Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Washington D.C. (AHN) - A man who got so annoyed with his dry cleaners over missing pants has sued the owners for $65 million. The case has disheartened the South Korean immigrant owners of the dry clean business so much that they are now considering moving back to their native land.
It has been seven years since Jin Nam Chung, Ki Chung and their son, Soo Chung opened their dry-cleaning business in the nation's capital but the lawsuit filed by a District of Columbia administrative hearings judge, Roy Pearson, who has been representing himself in the case, has left them dejected.
AP quotes the court documents as saying that the problem began in May 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alterations to Custom Cleaners in Washington.
He found a pair of pants from one suit was missing when he requested it two days later and asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than $1,000. However, the Chungs found the pants a week later and refused to pay.
D.C. Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson Jr. is suing his dry cleaner — over a supposedly lost pair of pants — for more than $65 million.
The pants were found long ago and are readily available to Pearson. What may become unavailable to him, unless he drops this wholly outrageous and abusive lawsuit, is a reputation as an ethical, high-integrity officer of the court.
Since my organization, the American Tort Reform Association, works to limit this kind of abusive litigation that so hinders small and large businesses alike, we’re offering to raise the necessary funds to buy Pearson a high-quality suit of his choosing if he’ll just do the right thing.
But since our generous offer may not do the trick, ATRA also wrote Monday to the four men who will decide this week if Pearson will be reappointed to a 10-year term with a handsome salary at taxpayers’ expense.
Our letter to Chief Administrative Law Judge Tyrone Butler and the three men who make up the Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges — Robert Rigsby, Henry Levine and Peter Wilner — read as follows:
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown
Dear Judge Butler and Commissioners Rigsby, Levine and Wilner:
On behalf of the American Tort Reform Association, which works to combat lawsuit abuse, I urge you to carefully reconsider the reappointment of Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson Jr. to a 10-year term, scheduled to commence in three days on May 2.
As you are almost surely aware by now, thanks to extensive local and national media coverage, Judge Pearson has chosen to exploit the District’s well-intentioned but loosely worded Consumer Protection and Procedures Act in suing a family-owned D.C. dry cleaner for more than $65 million — over a lost pair of suit pants.
Though the pants have long since been found and made available to him, Judge Pearson has stubbornly continued to waste precious Superior Court resources in a clearly misguided effort to extort a hardworking family that provides a service to its community and tax revenue to the District government.
In a letter to the editor in today’s Washington Post, former National Labors Relations Board chief administrative law judge Melvin Welles urged “any bar to which Mr. Pearson belongs to immediately disbar him and the District to remove him from his position as an administrative law judge.”
To those of us who carefully study the litigation industry’s growing abuse of consumer protection laws around the country (see ATRA general counsel Victor Schwartz’s recent article from Executive Counsel magazine, “Consumer Protection Acts Are a Springboard for Lawsuit Abuse,” enclosed) and to everyday D.C. taxpayers who collectively provide Pearson with a considerable salary, his persistence in this lawsuit raises serious question about his capacity to serve the city as a “fair, impartial, effective, and efficient” judge, as required by the Office of Administrative Hearings Establishment Act.
If Pearson goes ahead with his lawsuit, any party who comes before him in future administrative hearings could understandably lack confidence in his judgment and judicial temperament. Furthermore, this case will become fodder for late-night comics, various members of Congress and other assorted critics of D.C. government if this case, scheduled for trial June 11, remains in the headlines.
Judicial temperament is a critical characteristic of an outstanding jurist. Any individual who chooses to pursue a case such as Pearson’s, at a minimum, calls into question his or her’s. As you consider his reappointment, we strongly urge you to examine closely his judicial temperament and decide whether it is sufficient to serve the people of the District of Columbia properly as an administrative law judge.
Sherman Joyce is president of the American Tort Reform Association, based in Washington.
David Cho, chief executive of Cornerstone, an apparel company in Seoul that distributes Kiton suits (an Italian designer), has offered to fly Pearson to Korea for a fitting, put him up at a hotel, and give him a free, $10,000 tailor made suit, if only Pearson will drop his case against the Chung family, the owners of the Bladensburg Road NE cleaners where the judge's suit pants were lost. Read more:
Update: The judge is up for renewal of his 10 year appointment as an administrative judge. Washington D.C. officials have delayed deciding his renewal until after the trial is over.
"Before the pants suit became a worldwide story, the city's chief administrative law judge, Tyrone Butler, recommended approval of Pearson's application based on his job performance, said D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson and three other sources with direct knowledge of the recommendation."
""Everyone agrees that to file a lawsuit asking for $65 million for a pair of pants is absolutely outrageous," the D.C. official said. "But we are trying to keep that out of the discussion about reappointment. I don't think it's appropriate not to reappoint someone just because they file a lawsuit. You can't retaliate against someone for exercising their constitutional, First Amendment right to file a lawsuit to vindicate their rights."
Here's a live blog from the Washington Post covering the two day trial which began today June 12th. It appears that Roy Pearson, the plaintiff who is representing himself, almost broke down in tears.
Seems like this judge is a bit too "emtionally attached" to those pants......wonder how he made it this far in life with this type of mentality.....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
