Judge Sues Dry Cleaners for $65 Million

by Peter Lattman - April 26th, 2007 - Wall Street Journal Blog

Judge Roy Pearson sued his neighborhood dry cleaners for misplacing his pants. He’s asking for $65,462,500. The alteration work on his pants cost $10.50. Here’s the story from the WaPo and an item from the DCist.

Pearson reportedly says he deserves the money for litigation costs, for “mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort,” for the value of his time spent on the lawsuit, and for a replacement suit, according to court papers. The best detail: He’s asking the cleaners to pay him $15,000 for leasing a car every weekend for 10 years. Why? Because he must find another cleaner and since he doesn’t have a car, he says he has to rent one to get his clothes cleaned.

How did he get to $65 million? D.C.’s consumer protection law provides for damages of $1,500 per violation per day. So he computed 12 violations over 1,200 days times three defendants. In the words of WaPo columnist Marc Fisher, “A pant leg here, a pant leg there, and soon, you’re talking $65 million.”

The only thing that makes this story unusual or significant is that the person who filed the suit is one of the judicial tyrants who normally gives outrageous awards to non-Judges who file similar suits. This type of lawsuit is the reason our courts have become known as a bastion of extortion and blackmail. It is typical of the daily injustice practiced in our corrupt system.

The question you have to immediately ask is how are there three defendents? Does the judge have a split personality?

How can there be twelve violations per day? Are there twelve pairs of pants?

Why are there 1200 days involved? The Judge rejected the settlement of $12,000 offered by the cleaners and this allows him to claim the injury was ongoing?

I have one more question. Is this guy related to D.A. Nifong?

FYI - The laundry can never countersue for abusive litigation. Our courts will not tolerate anything that might discourage someone from filing frivolous lawsuits.

Welcome to "the rule of judges". Our courts are corrupt.