting a wheelchair vet up there to be laughed at is even sicker. Knowing what he is doing to this family and continuing is the sign of a diseased mind.

Posted by: Paul V. | June 13, 2007 5:04 PM

RL... Are you trying to impress us with your legal knowledge? Do you really think its necessary for the WP to "have assigned a reporter with a legal background instead of a gossip" for a case a groundbreaking and important as this one? Get a life man, we're in DC no one is impressed with your knowledge of the law. I bet you add esquire to the end of your name whenever possible. You don't you. RL Esquire.

Posted by: WDC | June 13, 2007 5:05 PM

This is from WTOPNEWS.com:
------------------
The closing arguments are finished. The judge says she will issue a written ruling by the end of next week.
------------------
Why?!!?!!?!!?

Posted by: Don | June 13, 2007 5:06 PM

Wow, Soloman was right.

The LOVE of money IS the root of all evil.

NOT mention this guy is probably a pompous, arrogant, presumptuous fool.

Posted by: mr. smith | June 13, 2007 5:06 PM

Offer of judgment . In this case YES. He didn't amke it on his own merits. Not a chance in hell.

Posted by: God | June 13, 2007 5:06 PM

Ahhhh, finally people have made this into a political back an forth. I was wondering what took so long. God bless America!

Posted by: Chris | June 13, 2007 5:06 PM

Fisher is offering his reporting and opinion. This is not straight news reporting. I might be wrong but fisher reporting has the feel of a blog. Also, you must be from the right.. only the right could conclude that offering facts without context is unbiased.. but facts with context is biased.. interesting.. so for example, according to the right.. this is an unbiased statement "the earth is getting warmer".. while this is a biased statement "Humans are a major factor in global warming". The first statement is useless (the earth is warming, so what?.. does that mean the sun is hotter?.. earth's orbit is closer to the sun?. a billion people in china all lit candles at the same time?).. even though statement 1 is useless, the right loves it cause it means nobody can do anything since there are no conclusions attached.. if you immediately put the statement in context (humans are causing global warming, not a hotter sun or earth's orbit or a billion people in china all lighting candles at the same time).. you are immediately labelled as biased. It's amazing that this country is still tops in science and technology. Wow, to do research or see something without the ability to offer context.. what insight!!! (sarcasm intended).

Posted by: Hey all about the truth | June 13, 2007 5:07 PM

Dammit. Dammit. Dammit.

I guess the judge wants to make sure she gets this 100% right before she says anything. She doesn't want to give him any room to wiggle for an appeal.

Ug. I hate waiting. Imagine how horrid this week will be for the Chungs.

Posted by: Natalie | June 13, 2007 5:08 PM

How dare you all question my criticism of this frivolous gossip's trial coverage. I'll have you know that I went to Harvard Law School.

Peons.

Posted by: RL | June 13, 2007 5:09 PM

from WTOP website:

Neal Augenstein, WTOP Radio

4:56 p.m. Wednesday, June 13

WASHINGTON -

The closing arguments are finished. The judge says she will issue a written ruling by the end of next week.

Posted by: done for the day | June 13, 2007 5:11 PM

Joe maybe I'll sue you for assault if you ask me for my address again

Posted by: perhaps | June 13, 2007 5:11 PM

Glad in a way that the judge is dotting the I's and crossing the T's rather than just blurting out a quicky verdict. She wants this buried for good. Hate having to wait.

Posted by: Hatty | June 13, 2007 5:12 PM

perhaps. Oooooooooo scary! Still waiting.

Posted by: Joe | June 13, 2007 5:13 PM

How does a Harvard Law graduate have time during the day to post so many time?

Posted by: a peon | June 13, 2007 5:13 PM

Here's another reason this is all George Bush's fault: Pearson is actually an illegal immigrant and was granted amnesty under a "super secret amenesty for certain illegal immigrants whom we like" program, which was put in place to fight the war on terror and Iraq. If it wasn't for this program, he'd have been deported already.

Posted by: still | June 13, 2007 5:14 PM

It's gonna suck for the defendants to wait til Friday (I guess?) But I think things went pretty well for them. Think about it for a second. These people could lose their business over 1 pair of pants. This could happen to ANYONE!!!!! I agree with whoever said we need to change to loser pays legal fees. I think they do that in the UK? Not sure, I know they do it somewhere.

Posted by: Kathleen | June 13, 2007 5:16 PM

Joe,

Would your mom drive you to my place or do your parents let you take the bus?

Posted by: perhaps | June 13, 2007 5:16 PM

Wait, it seems that this guy gets paid a salary by the District but spends all his time going to the cleaners...

