What a bastard. This guy should be disbarred.

BLACK MAN DOWN

Who cares?! Because a black judge is pitted against an asian couple, ATL takes the asian couple's side?

If the plaintiff were a white male ALJ, the headline would have read "Judge Takes a Stand Against the Highly Unregulated Dry Cleaning Industry."

Sincerely,

Race Matters

7:47, I hope your comment was intended to be a joke. If not, you either no nothing about the facts of this case or you are an idiot (or both).

That's what happens when you lower the standards for passing the bar.

I have a feeling that by filing the motion the judge may be more inclined to award the Chungs a significant portion of their legal fees.

Race Matters, you're a racist and an idiot. Pearson should be forever barred from filing suit in any court in the nation, let alone presiding over suits...

This judge is making an absolute mockery of the system he is supposed to represent.

He should be removed from his post as a judge and the Chungs should file for sanctions on top of their attorney's fees.

If the "bastard" should be disbarred, on what grounds would the Disciplinary Board disbar him? Has he used his position as a judge to obtain favor in the lawsuit? Is mental incapacity a grounds for disbarrment or will his license to practice be suspended until the mental incapacity or disability is no longer an issue? He has been accused of a lot of things, but noone has pointed to a specific violation of the rules of professional and/or judicial conduct.

He may not be reappointed to his judgeship, but disbarrment I think is unfounded and extreme.

Would any member of the D.C. bar with knowlege of the state's rules of professional responsibility like to comment on this issue?

Flower Girl:

D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1:
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous . . . .
http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/ethics/legal_ethics/rules_of_professional_conduct/Rule_three/rule03_01.cfm

(Incidentally, mental incapacity is not itself a grounds for disbarment, but taking a case while you suffer from a condition that impairs your ability may make you subject to discipline.)

The worst thing is that this plays right into the hands of people like the ATRA, as if this ridiculous crap is the norm. I hope the Chungs get atty's fees, both to compensate them, and to show that the system already has mechanisms to prevent this kind of abuse. A Rule 11 motion (they use the federal rules, right?) might be in order at this point as well.

i'm not sure what the rule is in d.c., but where i practice law, there is a 'catch all' provision saying that a lawyer who brings the administration of justice into disrepute can be disciplined. disbarment however is usually reserved for the most egregious offences and usually requires an element of dishonesty.

also, if he's a judge, he likely isn't a member of the bar, although again it may be different in that jurisdiction.

this demonstrates one of the biggest failings of the american civil judicial system - that costs don't automatically follow the event. in canada, if you sue someone and you lose, or only are awarded less than the defenant's offer to settle, you automatically have to pay their legal fees. that discourages stupid, inane, senseless, abusive lawsuits like this.

this 'judge' should not be reappointed. his judgment is so poor and his understanding of the law so lacking that i would think anyone he ruled against could obtain leave to appeal his ruling simply by saying he ruled on their case.

this man is a travesty in every sense of the word. unfortunately he also hurts the profession - reminds me why lawyers have such a bad reputation.

I smell a malicious prosecution lawsuit...

Mark my words, the Chungs will be rich!

Rule 3.1 – Meritorious Claims and Contentions

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a goodfaith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. ...

COMMENT
[1] The advocate has a duty to use legal procedure for the fullest benefit of the client’s cause, but also a DUTY NOT TO ABUSE LEGAL PROCEDURE.

[2] … The action is frivolous if the lawyer is unable either to make a good-faith argument on the merits of the action taken or to support the action taken by a good-faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.

The judge is a joke and an embarrassment to the profession.

This is really ridiculous. The court really should order Pearson to pay ALL the Chungs' legal costs (the whole $100K). This is surely a grave injustice!!

I once took my pants to the cleaner and it was returned with a stain that wasn't present when I gave it to them. I threatened to sue, and the cleaner offered $53 million to settle the case. The cleaner admitted that the pants were worn by an employee and that I would be entitled to punitive damages if I were to sue. Based on my experience, $54 million is entirely reasonable.

