Roy Pearson: By Now, the Pants Are Out of Style Anyway

By September 10, 2008Briefly Legal

He’s still at it, is Roy Pearson, the erstwhile D.C. Administrative Judge whose legal harassment of his drycleaners came to represent the worst excesses of American litigitiousness. The phrase, “$54 million pants lawsuit,” is now a generally recognized term; the Chungs are a legitimate cause celebre as small business-owners driven almost to financial ruin because of Pearson’s lawsuit.

Pearson is seeking to expand his reputation for obsessive litigating to the world of employment law, appealing a D.C. city panel’s decision to not reappoint him to his judicial post. From News Channel 8:

A former Judge who lost a $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaners over a missing pair of pants is suing to get his job back and $1 million in damages.

Roy Pearson filed the suit in Federal Court, claiming he was wrongfully dismissed for exposing corruption within the Office of Administration Hearings where he worked as an administrative judge. Pearson said he was protected as a whistle-blower and that the city used the fact that he was being “vilified in the media” to cut him out of his job. (Update: Turns out appeal was filed in May.)

In other Pearson-related legal news, the D.C. Court of Appeals has released its October calendar and Pearson will soon make oral arguments in his appeal, challenging the Superior Court’s dismissal of his lawsuit against the drycleaners, the Chungs.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008 9:30 a.m.
No. 07-CV-872 Roy L. Pearson v. Soo Chung, et al.
Roy L. Pearson, Pro Se
Christopher C. S. Manning, Esquire

Pro Se? Well of course. (Manning is the Chungs’ attorney.)

UPDATE: Manning comments, via ABC News 7 (a better story): “Now, a year later, we have a new mountain forming — all in relation to one pair of pants,” said Chris Manning, the Chungs’ attorney. “We are hoping that we are victorious in appeal, but the important thing to take away is that no one wins, everyone loses in a case like this.”

UPDATE (Thursday 1:10 p.m.): To get a good sense of how much court and lawyer time expended because  Pearson’s obsessiveness, take a look at the docket from D.C. Superior Court in the suit, Pearson v. Chung.

Leave a Reply