Judge tries (again) to take cleaners to the cleaners

The NBC station in Washington reports that Judge Roy Pearson, who lost his $54 million legal battle with Custom Cleaners, has decided to appeal.

The owners of a dry cleaner who were sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants have raised enough money to pay most of their legal fees, according to a court motion filed Monday.

Jin Nam Chung and Soo Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners, had sought $82,772 from Roy Pearson to recover the costs of successfully defending themselves from the 2005 lawsuit, which they considered frivolous.

Pearson responded Friday with a motion that said the Chungs failed "to provide factual or legal support for their motion," and that his lawsuit had merit.

The Chungs would simply like to put this matter behind them, but Pearson is determined to make an even bigger ass of himself.

Pearson, a local administrative law judge, had claimed that the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign that once hung in the Chungs' shop was misleading and violated the District of Columbia's consumer protection act. A pair of his pants went missing, but a week later, the store owners said they were found.

What a jerk.

DC Judge Loses $54 Million Pants Lawsuit

NBC News just announced the decision in the case of DC Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson (right) against Jin and Soo Chung, and their sons, owners of Custom Cleaners.

A D.C. Superior Court judge has sided with the defendants over a $54 million lawsuit over a pair of pants.

According to the judge's decision, the plaintiff, Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson Jr. will take nothing from Soo Chung and Jim Nam Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners.

The judge also awarded the Chungs' court costs

The long nightmare for the Chung's is finally over.

Tearful Judge in $54 Million Pants Lawsuit

A DC judge, who says a dry cleaners lost his pants, broke down in tears and had to take a break from his testimony because he became too emotional while questioning himself about his experience with a missing pair of pants.

Maybe he shouldn't have been so tough on himself when he took the stand.

The case has gained nationwide attention, mostly as an example of what some people think is wrong with our legal system.

“I don’t know of any other cases that have been quite this ridiculous,” said Paul Rothstein, a professor of law at Georgetown University.

"It's outrageous and it's shameful,'' Bill Schulz, spokesman for the American Association for Justice, the largest trial lawyer group in the nation, told ABC News. The A.A.J. filed a complaint about Pearson recently with the District of Columbia bar association.

Schulz said the case is an embarrassing anomoly that "should not be used as an indictment against the civil justice system in this country because, it works quite well, thank you, for people -- ordinary people -- who are seeking real justice for real cases of negligence and wrongdoing."

Judge Pearson ran into some trouble with Judge Judith Bartnoff, for repeatedly referring to himself as "we," and for trying to represent himself as the leader of a class of tens of thousands, if not a half million local residents.

“You are not a we, you are an I,” Judge Bartnoff said in one of several testy exchanges with Judge Pearson. “You are seeking damages on your own behalf, and that is all.”

Pearson tried to cast himself as a victim of a fraud perpetrated by business owners who had no intention of delivering on their promise of "Satisfaction Guaranteed." But the defendants' lawyer Christopher Manning fought back.

“The plaintiff has decided to use his intimate knowledge of the District of Columbia laws and legal systems to exploit non-English-speaking immigrants who work in excess of 70 hours per week to live the American dream,” Mr. Manning says in court papers.

It seems that Pearson has a long history with Jin and Soo Chung and their sons, owners of Custom Cleaners.

In 2002, after a disagreement over another pair of Pearson's pants which Custom Cleaners allegedly lost - and compensated him for with $150 - Pearson was banned from the store, defense attorney Christopher Manning claimed in court.

Manning said that Pearson pleaded with the Chungs to let him back into the store, because he didn't have a car, he said, and they were the only dry cleaners in the neighborhood.

The New York Times reports:

Judge Pearson’s future as an administrative law judge is in limbo. His two-year term expired on May 2, and a judicial panel has yet to decide on his reappointment.

In the meantime, Judge Pearson remains on the city payroll as an attorney adviser to the Office of Administrative Hearings, at a salary of $100,512.