1) The court should order Pearson to pay every cent of the Chung's legal fees.
2) Chungs should get some sort of punitive award for dealing w/this idiot.
3) D.C. bar should suspend Pearson's license for at least 3 years.
4) The agency he works for should remove Pearson from his role as an ALJ and place him in the position of GS-7 temporary law clerk with responsibility over researching ethics violations.

Signed,
economically conservative, socially liberal, overly educated, black guy who understands its ok to think another black man is a complete idiot because race has absolutely nothing to do with being dumb as rocks.

p.s. - #3 above should say disbarred, not suspended. and if he's a member of any other state bar, supreme court bar, dc circuit bar, local neighborhood bar, they should also remove his license.

p.s.s. - He's no longer allowed to walk around inside the beltway, he must leave his Northeast residence and move to DC's nearest West Virginian suburb.

Attorneys typically get disbarred for substance abuse, spending client funds, or repeatedly missing deadlines without telling their clients. When was the last time anyone was sanctioned (let alone disbarred) for violating Rule 3.1? My guess is that the answer is "never."

when was the last time a judge filed a $54 million lawsuit over a single pair of pants? my guess is that the answer is "never."

11:29, I suspect that "RACE MATTERS" is in fact a far right winger concocting a strawman to prove how "ridiculous" people are for noticing the lingering harmful effects of institutionalized racism, which have almost nothing to do with this case.

Why are you people accusing him of wanting to get rich? The people he's suing are dirt poor and couldn't afford to pay him anything.

He's obviously doing this to enforce consumer rights.

huh. i always thought that Pearson was a white guy.

"institutionalized racism" -- isn't that synonymous with "affirmative action" ?

My balls are cold.

At the very least, Pearson should be sanctioned under FRCP 11 for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.

Has the Supreme Court ever ruled on whether the death penalty can be imposed against a plaintiff in a civil case?

A frivolous lawsuit is one that is neither based in law or fact. The suit was not frivolous, his claim was grounded in fact. A reasonable jury could find that the cleaners lost his pants and thus he is entitled to some form of relief. His refusal to settle is not wrong because noone may be forced to settle out of court. The only problem with this suit is that the damages sought are excessive.

He's not suing for the lost pants anymore, dumbass. He's suing them for some kind of fraud because they had a sign that said "satisfaction guaranteed," and he wasn't satisfied. This guy should be shot or committed.

9:48,

The "fact" that underlies the "satisfaction" claim is that his pants were lost. The loss of his pants led to his lack of satisfication with the services provided. Once again, his claims are ground in fact no matter how attenuated the cause and effect may be. So, dumbass, who is the dumbass now? I hope you do not work in litigation because I would not hire you. You must have a hard time making weak but viable arguments for your clients.

Roy Pearson is Loyola 2L's dad.

9:48 has it right.

At this point, of course Pearson should be forced to pay the Chungs' fees in total. But practically, that's of little use, since he clearly does not have $100k in cash lying around, and may not even have any hard assets to sell off. The issue is: how does such an obviously stupid case get this far?

An easy answer is the judge, who let this get to trial through pure incompetence. She should have ruled as a matter of law that the "satisfaction guaranteed" sign was puffery, which it obviously is, and dismissed the consumer fraud counts right away. Our system just does a horrible job of ridding the dockets of awful cases at an early stage, before they do all sorts of damage to defendants.

"You must have a hard time making weak but viable arguments for your clients. "

If you think the goal of litigation is to "make weak but viable arguments for your clients," I'm not sure what to say to you.