Posted by: Julio Curotto | June 13, 2007 5:17 PM

I was watching the 700 Club and they say all bad things are the faults of feminists and lesbians. So there you go.

Posted by: Hatty | June 13, 2007 5:18 PM

Oh man- I just realized that was debating with a child- I feel silly- Sorry Joe, I didn't know

Posted by: perhaps | June 13, 2007 5:18 PM

perhaps. waiting.

Posted by: joe | June 13, 2007 5:19 PM

Kathy,

I believe the UK does have loser pays. The only problem with that formula would be for consumers suing large corporations. Who's going to be able to afford those fees. Drug companies would love that.

Posted by: Chris | June 13, 2007 5:19 PM

Sounds like "No Pants" Pearson needed medication, not an alteration. I hope he loses the case but gets some professional help.

Posted by: Martin Izing | June 13, 2007 5:19 PM

RL, obviously that moronic, arrogant clown Pearson rubbed off his ways on you. As the saying goes, birds of a..flock together. We all are better off without all knowing dirtbags like you. Heehehe.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 5:21 PM

American legal system: horrible

Posted by: Benji | June 13, 2007 5:21 PM

Joe,

1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC

See you soon!

Posted by: perhaps | June 13, 2007 5:21 PM

How much money is/has of our money, of the city's money, of his money, and the Chung's money has this crackpot wasted by suing these poor people because he is mentally unstable??

Posted by: GoonieGooGoo | June 13, 2007 5:22 PM

your kidding me????? This guy is a DC judge, and they are allowing this NGR, to file charges and go to court on this BS law suit??????? What the heck is wrong with the DC govt, where is Fenty, why hasnt he stoped this s*h*i*t???? or is he too busy with his new girlfriend Rhee?????I cant beleive that the DC govt has allowed this to continue and be the laughing stock of the United States, that the District would even allow this to happen. You go DC, no wonder your the cess pool of a city you are.!!!!!

Posted by: pjl@yahoo.com | June 13, 2007 5:22 PM

Joe & Perhaps,

To settle your differences, Perhaps should give his address to Joe. Joe can then rent a car at a rate of 50 dollars per day to go to Perhaps' place, and since there are 365 days in a year, he can multiply the cost of the car rental by 365. Then, multiply that by 10 years of potential dates to visit Perhaps. Then, multiply that by 1500 dollars.

That works out to $273,750,000 for which Joe can sue Perhaps for forcing him to rent a car to go beat Perhaps up. Also, Joe should represent himself and sue for attorneys' fees. Since Joe probably isn't a lawyer, he can also sue for the anticipated cost of law school and bar exam expenses. And also Joe can sue Perhaps to toss in a pair of pants. Then, Perhaps can hire a lawyer at 400 dollars an hour to defend him against Joe's lawsuit in court, and even if Perhaps prevails, he'll be forced to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy to pay for his legal fees. The wheels of justice at work.

Of course, as Perhaps would say, Joe would be justified in doing this because he is calling attention to a personal gripe in a well-executed manner.

Posted by: Roy Pearson Is An Idiot | June 13, 2007 5:22 PM

"Oh man- I just realized that was debating with a child- I feel silly- Sorry Joe, I didn't know" -perhaps

The words of a rhetorical genius.

Posted by: Joe | June 13, 2007 5:23 PM

I would also like to drop my pants to this lawsuit.

Posted by: Moon in VA | June 13, 2007 5:24 PM

and just hop the fence- i don't mind

Posted by: perhaps | June 13, 2007 5:24 PM

I find it IMMENSELY amusing that he "had to" rent a car to go to another dry cleaners - they are EVERYWHERE in D.C.! Good grief. There are dry cleaning services he could have subscribed to that would have picked up his stuff for LESS THAN he paid for the car rental.

The man truly is an idiot, and I hope he will not be able to continue employment as a judge. But then, if HE can be a judge, I know what job I'm applying to next! I can point to a precedent now!!! ; )

Posted by: Maritza | June 13, 2007 5:25 PM

Here's another way in which this is Bush's fault:

By not supporting statehood for Washington D.C., he caused general anger and a more democrat-leaning city which caused more affirmative action programs which led to the hiring of Roy Pearson as an administrative law judge which caused him to get his pants altered which caused this whole mess.

Posted by: bushsfault | June 13, 2007 5:25 PM

Pearson is insanse. The fact that he is seeking to publicy make a fool out of himself is proff positive. Think about it: what sane man sues for this kind of money over a lost pair of pants then cries like a girl-dog in court?

Posted by: CEEAF | June 13, 2007 5:25 PM

Man, I'm laughing my pants off at this whole affair. It's leaving me in stitches!

