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.

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.