Canada Free Press -- ARCHIVES

Because without America, there is no free world.

Return to Canada Free Press

Judge Roy Pearson, frivolous lawsuits

From $65 million to zero for Judge Roy Pearson's missing pants

By Judi McLeod

Monday, June 25, 2007

Judge Roy Pearson, whose demands for $65 million for a pair of lost trousers, may have ended up losing his shirt in court.

Sounding very much like the non-nonsense Judge Judy of television fame, Washington Superior Court Judge Judy Bartnoff ruled that Pearson had not proven that Custom Cleaners dry cleaning shop had lost his prized pants in the first place.

Judge Bartnoff also said that Pearson's theory that the owners owed him $54 million because they lost his pants despite a sign promising "Satisfaction Guaranteed" had no basis in the law.

Judge Pearson--who as his own lawyer wanted between $390 to $425 an hour arguing the case, had spent 1,400 hours preparing it, basing his legal argument on the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign.

"Never before in recorded history have a group of defendants engaged in such misleading and unfair business practices," is how Pearson put it, adding that it was his "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, some times in tears, to Judge Barnoff, he kept referring to the royal "we".

"A reasonable consumer would not interpret "Satisfaction Guaranteed" to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's reasonable demands," Bartnoff wrote in her ruling.

The case gained international attention with reporters from as far away as Europe in court to hear the case argued. Pearson, an administrative law judge, who was headed back to the bench after a stint on the dole, drew derision not only from an angry public, but also from trial lawyers and tort reform advocates across the United States.

People were so steamed about the Korean dry cleaners being compared to the Nazis that an online defense fund for the defendants sprung up after a story was written about them on ABCNEW.com.

Having to hire lawyers and take time off from their dry-cleaning business for two years running, Korean immigrants Jin and Soo Chung and their son, who owns Custom Cleaners and two other dry cleaning stores in the Fort Lincoln section of Washington, almost got literally taken to the cleaners.

The Chungs, who had tried unsuccessfully to persuade Pearson not to come to their shop over yet another allegation of the judge's lost pants, say they spent thousands of dollars having to defend themselves.

The judge ruled Pearson must pay the defendants' court costs, which amount to about $1,000. Bartnoff said she would consider at a later date whether to make Pearson also pony up the Chungs' attorney fees, which make up the larger portion of their legal bills.

Defense lawyer Christopher Manning, had depicted Pearson as a bitter, seriously litigious man recently divorced and beset by financial problems.

Pearson seemed to be bearing a grudge against the Chungs from a previous run-in with them about another pair of allegedly missing pants. In that episode, Pearson, a non-driver, was compensated by $150 and asked not to return. His attendance at the dry cleaners was tied to the fact that it is within easy walking distance of his home.

Meanwhile, thee infamous case of the missing pants ended when Roy Pearson met his real life Judge Judy in court.

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