A judge in Washington tried to bully a family-owned dry cleaning shop by suing the owners for $54 million in damages because they lost his pants. He lost the case. Score one for the common man against a jerk who tried to abuse the legal system because he didn’t have to pay for a lawyer.
WASHINGTON—A judge ruled Monday in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants.
The owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city’s consumer protection law by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson’s expectations of the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign once displayed in the store window, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled.
“A reasonable consumer would not interpret ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’ to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer’s unreasonable demands” or to agree to demands that the merchant would have reasonable grounds for disputing, the judge wrote.
Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung.
Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs, claiming they lost a pair of trousers from a blue and maroon suit, then tried to give him a pair a pair of charcoal gray pants that he said were not his. He arrived at the amount by adding up years of alleged law violations and almost $2 million in common law fraud claims.
He still managed to cost the family thousands of dollars.
The court costs amount to just over $1,000 for photocopying, filing and similar expenses, according to the Chungs’ attorney. A motion to recover the Chungs’ tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be considered later.
But there’s good news ahead. The jerk judge may lose his job over this.
The Washington Examiner reports D.C.’s chief administrative judge has written to the three-person commission that will decide whether Roy Pearson is reappointed — and said Pearson does not deserve another 10-year term. That reverses his earlier recommendation in favor of Pearson.
A D.C. government source tells the paper: “My sense is that the commission will not reappoint him.”
Pearson’s job as an administrative law judge pays more than $100,000 a year
Here’s hoping he does lose his job. While there are many, many decent judges out there who wouldn’t dream of misusing the system to screw the little guy, this judge deserves to be put out to pasture. I’m thinking he’s already there… reports of the trial had him literally breaking into tears while describing his missing pair of pants. Uh-huh. Sure. (Back away from the nut.)
If I were those dry cleaners, I’d get an order of protection from this nut.
He should also lose his pension, imho, for abuse of process.
chsw
Yes, but if he loses the job how will he pay the court costs for the victims of his misbehavior. Of course he will probably cost them even more in collection fees.
I asked a colleague in Deecee if he knew this shande and he said that unfortunately he did. Mayhaps when Bartnoff finishes imposing costs and fees against him he will be where he ought to be—washing windows with that mamzhook Nifong.
Show the judge the door ! What a shyster !
I’ve been following this mess since it started – it’s been popular fodder for the morning talk radio shows.
I’m glad the judge lost his case, but I’m still bothered by the fact that it went to trial in the first place. Any judge should’ve immediately seen the suit as frivolous, and thrown it out at the first opportunity.
As for Pearson, I think he should not only lose his job, he should be disbarred for this gratuitous abuse of the legal system. And as a poetic touch, I’d like to see him run out of town – without his pants.
Vincent Bugliosi made a good point that society has an overly high opinion of judges. They are not judges because they have great intelligence or wisdom or integrity. They are just lawyers (often mediocre lawyers) who had enough political connections to get appointed or elected.
I don’t have an overly high opinion of judges. I stood in front of one when I was 16 years old and watched him give my uncle a suspended sentence and no fine or punishment for assaulting my 13-year-old brother, and then fine my father for swearing at my aunt.
In point of fact, any judge I stand in front of now has to prove to me he’s not a little tinpot tyrant running his fiefdom, as are so many small claims judges.
“I’m glad the judge lost his case, but I’m still bothered by the fact that it went to trial in the first place.”
Hey, if anyone with excessive power, connections, and money wants to make a total fool of themselves in a public forum, by all means let them. Isn’t that what the courts are for? If it isn’t, then the logical first step in clearing the kooks from the courtrooms would be doing something about the little Napoleons at the bench.
On the other hand, I can think of at least one petty judicial squabble that has provided completely unintentional justice in recent history. Something about a hotel heiress’s DUI that you might have heard of…
Bet this guy has trouble finding another dry cleaner. Presuming he doesn’t end up in a career that involves polyester uniforms and paper hats.