Posted by: Mr. D | June 13, 2007 5:26 PM

waiting. waiting. waiting.

Posted by: Joe | June 13, 2007 5:26 PM

"Obviously the glove didn't fit"

Posted by: jack | June 13, 2007 5:27 PM

Joe,

I gave it to you already. Just buzz me at the gate.

Posted by: perhaps | June 13, 2007 5:28 PM

PERHAPS, perhaps your schtick is getting painfully old. Are you really so weak that you can't drop it. Quit clogging up the board with your petty bullsh**.

Posted by: Jennifer M. | June 13, 2007 5:28 PM

rhetorical ehh? was that a question?

no, i didn't think so

Posted by: perhaps | June 13, 2007 5:29 PM

to Perhaps & Joe: please, get a room; we are all tired of your flirtatious discourse.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 5:30 PM

Ultimately, the judge--after some admitted inconvenience--was offered his frickin pants back.

the pants bear the corrdct tag # and I assume have the same fabric as the suit coat, or at least the judge has not proven otherwise.

The guy is gonna get zero or some nominal sum like $100

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 5:31 PM

Maritza. I also find it hard to believe he had no other dry cleaner in his community. Maybe no others would take him. Imagine this dude coming in for service now. OMG! Can this guy still get a suit cleaned???? Remember that Seinfeld when Elaine gets blacklisted for nail salons...I hope that happens to this guy.

Posted by: May | June 13, 2007 5:31 PM

"Of course, as Perhaps would say, Joe would be justified in doing this because he is calling attention to a personal gripe in a well-executed manner"

Perhaps never said he was Justified- just said it made sense to go about getting attention that way.

Posted by: DC | June 13, 2007 5:32 PM

I think the judge has a problem with Asians. Too bad. Look at the inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty.

Posted by: Karl | June 13, 2007 5:32 PM

My pants were too tight.
Got Lost in Alteration.
Millions should be paid!

Posted by: Pants Haiku-Pearson Side | June 13, 2007 5:33 PM

Someone asked how Pearson got his appointment in the first place. Is it possible he is a Bush appointee? If he fails here, perhaps he could be the Attorney General.

Posted by: Mike | June 13, 2007 5:33 PM

Someone asked how Pearson got his appointment in the first place. Is it possible he is a Bush appointee? If he fails here, perhaps he could be the Attorney General.

Posted by: Mike | June 13, 2007 5:34 PM

Pearson better win. Then I can go into any store that has "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign, demand steak dinner with extra serving of mashed potatoes, Miller Genuine Draft six pac, store owner's daughter for serving me the meal, and store owner's toupee for wiping my chin and ass.

Posted by: Judge Dreaded | June 13, 2007 5:34 PM

PERHAPS.

Are you seriously saying you don't know what rhetoric is? Bwahahahaha

Posted by: Jennifer M. | June 13, 2007 5:35 PM

Why is this clown allowed to practice in any legal capacity? Who appointed him to his current position? The DC bar should begin a review of his right to practice given how much discredit he brings to the profession.

Posted by: familynet | June 13, 2007 5:36 PM

DC wrote at 5:32:

"Perhaps never said he was Justified- just said it made sense to go about getting attention that way."


Okay. Forgive my poor choice of semantics, then. Let me re-phrase.

Joe will not be justified in suing Perhaps for $273 million.

However, it will sure make a whole lot of sense for Joe to go about drawing attention to his personal gripe with Perhaps by suing Perhaps for $273 million, abusing the justice system, destroying the defendant's family, life savings, and business, and possibly persuading the defendant to give up on the American Dream and leave the country. Yup. Makes a lot of sense.

Is that better?

Posted by: Roy Pearson Is An Idiot | June 13, 2007 5:36 PM

Jennifer M. You seem dissatisfied "perhaps" you should relax.

Posted by: K M | June 13, 2007 5:37 PM

We found your suit pants.
Your lawsuit now has no legs.
Your legs have no pants!

Posted by: Pants Haiku-Cleaner's Side | June 13, 2007 5:37 PM

This guy is going to have to move and change his name. Maybe to Mud.

Posted by: Gary | June 13, 2007 5:37 PM

K M. Uh....ok. What the heck are you jabbering about?

Posted by: Jennifer | June 13, 2007 5:39 PM

Roy Pearson Is An Idiot. You're hired! I'm suing the next person I see for something. I haven't decided yet. But I'll call you.

Posted by: Gary | June 13, 2007 5:41 PM

Pants Haiku-Cleaner's Side...that's the 1st haiku about a pants lawsuit ever! Congrats! ;)

Posted by: Samuel | June 13, 2007 5:42 PM

Does anyone have any idea when court finishes up for the day or when we can expect an update from the Washington Post?

