Maybe the good Mr. Pearson could ask Congress for a 65M bail out.

Did the clerk really need to right a 23 page opinion on this?

I think that a 23 page opinion is absolutely required on this $65 million dollar lawsuit. Absurdity breeds absurdity.

Would this case continue if the loser would be required to pay court costs? This is just another example of the need for "loser pays" reforms to end such abusive lawsuits.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy....

Think'd he get the idea if I started suing HIM in a frivolous lawsuit? I'm thinking $1 mil every time I have to hear about him.

Courts need to hit more often the "stupid lawsuit, should never have been filed" button.

While I'm glad the court ruled appropriately, couldn't it manage to take a few sentences in there to point out that Pearson was an abusive litigant, because it defies all sanity to engage in this much litigation over a pair of pants?

Well, at least he didn't try to wear a hat in court, so I guess that gets him off the hook.

Steve P. is right. This is the sort of person who obviously lacks even the semblance of perspective. In his mind, his action and his lawsuit is perfectly reasonable and he is baffled that he has lost and been turned into a laughingstock.

The sad part about it is that he is a lawyer and achieved a position as an ALJ before losing his marble, and therefore has cast disrepute upon the entire judicial process. But it's not for the appellate court to say that in disposing of his case (and his appeal, which is also his procedural right) on the merits. Better to take disposition of the case seriously on its face, so that he walks away thinking that he got a fair shake.

Now, if the Court wants to set a Rule 11 hearing now that the merits have been resolved...

@ Elliot1123: No...Pearson is not, but there's a unlawful termination suit pending (at lease according to DCist).

~S~

My favorite parts of the factual background:

1. This guy had a law degree but, prior to getting the DC Administrative Law Judge position, didn't own a suit.

2. Once he got his position as a DC ALJ, he went out and bough not just any suit, but a Hickey Freeman suit from Saks. Um, how much does a DC ALJ get paid? Enough to afford some of the most high-end suits you can get? (And what does it say about someone's judgment that they immediately go out and buy a top-of-the-line suit once they get a higher salary?)

3. Despite buying a Hickey Freeman suit, he wasn't able to pay the dry cleaners on several occasions.

Lovely.

Thanks to his, this won't be the last we hear from him

Gotta watch my typos before I post.

Thank you for the humor!

Steve P...

As they say, a ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are made for. In not doing more to restrain and punish a frivolous litigator, the court is giving him greater opportunity to once again mistreat some hapless innocents like the dry cleaners.

Would you say that a judge who gave a serial killer a lenient sentence was being smart, because it reduces the risk that the killer will come after him?

Burt Likko, where's the fair shake for the dry cleaner here? Pearson forced them to spend years litigating an entirely ridiculous law suit. A fair result would be to force Pearson to pay all of their legal bills and write a letter of apology, suitable for framing in their store. If Pearson would take that as not having been given a "fair shake," that's HIS problem, not ours.

Terivus, you're confusing facts. Pearson owned (at least) 5 suits at the time he took the ALJ position which he needed altered.

Nothing all that odd about this, if I had to wear suits daily I would have to have mine altered ( I'm a growing boy, I'm just growing horizontally instead of vertically) and I have thousands of dollars worth of expensive (but too small) clothing sitting in my closet, although nothing with burgundy pinstripes. Unless the sartorial standards have changed significantly in the recent past, I would lay money that most law professors would have to visit the tailors if they were to assume a judgeship (or perhaps a deanship) to have some suits altered.

I applaud the court for its retraint. I think restraint is a good idea for judges, especially when they dislike a litigant. Now, if the court actually had a suit for malicious prosecution before it, as it may have in the future, that's the time to get on the high horse and really lecture this litigant.

I am also glad they wrote a serious and sober opinion for publication. That alone, will prevent some such future cases.

Unless the sartorial standards have changed significantly in the recent past, I would lay money that most law professors would have to visit the tailors if they were to assume a judgeship (or perhaps a deanship) to have some suits altered.

I thought they were naked under their robes.

I thought they were naked under their robes.

maybe the deans, none of the judges I know, all of them at least wear trousers and usually you can see a necktie &collar. of course judges could just use trouser legs from the knee down attached by suspenders to a collar and necktie, I don't usually see anything but rob between those.

cannot recall about the deans, maybe they are nekkid under the robes, does that make the idea of becoming a dean more or less scary though?

