Remember Judge Roy Pearson? That’s the fool that sued for $54 million over the loss of his pants.
Well, he may now lose his job. It’s hard to be humble when you’re so darn stupid.
Updated 1-16-2008. I have done a bit of reading on the lawsuit against the dry cleaners. While Pearson may have had a small claim against them and a valid complaint, it certainly wasn’t worth the frivolous lawsuit. Here’s what Wiki has to say about it:
Pearson rejected a later offer to settle the case for $12,000. D.C. Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz stated that “the court has significant concerns that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith.” However, because there was no motion to dismiss filed, the judge could not dismiss the case. He did, however, resolve some of the issues in the Chungs’ favor in response to their motion for summary judgment, which was filed at the close of discovery.
The owners of the business, South Korean immigrants Jin Nam Chung, Soo Chung and their son, Ki Chung, are reportedly considering moving back to South Korea. After an outpouring of support for the Chungs from members of the public, a website was set up to accept donations for the Chungs’ legal defense.
On May 30, 2007, Pearson reduced his demands to $54 million in damages rather than $67 million. Among his requests were $500,000 in attorney’s fees, $2 million for “discomfort, inconvenience, and mental distress”, and $15,000, which he claimed would be the cost to rent a car every weekend to drive to another dry cleaning service. The remaining $51.5 million would be used to help similarly dissatisfied D.C. consumers sue businesses. Pearson also re-focused his lawsuit from the missing pants to the removal of window signs for “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and “Same Day Service”. Pearson claimed the signs represented fraud on the part of the Chungs. The Chungs’ lawyer, Christopher Manning, alleged that the signs could only be considered fraud if a reasonable person would be misled by them, and that a reasonable person would not see the signs as an unconditional promise. The Chungs’ lawyer portrayed Pearson as a bitter, financially insolvent man; under questioning, Pearson admitted that, at the start of the court case, he had only $1000-2000 in the bank due to divorce proceedings, and was collecting unemployment.
This is my open track-back post for the weekend of August 10th-12th.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Pink Flamingo, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Perri Nelson’s Website, Leaning Straight Up, Wake Up America, Right Truth, Conservative Thoughts, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.