Monday, June 25, 2007

Judge Pearson loses pants suit

Let's see how much hoopla is made about the sensible result as opposed to the gaudy allegations: Lubna Takruri of the Associated Press reports this morning about the outcome of D.C. Administrative Law Judge Roy L. Pearson's suit against a dry cleaning shop that, he said, lost his pants. Here's the bottom line, quoting District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff's order: "Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr."

Pearson had sued for $67 million. He later "lowered" his demand to $54 million. He reportedly turned down a settlement offer of $12,000.

That's $12,000 -- for a pair of pants.

The suit was widely cited by so-called tort reformers and other lobbyists as an example of how crazy the American justice system is.

Do not hold your breath waiting for any retractions.

There is one question that I have about this case, however: How did it get all the way to trial? Why could this case not be disposed of by motion? There may be grist for the reformer's mill in the answer to that question... but don't hold your breath waiting for any answers to this question either.


SQT said...

I always figured the case made it as far as it did because it was a judge who sued. I don't know, but if it had been someone of a completely different profession, I suspect we wouldn't have seen this go so far.

landgirl said...

Cur, does that mean dry cleaners do not have to pay anything for the hassle mr Pants generated? Who pays their attorney fees? What about the lost time from their business? Sorry to be dense but I worry about those folks who get caught up in someone else's neuroses.

Barb said...

I just KNEW you'd post about this :)

Amanda said...

This case was plain insanity from the beginning. I'm glad the judge lost, and I'm glad the defendants (respondents?) got costs out of him.

Good grief. He's a judge. Frivolous law suit, anyone?