The Examiner reports that a federal district court judge has rejected former D.C. Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson’s appeal to be restored to his job. Pearson is known worldwide (Iceland!) for suing his drycleaners for $54 million because they supposedly misplaced a pair of Hickey-Freeman suit pants and then caused him pain and misery. From “Pants suit judge loses shot at getting job back“:

U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle dismissed Roy Pearson’s claims that he was wrongly terminated for exposing corruption within the department where he worked as a administrative judge, the District’s Office of Administrative Hearings.

“This case is a classic example of a plaintiff pleading himself out of court by alleging a host of facts that only serve to totally undercut his claims,” Huvelle wrote in her 36-page opinion.

Judge Huvelle’s ruling is available here. We wearily note that several charges were dismissed without prejudice, so based on history, an appeal is likely.

UPDATE: (10 a.m.): NAM’s counsel, Quentin Riegel, corrects our off-the-cuff legal analysis: “‘Without prejudice’ means 2 of the claims in the complaint can be filed again at the trial level.  It’s not about whether he can appeal.   The federal court dismissed the state law claims because the court had already dismissed the federal claims and didn’t want to review state claims by themselves.” Ah. The district’s attorney general does expect an appeal, the story notes.

More on yesterday’s ruling by the D.C. appellate court, rejecting Roy Pearson’s $54 million lawsuit against his drycleaners. From the American Tort Reform Association, including comment from ATRA’s president, Sherman “Tiger” Joyce:

“That the District’s consumer protection statute allows an absurdly disproportionate case like this to go on as long as it did should be a wake-up call to the mayor and every member of the city council,” Joyce said. “Regardless of the appeals court ruling, every small business owner, every consumer and every D.C. taxpayer has already paid a price as the cost of doing business has gone up and court resources have been wasted.”

Noting a December 13 Washington Post article headlined “D.C. Files Suit Over Special-Ed Case It Calls Frivolous,” Joyce said “D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles is now on record, taking a stand against the kind of lawsuit abuse perpetrated by what he called ‘a very aggressive plaintiff’s bar,’ here in the District. And certainly Roy Pearson’s relentless, years-long assault on the Chungs’ honorable dry cleaning operation was about as aggressive as they come.

“But the Chungs certainly aren’t D.C.’s only small-business victims, just as Mr. Pearson isn’t the only perpetrator of such anti-business litigation,” Joyce continued. “Unfortunately, the District’s well-intentioned consumer protection law invites similarly speculative and economy-sapping lawsuits, and Mr. Nickles, the mayor and the city council ought to do something about it before other community-building businesses are sued out of existence, too.”

And from Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher, who has done an admirable job covering Pearson’s predations. And it’s another good piece, save for the conclusion. Fisher performs a bit of armchair analysis, or speculation, and suggests more to come.

The Chungs hope Pearson will now just leave them alone. But I have a hunch we will hear from Roy Pearson again. Having lost his job, he has more time than ever. He still has something to prove, and he’s learned that in America, one person with time, energy and a passion for a good pair of pants can use the legal system to dismantle the lives of total strangers.

It’s a frightening and in this case devastating power, but it’s also what’s cool and unique about the American system. One person really can make himself heard, without any resources and even without any cause.

No, no, no! It’s not “cool” at all that an obsessive, someone “off” in Fisher’s term, can dismantle the lives of total strangers. It’s wrong, an abuse, and a damn shame.

Christopher Manning, the D.C. attorney who represented the Chungs in the $54 million lawsuit brought by former Administrative Judge Roy Pearson, has issued a statement on behalf of his clients now that Pearson has lost his appeal:

Today the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled resoundingly in favor of the Chung family and denied Mr. Roy Pearson’s appeal of the case completely. The DC Court of Appeals held that the trial court correctly ruled that Mr. Pearson’s claims had no merit whatsoever.

Mr. Jin Chung said “We are very very happy with the result and thank everyone for supporting us. The past three years have been very difficult but we hope this nightmare is finally over.” The Chungs also hope the vague and often unfair DC Consumer Protection Act (which was the primary statutory basis for the lawsuit) will be changed so that others do not suffer like they did.

Mr. Pearson may request that the appeal be heard again by the entire panel of DC Court of Appeals judges and also may petition for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is the Chung’s hope that Mr. Pearson will not attempt to appeal any further and will end his frivolous and baseless attacks on the Chung family.

The three and a half years this case has been pending and appealed have been very difficult for the Chungs. They lost two of their dry cleaning stores and their realization of the American Dream.

The Chungs simply want to quietly return to their one remaining small dry cleaning store at 7th and M streets and to rebuild their lives. 

Manning Sossamon law firm handled the appeal for the Chungs on a pro bono basis.

Earlier post: Roy Pearson Loses Appeal; Hung Himself Out to Dry (The original headline used the “hanged” past tense, which isn’t right, since we were trying to metaphorical, not murderous.)

More at the Blog of the Legal Times.

From WTOP radio, here in Washington, D.C., reporting what by all rights should be the last chapter of the Roy Pearson abusive lawsuit against his drycleaners for supposedly misplacing a pair of pants.

WASHINGTON - Roy L. Peason, the former administrative law judge who sued his dry cleaner for $54 million over a misplaced pair of pants, lost his final appeal in the District’s highest court.

“Appellant failed to establish either that the Chungs’ ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’ and ‘Same Day Service’ signs constituted false or misleading statements, or that they lost his pants.

“Thus, the judgment for the Chungs on the fraud and CPPA claims was proper. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motions for a jury trial,” says the D.C.’s Court of Appeals ruling.

The saga involving the missing pants started when Pearson filed a civil suit against Jin Nam and Ki Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners in Northeast.

If you read the opinion, you’ll see many references to the CPPA, the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act. An obsessive plaintiff can make anyone’s life miserable, but Pearson’s litigiousness was aided by the badly written law; as the American Tort Reform Association notes, “it allows claims regardless of whether a consumer was injured or suffered a loss.” ATRA has proposed reasonable reforms:

• Provide that consumers can recover their actual losses as well as reasonable attorneys fees, not an arbitrary and excessive $1,500 per violation regardless of their injury, except in cases when it can be shown that a defendant’s actions were knowingly and willfully fraudulent or deceptive, and
• Permit only those consumers who experienced a loss because they actually relied on a fraudulent or deceptive advertisement or representation to bring a lawsuit, not those who vaguely claim harm to others or the general public.

The appellate ruling is a model of clear and straightforward reasoning and writing (granted, it’s not a terribly complicated case legally). The Chungs again win the day — although in the end they’re out $100,000 or so in legal costs, were forced closed several of their outlets, and generally suffered the consequences of America’s out-of-control civil justice sysem.