Posted by: Yikes! | June 13, 2007 5:43 PM

The American Association for Justice, formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, has taken a stand against frivolous lawsuits such as this:

http://www.atla.org/pressroom/PressReleases/2007/may08.aspx

Posted by: justicefor all | June 13, 2007 5:44 PM

He went to Northwestern University School of Law. I doubted he has a high GPA given his current action. Probably just made it by college. You guys realize there are really dumb lawyer, doctors, engineers, right?

Posted by: DontMessWithLawyer | June 13, 2007 5:44 PM

The only court that Pearson should be allowed to work in is the food court at the Mall.

Posted by: Name: | June 13, 2007 5:44 PM

Pearson you are nuts!
Outragous lawsuit to file!
If you win, Call Me.

Posted by: Pants Haiku-Public View | June 13, 2007 5:45 PM

The American Association for Justice, formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, has taken a stand against this lawsuit, and ones like it, and has asked for an investigation:

http://www.atla.org/pressroom/PressReleases/2007/may08.aspx

Posted by: justice for all | June 13, 2007 5:45 PM

--Pants Haiku-Cleaner's Side

Pearson is a jerk
He will soon be out of work
He really stinks bad

Ok that last line needs work...

Posted by: Harry | June 13, 2007 5:47 PM

"The guy is gonna get zero or some nominal sum like $100".

Plus Judge Bartnoff will issue a restraining order stipulating that Sponge Roy No Pants stay at least 100 yards away from the Chung's dry cleaning businesses.

Posted by: Vito | June 13, 2007 5:49 PM

DontMessWithLawyer...ha, yes very true I've met many of them.

Posted by: Katie | June 13, 2007 5:49 PM

I know what rhetoric is. do you know what rhetorical is?

Posted by: perhaps | June 13, 2007 5:50 PM

Vito. New sign for the Chungs "We reserve the right to refuse service to crazy bastards"

Posted by: Agreed | June 13, 2007 5:50 PM

...and "same day service" does not mean that if I drop the pants off one day (I'm sure there is some time deadline), they will be ready the same day? I have to *ask* for this?

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 5:51 PM

PERHAPS. OMFG! Shut up.

Posted by: Amy R. J. | June 13, 2007 5:52 PM

I think Groucho would have the following to say regarding Pearson's lawsuit:

I don't know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway --
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it.

Your proposition may be good
But let's have one thing understood --
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it.

I'm opposed to it --
On general principles I'm opposed to it!

Chorus: He's opposed to it!
In fact, in word, in deed,
He's opposed to it!

For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night till morn,
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
And I've kept yelling since I commenced it,
I'm against it!

Posted by: Mike | June 13, 2007 5:52 PM

I'd like this guy win his suit--award: one cent.

Posted by: ldavid56 | June 13, 2007 5:52 PM

My pants were too tight.
Got Lost in Alteration.
Millions should be paid!

Posted by: Pants Haiku-Pearson Side | June 13, 2007 05:33 PM
---------------------------
We found your suit pants.
Your lawsuit now has no legs.
Your legs have no pants!

Posted by: Pants Haiku-Cleaner's Side | June 13, 2007 05:37 PM

---------------------------
Pearson you are nuts!
Outragous lawsuit to file!
If you win, Call Me.

Posted by: Pants Haiku-Public View | June 13, 2007 05:45 PM

***********************
GOLD Jerry! Pure GOLD!

Posted by: Seinfeld's own "Kenny Bania" | June 13, 2007 5:54 PM

Perhaps, clearly you do not. Do some research.

Posted by: Katie | June 13, 2007 5:55 PM

pearson is a twit
thinks courts are entitlement
chungs, please sue him back.

Posted by: BerlitzFrench | June 13, 2007 5:55 PM

To 1L and the other regarding offers of judgment:

Under Civil Rule 68, one can specifically craft an offer of judgment to include attorney's fees. Failure to specifically include that in the offer may leave you open for fees later, but a good lawyer will specifically include in the judgment offer a statement that it is inclusive of attorney's fees.

Posted by: Offers of Judgment | June 13, 2007 5:56 PM

there is more than one perhaps blogging

Posted by: perhaps | June 13, 2007 5:57 PM

Amy,

Thank you for sticking up for me.

Posted by: Joe | June 13, 2007 5:57 PM

Even if this f*cker did not win the case, the Korean family is already financially ruined. The damage is done. Is this what you called justice? Our justice system is severely broken.

Posted by: DCJudge | June 13, 2007 5:58 PM

It's so cute that someone thinks rhetorical only applies to rhetorical questions. Not a college grad, that's for sure.

