E-Dog Night Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 Mark Twain once said that "Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502763.html Lawyer's Price For Missing Pants: $65 Million By Marc Fisher Thursday, April 26, 2007; Page B01 When the neighborhood dry cleaner misplaced Roy Pearson's pants, he took action. He complained. He demanded compensation. And then he sued. Man, did he sue. Two years, thousands of pages of legal documents and many hundreds of hours of investigative work later, Pearson is seeking to make Custom Cleaners pay -- would you believe more than the payroll of the entire Washington Nationals roster? He says he deserves millions for the damages he suffered by not getting his pants back, for his litigation costs, for "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort," for the value of the time he has spent on the lawsuit, for leasing a car every weekend for 10 years and for a replacement suit, according to court papers. Pearson is demanding $65,462,500. The original alteration work on the pants cost $10.50. By the way, Pearson is a lawyer. Okay, you probably figured that. But get this: He's a judge, too -- an administrative law judge for the District of Columbia. (Click link above for full article) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 Even if he left the tin-foil wrapped ziploc bag from Councilman Barry in the pocket, it's still not worth 65 large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stophovr6 Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 How do people not see themselves as ridiculous? I could never even consider demanding something so ridiculous and ludicrous. That's totally inappropriate. It's lewd, vesivius, salacious, outrageous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 An administrative law judge is not really a judge. And this guy is a tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 Can't he be sanctioned for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan07 Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 LOL what if he won the lawsuit. The dry cleaners would be paying him for years. HAHA Seriously though, what a ****ing idiot! Does he really think he'll get the money? Douchebag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stophovr6 Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 This puts a whole new spin on the term "take em' to the cleaners." HA! I crack me up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Dog Night Posted April 26, 2007 Author Share Posted April 26, 2007 An administrative law judge is not really a judge.And this guy is a tool. They don't wear black robes and pound gavels, but they serve pretty much the same purpose. I don't pretend to know too much about them, but from what I understand, they are appointed and only serve in intra-goverment disputes. Nonetheless, this guy should have a lot more sense then to file an obviously frivilious law suit, shamefully using his knowledge of law to effectively assualt the dry cleaners. And, in my opinion, he's in line for a vigorous kick of his ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 This puts a whole new spin on the term "take em' to the cleaners."HA! I crack me up. That's the joke I was going to use. You win this round, Stophovr6, you win this round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 They don't wear black robes and pound gavels, but they serve pretty much the same purpose. I don't pretend to know too much about them, but from what I understand, they are appointed and only serve in intra-goverment disputes. Yep. Basically, they do administrative hearings. Things like adjudicating license discipline at the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, or valuing workers' comp. claims for the worker's comp. board. It is real stuff for the people who are involved in the disputes, but the ALJ's powers are very limited. They can't hold you in contempt or issue injunctive relief or do any of the other things that make a real judge so powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 is there anyway the people of DC can sue this guy for wasting their money and time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 is there anyway the people of DC can sue this guy for wasting their money and time They should sue him for exactly one penny more then he is suing the dry cleaners. lol What a friggin idiot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 Imagine the for "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort," caused by being served with a 65 million dollar lawsuit. For all that unnecessary suffering due to a frivolous lawsuit, I would demand at least 66 million in my countersuit. I mean being threatened with a 65 million dollar suit would seriously stress me out... or start laughing followed by looking into how to declare bankrupsy if somehow this idiot pulled it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 must have been one hell of a pair of pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 Actually, he should be awarded a victory in this case, but with a judgment of only one dollar and no recompense for his legal or other fees. That way he wins and loses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 I saw this earlier today and actually posted in the comments section twice, which i dont ever recall doing before. Comment 1 was that the judge should go to jail and comment #2 was that its pretty sad that this guy is a JUDGE and has nothing better to do with his time, money, and energy than to put that poor couple through hell every day over a pair of pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Editorial Follow-up Kick in the Pants Just deserts for a ludicrous lawsuit Thursday, May 3, 2007; Page A24 IS THERE anything more absurd than someone pursuing a $65 million lawsuit over a lost pair of pants? Well, how about this same person being in a position to adjudicate the cases of other people? Or that there's a chance of his getting a new 10-year term as judge? A panel of four D.C. officials is considering the reappointment of administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson Jr. in light of devastating publicity about a court case he brought. As reported by Post columnist Marc Fisher, Mr. Pearson wants his local dry cleaner to pay him millions of dollars for the "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort" caused by the loss of his pants as well as for his legal costs. The unfortunate people being sued by Mr. Pearson say that they offered reimbursement, tried to settle and even ended up finding what they believe are the pants. But Mr. Pearson persisted with his outrageous demands, and the owners of Custom Cleaners say they incurred staggering legal bills. A trial is set for next month; we hope a judge will finally inject some sense into proceedings that have already taken ludicrous amounts of time. That Mr. Pearson was able to persist in such a case raises questions about D.C. consumer protection laws. The American Tort Reform Association said that city law, while well intentioned, is so loosely worded that it allows abuse. D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer and the D.C. Council need to take a look. Equally serious is whether Mr. Pearson should continue in his $100,512 job adjudicating alleged civil infractions of D.C. rules. The case raises serious questions about his judgment and temperament. Moreover, this is not the first case involving Mr. Pearson that has raised such questions. The Virginia Court of Appeals, in a 2005 review of Mr. Pearson's divorce proceedings, upheld findings that he created "unnecessary litigation" in a relatively simple case and was responsible for "excessive driving up" of legal costs. As the four-member judicial tenure commission considers another term for Mr. Pearson, it should think back to why the Office of Administrative Hearings was created in the first place: to increase public confidence in the system of administrative justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 Update on this story: Plaintiff Gets Nothing in $54M Case of Missing Pants 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." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500443_pf.html) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 He also has to pay the defendant's legal fees, and maybe more. And now he's also a laughingstock :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artmonkforHOF Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 Good to hear, I really hope this SOB gets fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Clark Fan Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 As an attorney myself I have to say this man is a disgrace to the legal profession and hope he is disbarred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 Damn shame the judge had to waste her time writing a 23 page response. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 Damn shame the judge had to waste her time writing a 23 page response. :doh: I bet she had fun doing it, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Well, not only was the case dismissed, but looks like payback's in store http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=1275886 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Well, not only was the case dismissed, but looks like payback's in store http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=1275886 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.