By Judi McLeod
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Roy Pearson's demand for $65 million in damages from a neighbourhood dry cleaners should go down in legal history as the Case of the 'Ele-pants'.
The D.C. judge who sued his neighbourhood dry cleaners all for losing his pants has got to be the personification of capital "F" frivolous lawsuits.
In a world where parents survive children killed by predators, Pearson, an administrative law judge, broke down while testifying about the emotional pain of having the cleaners give him the wrong trousers.
Testimony came from an 89-year-old woman in a wheelchair who recounted being chased out of the cleaners by an angry owner. In an open court, the owners of Custom Cleaners were compared to the Nazis.
"I knew it was all my fault," a German television reporter quipped to the Washington Post's Marc Fisher.
Taking a breather from Paris Hilton, reporters from at least five countries were in the courtroom. Reporters seemed to outnumber members of the Korean Dry Cleaners Association. Media antics included some clown from Fox TV turned out in neon-colour paisley pants to cover what the tort reform lobby now calls the $65-million "pantsuit".
Difficult to believe that Pearson spent more than 1,400 hours preparing his case. How much can you really find to say about a pair of pants lost by your corner drycleaners?
And get this: "Never before in recorded history have a group of defendants engaged in such misleading and unfair business practices," Pearson claimed in an opening statement bound to outlast Kris Kringle's in Hollywood's Miracle on 34th Street courtroom.
For readers who just have to know what led to 'Ele-pants Come to Court': In 2005, Pearson was starting off his new job as a judge. With shoes shined, pencils sharpened, his suits, languishing in a closet during a spate of unemployment, were rounded up for the drycleaners. Plucky Person brought five suits in for alterations because he'd put on 20 pounds and needed to have the seams of his pants let out. Four suits were returned to their owner with no problema. However, one jacket came back home minus its pants.
Pearson concluded that the Chung family, Korean immigrants who came to the United States from Seoul in 1992, now the hard-working owners of three drycleaning establishments, did not live up to the sign in their shop that promised "Satisfaction Guaranteed". Pearson told the court he decided that he had no choice but to take on "the awesome responsibility" of suing the Chungs on behalf of every resident of the District of Columbia.
Though there was no one with Judge Pearson as he cited complaints to Judge Judith Barnoff, he kept referring to the royal "we".
Defense lawyer Christopher Manning, who thought he had the skinny on the judge depicted Pearson as a bitter, seriously litigious man recently divorced and beset by financial problems, and fostering a long running grudge against the Chungs dating back to a previous run-in about another pair of pants. That time, Pearson the pant loser, was compensated by $150. The Chungs had apparently tried to ban him from their shop, but Pearson convinced them to let him come back because their drycleaning shop was within walking distance of his home.
It could come as a relief to DC garage owners that Judge Pearson doesn't own a car.
Pearson, who cut the system a break by reducing his claim from $67-million to $54-million, wants to be awarded attorney's fees of between $390 to $425 an hour, even though he's representing himself.
The trial, expected to end today, is one for the books.
It belongs in the Ripleys Believe it or Not Frivolous Lawsuit of all Time Category.
Meanwhile, the real Judge Judy would be telling Pearson, "Get a Life".
Canada Free Press founding editor Most recent by Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. Her work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck. Judi can be reached at: judi@canadafreepress.com
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2018 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2018 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement