Time to Countersue Roy L Pearson?

I was looking at my blog stats a little while ago and I was surprised to see that there had been a big surge again on my posts about Roy L Pearson (Roy L Pearson in "The Wrong Trousers" and Roy L Pearson to lose his shirt? )

Roy L Pearson was a judge who launched a ludicrous campaign against a dry cleaners over an allegedly lost pair of trousers (pants to you Americans!). The judge in the case threw the case out but it was so idiotic it should never have come to court.

Now it seems that the owners of the dry cleaning shop have closed and sold the shop involved in the dispute. According to an AP report, the owners are citing a loss of revenue and the emotional strain of defending the lawsuit. They will focus their energy on another dry-cleaning shop they still own.

"This is a truly tragic example of how devastating frivolous litigation can be to the American people and to small businesses," their attorney Chris Manning said in a statement. The Chungs incurred more than $100,000 in legal expenses, which were eventually paid with help from fundraisers and donations. Even after the trial ended favourably the Chungs lost customers and revenue. They have now closed two of their three businesses since the lawsuit began.

Apparently Pearson is pursuing an appeal (presumably seeking to call God as a a witness) and has made no comment on this development.

I wonder if there is scope to counter sue Pearson back to the stone age. At least he wont have to worry about lost trousers again....

Roy L Pearson to lose his shirt ?

Judge Judith Bartnoff has ruled Monday against Roy L Pearson in his $54 million lawsuit over a missing pair of trousers. The judge ruled that owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's consumer protection law by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store window.

"A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands" or to agree to demands that the merchant would have reasonable grounds for disputing, the judge wrote.

Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung.

Pearson originally sought $67 million from the Chungs, claiming they lost a pair of trousers then tried to give him a pair he said were not his. He arrived at the amount by adding up years of alleged law violations and almost $2 million in common law fraud claims. Bartnoff wrote, however, that Pearson failed to prove that the pants the dry cleaner tried to return were not the pants he had taken in for alterations.

Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, praised the ruling, which followed a two-day trial earlier this month. "Judge Bartnoff has chosen common sense and reasonableness over irrationality and unbridled venom." he said

See also Roy L Pearson in the Wrong Trousers

UPDATE: the Chungs have sold the shop where the incident was alleged to have taken place. See here

Roy L Pearson in "The Wrong Trousers"

If someone seeks damages of $54m the expectation is that they have been dreadfully wronged, mutilated, slandered or something. $54m in respect of a pair of lost trousers would strike most people as a touch over the top. However, this is the amount claimed by American judge Roy L Pearson from a dry cleaning store that lost a pair of his trousers.

Pearson told a local court in Washington DC that Custom Cleaners should pay the sum because a "satisfaction guaranteed" sign deceived consumers who, like him, were dissatisfied with their experience. "You will search the records of the District of Columbia courts in vain for a case of more egregious or wilful misconduct," Pearson told D.C. Judge Judith Bartnoff.

The lawyer for the Korean immigrants who run the dry cleaner said Pearson was looking for a way to resolve his financial difficulties after a divorce."It's simply a frivolous lawsuit brought by an unhappy customer with a bone to pick," attorney Chris Manning said.

Pearson filed suit after the cleaners lost his trousers in 2005. Defendants Jin Chung, Soo Chung and Ki Chung said they located the pants a few days later, but Pearson said they were not his.

Pearson, who has rejected several settlement offers, counted 12 separate violations of a consumer-protection law over 1,200 days, multiplied by the three defendants. At $1,500 per day, that is $65 million. He has also sought $15,000 to rent a car to take his clothes to another cleaner for the next 10 years. He subsequently did reduce his claim to $54 million.

The case is expected to conclude today, hopefully with substantial embarrassment for the plaintiff. Okay having a dry cleaners lose your trousers is a pain and compensation is appropriate, but to claim over $50m in such circumstances is utterly stupid. I would have thought this suit should cast doubt over his suitability to continue as a judge

Update. Judge Bartnoff ruled against Pearson today (25 June). Click here for further news

UPDATE: the Chungs have sold the shop where the incident was alleged to have taken place. See here