9:54 -- the lost pants are one "fact" related to his claim, but his claim involved much more. Clearly, simply losing the pants by accident would not give rise to a consumer fraud claim. He has to make the case that the Chungs lied when they said "satisfaction guaranteed." The Chungs tried to satisfy him -- they found a pair of pants they thought was his, and even offered him money for the pants. Pearson said that was not enough -- his argument was essentially that the Chungs had to accede to any demand Pearson made to "satisfy" him for the lost pants, whether reasonable or not. That is the key part of his claim, and that part is entirely ridiculous and utterly baseless.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/pearsonjudgment.pdf

Read the opinion before commenting

10:01 is right about 9:48 being right about Howard Johnson being right.

The claim was legally frivolous, not factually frivolous. But its kind of awkward for the superior court to sanction Pearson now when the court should have dismissed this case before trial (assuming the Chung's moved to dismiss or for summary judgment).

But as 9:51 PM pointed out, the Chung's may have a claim of their own.

Even if a motion for dismissal or summary judgment was filed, the case still would have been tried. Based on the facts, Mr. Pearson could easily argue that there is a genuine issue for trial or that there is a genuine issue as to a material fact. This is a case of he said-she said. Only a jury at trial could weigh the disputed facts presented on each side.

There's an absolutely appalling imbalance between the alleged wrong and the requested relief. After receiving an offer to settle for over $10,000, Pearson pursued this case extremely aggressively, filing many motions. That's vexatious and harassing litigation. Sounds like classic Rule 11 stuff to me.

[The trial court judge] should have ruled as a matter of law that the "satisfaction guaranteed" sign was puffery, which it obviously is, and dismissed the consumer fraud counts right away. Our system just does a horrible job of ridding the dockets of awful cases at an early stage, before they do all sorts of damage to defendants.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 10:01 AM

---------------------------

10:01,

While you might believe it within your wisdom to identify which cases lack merit and which cases are worth deciding -- before hearing all of the facts or adequately researching the law -- I am not eager to surrender my right to equal justice under law to you or any other would-be pre-litigation arbiter of merit.

In this nation, everyone is afforded access to the courts, a neutral forum in which any grievance -- big or small -- may be decided by a disinterested party and the result sanctioned by the state. That right is guaranteed by the Constitution and is a fundamental element of our democracy.

Sure, from time to time, the system is abused by an overzealous advocate or other individual who fails to live up to the professional standards we (as trained and licensed lawyers) would like upheld in all cases. However, that is the price for the great victory our system embodies. All are welcome.

Open and equal justice requires some sacrifices. And, while the Constitution is not a suicide pact, it can surely withstand the squawking of an odd bird (and the occasional knife fight).

Pearson has lost on the merits and will be ordered to pay much of (if not all) the defendants' legal fees. While his damages demand may have been overblown (to be charitable), his case was grounded on a legitimate legal argument and cannot be described as frivolous in law (as opposed to frivolous in fact – which, is something on which I think we can all agree).

Finally, talk of disbarment is reactionary nonsense. To be sure, Pearson has shown that he lacks the temperance to sit on the bench and he should not be reappointed to his position as an ALJ, but let’s leave it to his future clients to decide if they want to put their fate in his hands. There is no legitimate basis to disbar him.

Pearson should be jailed. he is scum.

WGWAG?

10:41 -- Since I did go to law school and have been a practicing litigator for almost 10 years, I do consider myself qualified to say that Pearson's case did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. That's kind of what I am trained to do. And I did hear all the relevant facts, since I read the court's order.

Your high-minded rhetoric about the Constitution is beside the point, and, frankly, pretty silly. For example, the idea that we have a Constitutional right to air any grievance in the courts, no matter how small, is ludicrous. Go ahead and file a $10,000 case in federal court (with no other basis for jurisdiction) and see how far you get.

In any event, dismissing a case as a matter of law is not nearly the same thing as denying the plaintiff access to the courts. Cases are dismissed all the time. Are you saying that you believe Rule 12(b)(6) to be unconstitutional? Please, please, make that argument before a court someplace, and e-mail me the order you get back.

