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.

Can we at least get the court to order sanctions this time?

Tying up more public resources and abusing the same small-business owners again and again and again, Roy Pearson has filed for a rehearing of the dismissal of the $54 million lawsuit he brought against his D.C. drycleaners, the Chungs, for supposedly misplacing his pants.

The Chungs’ attorney, Chris Manning, notifies us this morning that Pearson filed a Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc with the DC Court of Appeals, asking to have the December 18, 2008 denial of his appeal of the pants lawsuit overturned. (See the petition, here.)

Manning says in an e-mail that if the petition for a rehearing is granted, the original panel of three judges that heard the case would rehear the case. If the petition for rehearing en banc is granted, the entire panel of DC Court of Appeals judges would rehear the case. Pearson could also eventually petition for the United States Supreme Court to hear the case, although surely he would be stopped before that, right?

Manning adds:

Mr. Pearson’s Petition is sad and unfortunate.  Amazingly, despite two resounding defeats, Mr. Pearson has, once again, decided to prolong the needless agony of this case for the Chungs, for the DC taxpayers and for everyone involved.  The Chungs and I hope the DC Court of Appeals will deny Mr. Pearson’s Petition and will put this case to rest in this jurisdiction.  Most importantly, the Chungs and I call on Mayor Fenty and the DC City Council to amend the very vague and often unfair DC Consumer Protection Act so that cases like this cannot happen again.

Pearson’s obsessive litigation has cost the Chungs more than $100,000 in legal costs, and they closed two of their drycleaning outlets because of the legal harassment. Pearson lost his D.C. administrative law judge post because of his litigiousness, and has become a subject of international mockery and opprobrium, deservedly so.

Perhaps we’ve missed it, but despite repeated calls for reforms to the D.C. Consumer Protection Act, we’ve not seen comments on the subject from Mayor Fenty or the Council. Let’s get moving.

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.