Posted by: T.J. | June 13, 2007 5:59 PM

America is a system which crashing just like a computer. Only it is happening in slow motion. -- faye kane, homeless smartmouth

Posted by: FayeKane | June 13, 2007 5:59 PM

ldavid56.

No i'd just hand him his pants for his settlement. He gets to pay the other side's legal bills as a reward for all his hard work.

Posted by: JCM | June 13, 2007 6:01 PM

DCJudge,

I thought the Chung's were getting free legal service. I was under the impression that lawyers were jumping to offer their services. Is that incorrect? Nothing like free publicity.

Posted by: Chris | June 13, 2007 6:02 PM

The reason this went to trial:

There is always a loophole in every law book. Most of the time these loopholes don't matter because nobody wuld degrade themselves and ruin their own reputation by doing something like this. Then along comes Roy Pearson. Anyone could have basically done this, it's just that most people are not sociopaths. Now we will be forced to sociopath-proof the court system so things like this don't happen. This is a small claims case. It should have been settled with the return of the pants and a 50% off coupon for his next visit.

Posted by: Kev | June 13, 2007 6:07 PM

Why do you think he represents himself? If he loses he is not burden with legal fees, but the Chung family does (2 years+ of legal fees = 20 millions). The current judge will likely throws the case out but will not make this jerk pay for defendant legal bills. Remember they are both judges, they will cover each other asses. As far as I can see, the Korean is screw big time and the real victim. Can you see that it could happen to any of us?

Posted by: DCJudge | June 13, 2007 6:08 PM

Tim: FWIW, I understand your argument. It looks like other people don't quite *understand* it and disagree with it. I both understand it and disagree with it.

I have looked at the Consumer Protection Act in question. It's at DC Code 28-3905(k)(1), and it provides:

[quoting statue]
A person, whether acting for the interests of itself, its members, or the general public, may bring an action under this chapter in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia seeking relief from the use by any person of a trade practice in violation of a law of the District of Columbia and may recover or obtain the following remedies:

(A) treble damages, or $1,500 per violation, whichever is greater, payable to the consumer;

(B) reasonable attorney's fees;

(C) punitive damages;

(D) an injunction against the use of the unlawful trade practice;

(E) in representative actions, additional relief as may be necessary to restore to the consumer money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of the unlawful trade practice; or
(F) any other relief which the court deems proper.
[end quote]

Note that the entire remedies section provides that a successful litigant MAY get the relief stated. Not "must" or "shall" get that relief -- "may."

Therefore, Tim, I'm afraid your argument about "minimum" penalties and strict statutory interpretation falls flat on the plain language of the statute. The judge is not bound by the statute to award a minimum sum of money. By use the word "may," she is vested with the discretion to reduce any award -- provided she first finds that a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign is, in fact, an unfair trade practice here in the real world -- to whatever pretty much whatever she feels would actually be appropriate in this case.

Posted by: Not Tim | June 13, 2007 6:10 PM

Chris wrote at 6:02:

"I thought the Chung's were getting free legal service. I was under the impression that lawyers were jumping to offer their services. Is that incorrect? Nothing like free publicity."


That is incorrect. The Chungs are forced to abide by our legal system, where everyone pays their own fees. Hence the need for the "Custom Cleaners Defense Fund" website, where the Chungs are gathering donations for their defense costs.

http://www.customcleanersdefensefund.com/

Very sad indeed that a vindictive, insufferable, colossal jackass of an administrative law judge can manipulate the law to bankrupt and destroy a non-English speaking immigrant family unfamiliar with the vagaries of the legal system. Never mind that the Chungs, according to the New York Times, worked in excess of 70 hours a week and really did nothing wrong here other than take a few extra days to find Pearson's pants (even in the face of Pearson's bullying, shouts, and threats directed toward them). All that hard work and all their savings are now toast even if they win, thanks to Pearson and his pettiness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/us/13pants.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Oh, yeah, that NY Times article says that Pearson is still on the Washington DC payroll as an administrative law judge with a salary of $100,512 per year. I'm almost certain that's more money per year than the Chungs make, especially if you parse their income out on an hourly basis.

Posted by: Roy Pearson Is An Idiot | June 13, 2007 6:14 PM

someone said:

>> incredibly, Pearson is a graduate of Northwestern Law School, normally reputed to be one of the Top 10 - 15 law schools in the country.

The government forces them to admit a certain number of "minority" students regardless of qualification, and graduate them regardless of their stupidity.

This is the result.

Pray they don't do it in airline pilot school too.

Posted by: FayeKane | June 13, 2007 6:24 PM

What if Pearson were a pilot?