Pearson's argument most certainly can be said to be legally frivolous. He argued that a "satisfaction guaranteed" sign at a dry cleaner was fraud because the cleaner did not bend over backwards to satisfy his every subjective whim. Do you really think there is any colorable basis for an argument that such a sign requires business owners to do anything the customer says?

Finally, Pearson was ordered to pay "costs," which do not include the Chungs' legal fees.

can i has unreasonable lawsuit?

you're wrong, 11:14.

and fat and ugly.

11:14,

Although you have been a litigator for the last 10 years, I do not think that you have viewed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss from a judge's perspective.

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the defendants would be required to establish “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). That is a huge hurdle.

All well-pleaded allegations in the complaint are accepted by the court as true, and are viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the plaintiff. “The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

The court is currently considering defendants' motion for attorneys' fees.

This case could easily (and likely did) survive a motion to dismiss. He satisfies the leagal threshold. And, there are disputed facts that also prevent success on a motion for summary judgment.

11:14, you are probably among the worst lawyer with 10 years of experience praticing today.

God bless that, with all the war and political strife in the world, we can at least all agree that Judge Roy Pearson is a prudent and able jurist.

Can I get an amen to 'judicial pay raise', anybody?

The trouble with a malicious prosecution suit is that, as with any action, its not worth much if the defendant lacks the financial ability to satisfy a judgment. And isn’t the Judge's financial situation why he filed against the Chungs in the first place?

That said, if the chungs fail to recover their fees through a post judgment motion, I do hope they sue judge moron.

Why are they having to pay legal fees in the first place? I would imagine there'd be dozens of lawyers ready to represent them pro bono.

Thanks for the primer on Rule 12(b)(6). I guess you have already dropped all the Constitution stuff. You write:

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the defendants would be required to establish “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). That is a huge hurdle.

Conley was overruled about three weeks ago. You missed that small detail.

Did he state a claim for lost pants? Sure. Does the law recognize a claim for consumer fraud based on the theory that "satisfaction guaranteed" = the cleaner must satisy the consumer's every subjective whim? No. The judge essentially ruled on that question as a matter of law after the trial. My question is why not before? There is no reason why that claim could not have been dismissed.

The consumer fraud claim wasn't dismissed before trial because Pearson admitted on the stand that his legal claim for consumer fraud was based on such a kooky theory. I suppose a good defense atty could have established that prior to trial, but in this instance, it was trial testimony that created the opportunity for a judgment as a matter of law on that point.

Conley was not overruled by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1969 (2007). Rather, the "no set of facts" language was rejected and clarified.

We could go on, but there is no need to pile up further citations to show that Conley's "no set of facts" language has been questioned, criticized, and explained away long enough. To be fair to the Conley Court, the passage should be understood in light of the opinion's preceding summary of the complaint's concrete allegations, which the Court quite reasonably understood as amply stating a claim for relief. But the passage so often quoted fails to mention this understanding on the part of the Court, and after puzzling the profession for 50 years, this famous observation has earned its retirement. The phrase is best forgotten as an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard: once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint. See Sanjuan, 40 F.3d, at 251 (once a claim for relief has been stated, a plaintiff "receives the benefit of imagination, so long as the hypotheses are consistent with the complaint"); accord, Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S., at 514, 122 S.Ct. 992; National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 256, 114 S.Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed.2d 99 (1994); H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. 229, 249-250, 109 S.Ct. 2893, 106 L.Ed.2d 195 (1989); Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). Conley, then, described the breadth of opportunity to prove what an adequate complaint claims, not the minimum standard of adequate pleading to govern a complaint's survival. [FN8]

