Justice Prevails

by hilzoy

From the Washington Post:

"The D.C. administrative law judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaner for $54 million over a pair of lost pants found out this morning what he's going to get for all his troubles.

Nothing.

In a verdict that surprised no one, except perhaps the plaintiff himself, a D.C. Superior Court judge denied Roy Pearson the big payday he claimed was his due.

Delivering her decision in writing, Judge Judith Bartnoff wrote 23 pages dissecting and dismissing Pearson's claim that he was defrauded by the owners of Custom Cleaners and their "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign.

"A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands or to accede to demands that the merchant has reasonable grounds to dispute," the ruling said. " . . . The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever."

It was a pointed rebuke of Pearson's claim, and came with an order to pay the cleaners' court costs. But even bigger troubles may loom for Pearson.

Financially, he could soon be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees incurred by the owners of Customer Cleaners. Attorneys for the Chungs have said they will seek such payments, as well as sanctions against Pearson for bringing the lawsuit. Bartnoff said in her ruling that she would decide those issues after both sides have filed their motions, counter-motions and legal briefs.

Professionally, Pearson could find himself out of his $96,000-a-year job as an administrative law judge for the District government."

The decision is here; unfortunately, it's short on scathing moments. I'm glad the dry cleaners will be getting court costs; if they get attorney's fees as well, that will be even better. Before I wrote my first piece on this bizarre case, I read around, and chanced to find a copy of Pearson's divorce proceedings. They're not nearly as outrageous as this case, but they did suggest a person who was willing to use his knowledge of the law to bully other people by filing odd and excessive complaints. As the decision in the current case states:

"The trial court in Fairfax County made specific findings that the litigation was disproportionately long, despite the relative simplicity of the case, and that Mr. Pearson “in good part is responsible for excessive driving up of everything that went on here” and created “unnecessary litigation.” Mr. Pearson therefore was ordered to pay $12,000 of his wife’s attorney’s fees. Mr. Pearson appealed, and the Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding."

This guy seems to be a serial abuser of the judicial system. Having to pay the attorney's fees for the dry cleaners might make him think twice about doing this again to some poor unsuspecting waitress or gas station attendant who rubs him the wrong way.

Comments

[b burnham]

fuck you roy...!

[hilzoy]

b burnham: the posting rules forbid profanity. (Think workplace filters.)

[Free Lunch]

Now, will the DC Bar and any other bar that he is a member of please discipline him for abuse of process. I'm glad he lost and I hope that attorney's fees are awarded and that his reappointment to ALJ does not happen, but people who are obsessive in that way need to be stopped before they make life hell for other people.

[Free Lunch]

Now, will the DC Bar and any other bar that he is a member of please discipline him for abuse of process. I'm glad he lost and I hope that attorney's fees are awarded and that his reappointment to ALJ does not happen, but people who are obsessive in that way need to be stopped before they make life hell for other people.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

This reminds me of the fact that 99% of lawyers give the rest of us a bad name. ;)

[LizardBreath]

Snicker. I'd never heard that one.

[Jay C]

Wait a sec: the judge in this case produced a 23 page decision dismissing this ludicrous $50+ million suit?

Was she getting paid (like pulp authors of old) by the word?

Sheesh: why was more than "Case dismissed for lack of merit" even needed?*

*note: IANAL (if it isn't blatantly obvious already!).

[Free Lunch]

Jay-

I'm guessing that the judge is laying the foundation for awarding of attorney's fees. Our court system generally ignores the fact that lawyers cost money. In some ways that is good, but, as we see in this case, ignoring the cost of lawyers would be a miscarriage of justice.

It's great, Sebastian, that the best lawyer jokes come from lawyers ... maybe.

[CharleyCarp]

The guy is going to appeal. There's ample reason to write this long an opinion, especially given the length of the factual recitation.

[Jeff]

I wonder if the guy who bought a brass rat was a lawyer? (One of my favorite lawyer jokes)

[liberal japonicus]

A lawyer joke thread at TiO seems to be called for.