Pearson: This is DC Airline Zero Zero Niner, requesting permission to land.
Pyongyang Airport, North Korea: You are not allowed in our air space. Turn back now or you will be shot down.

Pearson: What? This is an outrage! You are an airport. I demand that you let me land!
Pyongyang Airport: You must leave our airspace now or you will be shot down!

Pearson: Nonsense! I demand to be serviced right now! Do you hear me? I demand... wait... what's that thing heading towards us with trail of smok.................

Posted by: Judge Dreaded | June 13, 2007 6:42 PM

"The government forces them to admit a certain number of "minority" students regardless of qualification, and graduate them regardless of their stupidity."

So is this how you got an education, Faye Kane? Because anyone with a basic understanding of the University of Michigan cases knows what an idiotic statement this is and how ridiculous most of the rhetoric on affirmative action is.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 7:16 PM

LOVE the haikus. Keep it up!

Posted by: Roy for President | June 13, 2007 7:24 PM

Dear Not Tim:

As I said in the first post, I hadn't read the statute; I was taking the pre-trial statement as summarized. And that will teach me (again, for the millionth time) not to believe other people's summaries. If that's an accurate quote of the DC Code, I don't think the judge has to give him a nickel.

Thanks for doing the leg work. I stand corrected.

Posted by: Tim | June 13, 2007 7:26 PM

Roy Pearson is one of the reasons stereotypes remain.

Posted by: Jeff | June 13, 2007 7:42 PM

Roy is a bad boy
Judge is not finding humor
Spanking will ensue

Posted by: Jade | June 13, 2007 7:44 PM

My prediction is that the judge will punish Pearson for this because he clearly dragged this out long after he recieved a very generous settlement offer. She will give the pants back to him as settlement for that and cancel out all the rest of his claims. He WILL pay for the legal fees of the other side. A judge already did this to him in his divorce case, so they don't always (as someone said above) look out for their own.

Posted by: Pat | June 13, 2007 7:56 PM

Typical DC politcal circus much like Marion Berry back in the day - If this case ends up like that one, the honorable "Judge" Pearson will still be employed as judge and get paid with public funds just like Marion Berry has done somehow. Politics are a joke but DC poltics take up to a whole new level and the fact that this case is still around means that likely the "good ole' boys" in DC don't have the heart or morals to take this guy to task. Hopefully I'm wrong and he'll get what he deserves - no job and a big judgement for the Chungs. If not, the entire DC elected govt offials should be held accountable and replaced with more legitimate and deserving people.

DC local gov't will again be the laughing stock of our great nation if our legal system benefits Roy Pearson at all in this case.

Great link from another paper and contacts. Email anyone you can so Roy doesn't get his fat 10 year (salary 110K per year) tenure he's so anxious for. Boy I would hate to be Roy with all the good info in this link::

http://victimsoflaw.net/JudgeRoyPearson.htm

Posted by: John Neely | June 13, 2007 9:58 PM

How did this guy get a position as an ALJ? Surely there must have been something in his "professional" background that would have indicated (to put it delicately) an "imbalance" in his judgmental aptitude.

Posted by: Ann Arbor Guy | June 13, 2007 10:06 PM

Roy is a disgrace to black people, our cause and everything that's right for America.

I'm sad that Jesse or Al has not stepped up to straighten this boy out on the matter. No wonder our local community is riddled with crime and little economic growth outside of govt)with no ethical or moral compass as evident by our old Mayor. Thank god for the tourists.

I may have to join the march around Mr. Pearson's residence with everyone else, I here it's been a real hoot over there. I'm retired so I have the time and this situation really frosts me.

Posted by: Georgia | June 13, 2007 10:19 PM

this plaintiff should be put away - in a mental institution - but no...he is a judge in DC... maybe he is already there. give me a break

Posted by: ron shelley | June 14, 2007 12:00 AM

RL: Good to hear from you Judge Pearson.

Posted by: Judge Wolfe | June 14, 2007 12:07 AM

When reading the story, I found several things that are bothersome.

a) If he is in financial trouble and is wanting money out of this settlement, he may be using this as a means of getting someone to do something or say something that he knows he can file a lawsuit that he is sure to win, and reap the financial gain. Thus, this case is merely a way of baiting someone so there can be another case, in which he, of course, would be the sewer suer.

Although I believe the court should take him to the cleaners, even that may play into him not having to live up to divorce obligations, other indebtedness, etc. He cannot be allowed to win by losing.

b) It seems that Pearson (deliberately) produced the very long delay to an elusive "satisfaction" by changing the amount requested, after the cleaners made an offer. So he demanded $1150, and when offered what he wanted, he demanded more; and he refused $12,000.00 a number far higher than requested. In short, he has no honest claim to that number of days. Unless he gives another story, his words display intellectual dishonesty. Thus, his present story coupled with his judicial background would earn him criminal charges. That is exactly what would happen to, say, a financial planner who made equally ridiculous representations regarding a financial instrument with which he is expected to be very familiar.

