WTOP reports the latest development in the $54 million lawsuit filed by former D.C. Administrative Judge Roy Pearson against his drycleaners for supposedly losing a pair of suit pants:

WASHINGTON - The D.C. Court of Appeals has denied the petition of Roy Pearson to re-hear his case.

The former administrative law judge sued his dry cleaner for $54 million after they lost his pants, claiming they didn’t live up to their satisfaction guarantee.

Pearson lost the first trial in D.C. Superior Court and lost again before a three-member panel of the Court of Appeals. He then asked the entire appeals court to re-hear the case — which they have now refused.

Pearson’s only remaining option is the U.S. Supreme Court.

Don’t forget international courts. The Chungs are originally from South Korea, so there’s clear standing for continued litigation.

UPDATE: (9:25 a.m.): Chris Manning, the attorney for the Chungs, issues a statement:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The D.C. Court of Appeals has denied Roy Pearson’s voluminous petition to rehear his appeal of his $54M claim against the Chung family dry cleaner.

Mr. Pearson lost at trial in the D.C. Superior Court, lost again on his appeal before the D.C. Court of Appeals and has now lost for the third time in being denied a rehearing before the D.C. Court of Appeals..

Mr. Pearson’s only remaining option for appeal is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case.

The Chungs sincerely hope that Mr. Pearson’s three resounding defeats will finally convince him to drop his pursuit of his frivolous claims and to put the case to rest once and for all.

Please direct any inquiries to the below contact information.

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.

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.

The court proceedings Wednesday in Roy Pearson’s $54 million lawsuit against his drycleaners made international news …again. How great for America’s global image as a place to do business.

 They’re even paying attention in Sweden!

 More coverage…

WSJ Law Blog, “Will The Great American Pants Suit Fail for a Lack of Precedent?”

The Telegraph (U.K.), “Great American $54 million lost trousers suit returns to DC court”

And an apt musing from Washington Post columnist John Kelly:

I wonder if dry cleaners across America have Roy Pearson’s picture taped up near their cash registers with a little sign: “Do not accept items from this man.”

The absurd and abusive litigation by Roy Pearson, the former D.C. administrative judge, against his drycleaners continued with oral arguments Wednesday before a three-judge panel of the District’s Court of Appeals. Pearson still claims the Chung family owes him $54 million for failing to live up to their shop’s “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign when they misplaced his suit pants.

The Washington Post’s columnist Marc Fisher has the story, as always, in “The Pants Watch Never Stops“:

All three judges were repeatedly frustrated by Pearson’s inability to offer a direct answer when asked if he is arguing that any merchant who offers satisfaction must therefore bow to any customer’s demand for damages, no matter how absurd.

Judge Thompson repeatedly tried to get Pearson to name some case, some legal authority, backing up his view of the meaning of “Satisfaction Guaranteed,” but Pearson did not satisfy her.

“Why isn’t this simply a contract dispute,” Farrell asked, in which “you sue them in small claims court and you have an objective determination of your loss? Where is the fraud?”

Just so. Pearson’s original beef could be legit for all we know (although his subsequent behavior suggests not), but his obsessive litigation against the Chungs, costing them tens of thousands of dollars and the closure of two of their shops, is outrageous.  Crazy and bad things are always going to happen, but D.C. law should not encourage more craziness.

The American Tort Reform Association this week again made a positive suggestion for fixing the law. In a release, ATRA’s president, Sherman Joyce, argued for reforming the district’s consumer protection statute, which allowed Pearson seek $1,500 for each day that the dry cleaner displayed signs stating ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’ and ‘Same Day Service’ — even if they had no connection to the fate of the pants. Joyce’s suggestion:

By requiring that a plaintiff prove that he or she actually relied on a supposedly fraudulent or deceptive advertisement or representation, lawmakers could drastically reduce this kind of lawsuit abuse. After all, Roy Pearson’s claim against Custom Cleaners alleged that the display of basic window signs somehow constituted a willful fraud punishable by a mind-boggling, potentially bankrupting civil damages award.

Policymakers also would do well to limit plaintiffs’ claims for damages to out-of-pocket costs, except in cases when it can be proved that a defendant’s actions were knowingly and willfully fraudulent or deceptive. In Pearson’s case against the cleaners, for example, his out-of-pocket costs, at most, would have included the price of a replacement suit, alterations and any reasonable legal expenses.

Not $54 million worth of damages, in other words.

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.