Sigh. In one of my many quixotic attempts to point out some real law in these ridiculous cases (and I hasten to point out that I think Roy Pearson is a complete idiot and his case should have been thrown out quickly):

There is a huge and continuing live issue in these cases, especially in some states. Some states, such as Maryland, limit the damages which can be awarded to the amount in the ad damnum clause, even if the jury awards more. See, e.g., Maryland Rule 2-341. The concept, according to Maryland's chief proponent of this rule over the last twenty years, is to provide certainty in the evaluation of litigation claims. The rule is still true to some degree in D.C. (home of the Pearson v Chung case). Maryland and D.C. have hybrid rules, where you can, in some (D.C.) or all (Maryland) circumstances, move to amend and increase the ad damnum after verdict.

The same problem has been around for a long time. As the Supreme Court of New Jersey noted twenty years ago:
"While it was generally assumed that the specific damage demand had some positive value as an informational tool – it could, for example, serve as an immediate jurisdictional barometer of the amount in controversy – its potential attributes were significantly outweighed by one lamentable drawback: the binding effect of the ad damnum demand tended to encourage exaggerated claims. Some attorneys, facing the possibility of being locked into a lesser award when the jury was willing to give more, protected their clients’ interests by demanding astronomical sums that bore no relation whatsoever to any realistic appraisal of the value of the case." Lang v. Baker, 501 A.2d 153, 155-56 (N.J. 1985)(internal citations omitted). “The true evil of this practice was in the growing public perception that these huge damage demands were symptomatic of a defect in the legal profession. . . . the practice by some of routinely demanding unrealistic damages in the complaint cast the entire legal profession in disrepute.” Id.

Sounds like Roy Pearson, doesn't it? Except in this case, the lawyers HAVE to file astronomical ad damnums to avoid malpractice. I have one of these cases now where the conscientious (and victorious) trial attorney did not file a motion to increase the ad damnum soon enough, and we're on our fourth appeal. Won each one so far, but at the last oral argument, a higher court judge designated himself onto my panel to tell me that he "has a problem with the state of the law." Fortunately, he also said he was looking for a solution that wouldn't result in my trial counsel facing malpractice claims; we've been waiting almost a year for the opinion.

Bottom line: Roy Pearson was wrong, but not all lawyers who ask for big money on smallish claims are similarly stupid. Some just don't want to lose their houses.

Who needs pants?

BZ:

Sounds like Roy Pearson, doesn't it? Except in this case, the lawyers HAVE to file astronomical ad damnums to avoid malpractice. I have one of these cases now where the conscientious (and victorious) trial attorney did not file a motion to increase the ad damnum soon enough, and we're on our fourth appeal. Won each one so far, but at the last oral argument, a higher court judge designated himself onto my panel to tell me that he "has a problem with the state of the law." Fortunately, he also said he was looking for a solution that wouldn't result in my trial counsel facing malpractice claims; we've been waiting almost a year for the opinion.

Last night I was reading the Eyrbiggja Saga and there was an episode that seemed very much in line with your point. (A great deal of saga material is basically historical legal thrillers written down in the Middle Ages of Iceland, but taking place a few hundred years earlier.)

The episode focuses on a dispute between Thorolf Twisted-Foot and his son, Arnkel. Arnkel has taken on guardianship of a freeman named Ulfar whose hay was stolen by Thorolf. In retribution, Arnkel slaughters six of Thorolf's oxen. Arnkel is a "godhi," which is usually translated as "chieftain" but probably means something more similar to "lawyer-priest." (Unlike most "chieftains" we think about the relationship of a godhi and his bondir was a mutual and consent-based relationship which either one could terminate without economic sanctions.)

Anyway, Thorolf goes to another godhi named Snorri and offers a piece of land to Snorri if Snorri will prosecute Arnkel. Snorri accepts, prosecutes Arnkel, and wins the case. The verdict awarded is 12 ounces of silver, far less than the amount of land given to Snorri. Thorolf is naturally upset over offering so much to his advocate while getting so little back.