He displayed a most severe contempt of court by using it as a toy, not the office which it is. He knows better.

c) Assuming this case is his end game, Pearson seem to be applying the old addage "The best defense is a good offense" to his promotion of his claim. He is clouding the air with arguments that are meant to distract from his bad-faith behavior. Although it seems to be the way law is conducted, I don't think that Pearson should get to claim an interpretation of the law that Judge Bartnoff then has to disprove back to Pearson. It sounded more like a Greek debate class where the one with authority and knowledge steps aside to let the loud boor set the ground rules.

Sometimes a simple "don't insult the writers of the statute, the Honorable Court over which I preside, and those seated here any longer, get out of my courtroom" is in order.

d) The arguments seem so ridiculous, which indicates that he is being crazy like a fox, and his goal is something else. This may explain Judge Bartnoff's inexplicable waste of the court's time. Perhaps the opinion will take a week to ensure that it is bulletproof, but hopefully the decision and its wording will cut Pearson off at his knees for any goals he has of using this case to draw someone into making an action or accusation that would accomplish his true intentions. The owners of the cleaning company may only be a pawn in his game.

e) As a people, we do not have the luxury of living life the way Pearson sees it. A society will collapse if this approach is given any credibility. Our country already teeters on the brink of converting our "justice" system in to a "legal" system, crafted by the persuasive talker rather than by people of principle.

I am disappointed that Judge Bartnoff is giving the appearance of possible credibility by allowing so much time to go by. It will only give others pause to evaluate the nuance of the rejection that will probably come, so they can perhaps craft an argument that may prevail against some hapless business. (Isn't every businessperson a millionaire?)

f) My father was trained and worked as an attorney. I remembered him saying years ago that "we will rue the day" when the Bar allowed attorneys to advertise. Although, Pearson is not "mining" for a case for his client, it sure smells . . . like it.

g) It is pressing that we stand up and if necessary, demand every lawmaker to say which side he/she supports. Then, since every other public "outrage" results in a new law, that would put us in position to demand that they pass legislation to stop this non-sense. They would play by their rhetorical Greek debate rules and say we won, wouldn't they?

Only if we took them to cleaners.

by,
Engineer, I'm only an

Posted by: Engineer, I'm just an | June 14, 2007 3:31 AM

The judge who is crying for a pair of expensive pants should undergo for an ordered fitness for duty psychiatric examination to determine to see if he is "fit" to be a judge. He's got all signs of suffering of some mental problem.

Posted by: Mike | June 14, 2007 9:54 AM

The judge who is crying for a pair of expensive pants should undergo for an ordered fitness for duty psychiatric examination to determine to see if he is "fit" to be a judge. He's got all signs of suffering of some mental problem.

Posted by: Mike | June 14, 2007 9:54 AM

The judge who is crying for a pair of expensive pants should undergo for an ordered fitness for duty psychiatric examination to determine to see if he is "fit" to be a judge. He's got all signs of suffering of some mental problem.

Posted by: Mike | June 14, 2007 9:56 AM

The judge who is crying for a pair of expensive pants should undergo for an ordered fitness for duty psychiatric examination to determine to see if he is "fit" to be a judge. He's got all signs of suffering of some mental problem.

Posted by: Mike | June 14, 2007 9:57 AM

This plaintiff needs to be tied to a telephone pole with a pair of pants and passerbys's should flog him with pants.

That would teach him a lesson.

Posted by: luszlips | June 14, 2007 10:07 AM

Tim-
You annoy me. Simply, the issue is whether his definition of "Satisfaction guaranteed" is right or wrong, not his calculation. Your reference to a similar case is that the dude who sued was entitled to a payment based on the formula stated in the law. So Pearson can claim $67 mil and $54 mil, but the question remains, "is he entitled to it?" And from the article, it seems like no one agrees with his interpretation of the sign. So, keep sticking to your "...but the formula was applied correctly..." you are missing the bigger picture. AGain, you annoy me.

Posted by: Anti Tim | June 14, 2007 10:15 AM

Some jokes:

1) Is love of money or love of pants the root of all evil?

2) What is worse? Crying over spilled milk or crying over pants?

Posted by: Thuyen | June 14, 2007 10:46 AM

He has to held accountable for what he has done, but that applies to whatever else he may also be trying to get out of.