FN8. Because Conley's " 'no set of facts' " language was one of our earliest statements about pleading under the Federal Rules, it is no surprise that it has since been "cited as authority" by this Court and others. Post, at 1978. Although we have not previously explained the circumstances and rejected the literal reading of the passage embraced by the Court of Appeals, our analysis comports with this Court's statements in the years since Conley. See Dura, 544 U.S., at 347, 125 S.Ct. 1627 (quoting Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 741, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975)); (requiring " 'reasonably founded hope that the [discovery] process will reveal relevant evidence' " to support the claim (alteration in Dura )); Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983) ("It is not ... proper to assume that [the plaintiff] can prove facts that it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the antitrust laws in ways that have not been alleged"); Wilson v. Schnettler, 365 U.S. 381, 383, 81 S.Ct. 632, 5 L.Ed.2d 620 (1961) ("In the absence of ... an allegation [that the arrest was made without probable cause] the courts below could not, nor can we, assume that respondents arrested petitioner without probable cause to believe that he had committed ... a narcotics offense"). Nor are we reaching out to decide this issue in a case where the matter was not raised by the parties, see post, at 1979, since both the ILECs and the Government highlight the problems stemming from a literal interpretation of Conley's "no set of facts" language and seek clarification of the standard. Brief for
Petitioners 27-28; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 22-25; see also Brief for Respondents 17 (describing "[p]etitioners and their amici" as mounting an "attack on Conley's 'no set of facts' standard").

The dissent finds relevance in Court of Appeals precedents from the 1940s, which allegedly gave rise to Conley's "no set of facts" language. See post, at 1979 - 1981. Even indulging this line of analysis, these cases do not challenge the understanding that, before proceeding to discovery, a complaint must allege facts suggestive of illegal conduct. See, e.g., Leimer v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co., 108 F.2d 302, 305 (C.A.8 1940) (" '[I]f, in view of what is alleged, it can reasonably be conceived that the plaintiffs ... could, upon a trial, establish a case which would entitle them to ... relief, the motion to dismiss should not have been granted' "); Continental Collieries, Inc. v. Shober, 130 F.2d 631, 635 (C.A.3 1942) ("No matter how likely it may seem that the pleader will be unable to prove his case, he is entitled, upon averring a claim, to an opportunity to try to prove it"). Rather, these cases stand for the unobjectionable proposition that, when a complaint adequately states a claim, it may not be dismissed based on a district court's assessment that the plaintiff will fail to find evidentiary support for his allegations or prove his claim to the satisfaction of the factfinder. Cf. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a district court weighing a motion to dismiss asks "not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims").

Stop arguing about FEDERAL rules (Rule 11, 12(b)(6)) when this case is NOT VENUED IN FEDERAL COURT. Law students, leave the litigation to the litigators.

Chocolate, the DC rules are identical to the Federal rules and Federal cases interpreting the rules are persuasive authority in DC. Leave the DC litigation to the litigators who actually practice in DC.

See? This is why I need my pants back, along with $54 million. Pointless pissing contests between dorky D.C. (and non-D.C.) litigators are no fun without pants from which to dramatically whip out one's procedural schlong.

I have actually used the phrase "procedural schlong" in DC Superior Court, so don't you dare call my pissing contest pointless.

This case is as meritorious as Homer Simpson's lawsuit against the Frying Dutchman because they kicked him out at closing time even though he hadn't had all he COULD eat from the all-you-can-eat buffet.

The ALJ is an even worse lawyer than Lionel Hutz:

"Mr. Simpson, this is the most blatant case of fraudulent advertising since my suit against the film, 'The Never-Ending Story'."

Anon at 2:17:

I'll pay you $50 for the transcript if it's in there.

2:36: I consider "The Never-Ending Story II" a tragic moral failure on the part of the producers for that very reason.

"Mrs. Simpson, isn't it true that your husband consumed a ten-pound bag of flour when no other food was available?"

The WSJ Law Blog also has a post on this (published after the ATL post):

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/07/06/the-great-american-pants-suit-the-appeal/

Pearson is a knob.

Pearson is a total douchebag. Accounts of the trial indicated that he completed his testimony in tears, apparently overcome by the raw emotion of his lost pair of pants.

Motherfucker should have serious Rule 11 sanctions levied against him.