Much earlier someone wrote of the love of money. The quote is that the "love of money is the root of all SORTS of evil." The surrounding passages put that into context even clearer. There's nothing wrong with money or being rich.

Thanks

Posted by: Engineer, I'm just an | June 14, 2007 11:32 AM

I agree money in itself is not evil. Nor being rich. I was making a joke and applying a biblical statement to this context of one named Pearson.

Posted by: Thuyen | June 14, 2007 11:39 AM

This is actually good news and bad news. It is good news because this is a proof that everyone can have his day in court. It is a bad news because this means everyone can have his day in court, even a vindictive opportunist.

Pearson not only deserves to lose this case, he should be forced to pay attorney cost for the defendants and serve next gazillion years in charcoal factory where Chungs supposedly worked before coming to US.

Posted by: Nosra Aepyor | June 14, 2007 2:38 PM

is this guy on crack? why bring himself to such public humiliation with the sake of his career? does he possibly think he can get the money? he has the mind of a 12 year old. if ur reading this pearson, i hope you think real hard about the mess you just pulled, and your chances of getting whacked are now doubled than before. you see that? your chance of getting whacked is doubled because of 800 dollars. your life is worth 800 dolalrs this is what its saying.

Posted by: isisi | June 14, 2007 4:52 PM

You know, I don't understand the people making jabs at 'affirmative action.' Perhaps it was a factor in his admittance, perhaps it didn't, but regardless, the fact that he's black doesn't really have a significant impact. Just because affirmative action exists doesn't mean they take in total idiots.

I don't really think Pearson being black has anything to do with it, aside from being a convenient scapegoat for people who don't understand the construct of 'race.'

Posted by: Lukannon | June 14, 2007 8:49 PM

Yes he is on crack. A little web search on Pearson reveals,
http://www.shoutpost.com/read/witqueen/9684/suing-your-way-to-the-american-dream

Accusations of Corruption

In 2004 Mr. Pearson was accused of corruption for giving his son's girlfriend a city job - after which it was revealed Mr. Pearson was actually sleeping with his son's girlfriend on regular occasion. During his tenure as an administrative judge for Washington DC he was accused of smoking crack cocaine in the courthouse washroom, an accusation supported by camera video that later went "missing" from the evidence room Mr. Pearson had access to himself.


Posted by: stupid | June 14, 2007 10:06 PM

I seriously think this guy has mental problem... maybe he should seek for help...

Posted by: Anonymous | June 15, 2007 3:35 PM

Hey Thuyen

Got it on the joke, no problem, I've just heard too many conversations veer way off.

Posted by: Engineer, I'm just an | June 16, 2007 11:39 PM

Earlier, Don wrote: "Incredibly, he also directed a clinical program at Georgetown Law School for a short time...If I were a Northwestern Law alumnus, or even a Georgetown Law alumnus, I would be very ashamed right now. Just goes to show you that supposedly prestigious law schools make gigantic admissions mistakes sometimes by letting in insufferable, colossal jackasses."

You are making an assumption that his hiring by a prestigious law school was a mistake. I do not know whether his time at Georgetown Law overlapped with mine as a student (early 90's). But the attitudes he shows in this lawsuit are absolutely in line with Georgetown's clinical program at that time. Wrapped in a false cloak of moral superiority a good number of clinical students in their 20's were just flexing their new-found power of others. For example, I would hear of students bragging about how long they were able to keep tenants in an apartment without ever having paid rent, just by using delaying tactics. Since legal battles were new and exciting to these students, they could harass businesses just by virtue of devoting lots of time to these cases. Rarely did I hear any justification of why a particular person or business deserved to be targeted. Students would go trolling for "clients." Anyone who owned a business seemed to be fair game.

Obviously most of the professors in the Georgetown clinical program are not mentally troubled as Pearson appears to be, and smart enough not to make negative headlines. But don't assume Pearson's attitudes are that different. As you suggest, I am indeed ashamed.

Posted by: Georgetown alum | June 18, 2007 1:40 PM

Let's all just stop wearing pants!

Posted by: HotBoi69 | June 18, 2007 5:53 PM

I am suing the company that made my iron. There was no warning to not iron the pants while wearing them. I got burned, plus the M&M's in my pocket made a mess. I will sue them next. They will have to change the slogan to:
"Melts in you mouth, and in your pants."
Here are some other things I will sue for in the future:
The Swiffer Sweeper sticks to my skin like vel-cro.
Serenity male guards stink after four days.
Real Scrubbing Bubbles do not have eyes, at least not in my toilet.
My life does not take VISA.
The Geico Gecko cannot really talk, and is actually from Mexico.

Stay tuned for my future exploits.

Posted by: Scalded Cajones | June 18, 2007 6:10 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company