The judicial joke known as the pants judge had a number of good reasons to drop his peculiar obsession with the dry cleaners.
Roy Pearson lost his frivolous case before a D.C. Superior Court judge in June, has been notified that his employment with the city is in jeopardy, has come to be the symbol of tort reform and has absolutely zero support in the court of public opinion.
But the pants judge would not be the pants judge if he were to blink in the face of a few setbacks. Drumroll, please. The pants judge is taking his $54 million case to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
His hubris has no boundaries. It is hard to imagine what the pants judge hopes to gain from this absurd pursuit. Does he have a pending book deal? Does he think his misguided grievance is a potential made-for-TV movie? Or is he just a crackpot who knows how to use the system, which is the prevailing opinion? Whatever it is, the pants judge is not inclined to end his two-year nightmare against Jin Nam Chung and Soo Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners in Northeast.
As you know, the Chungs misplaced the infamous pants two years ago, then said to have recovered them a week later, only to have that claim denied by the pants judge. A suit was filed, the case was heard, with the pants judge moved to tears at one point, and the Superior Court judge threw it out.
Some of us underestimated the pants judge at this point, thinking that would be the end of his asinine undertaking.
To paraphrase a line from Michael Corleone, just when you thought the Chungs were out, the pants judge pulls them back into his crazy world.
The Chungs even tried to make nice with the pants judge in the hope that he would go away. They dropped their motion to seek $82,772 in compensation from him. That was their legal tab in defending themselves. A fundraiser held in their behalf raised $70,000, and private donations nearly covered the rest of the expenses.
A vaguely reasonable person would consider this an act of kindness and drop the matter after considering the strength of the restitution case against him. A vaguely reasonable person would be elated not to be up against an $82,772 bill.
Of course, that is not the pants judge.
He is the sort of person who can try to twist the city”s consumer-protection laws after finding fault with a sign in the dry cleaners that read: “Satisfaction guaranteed.” And the Chungs tried to satisfy him, first with the recovery of the pants and then an offer of $12,000 to replace them. Nothing could satisfy him then, and nothing can make him have a clue now.
Not the court ruling against him. Not a generous gesture on the part of the Chungs. Not international scorn and contempt. The pants judge is impervious to it all.
He is seeking $54 million, or more, depending on his latest calculations with the pants. He is seeking another day in court. He is seeking a 1-in-a-zillion ruling, perhaps prompted by the prospect of being unemployed.
At least one person is making out well because of the pants judge. Christopher Manning is the attorney who represents the Chungs and who graciously has allowed the pants to be photographed in all their splendor. Mr. Manning undoubtedly feels the pain of the Chungs but can”t be too unhappy about renewing a fight against someone as wrongheaded and outrageous as the pants judge.
As nutty as he is and assuming he loses his appeal, the pants judge is liable to take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Pity the Chungs. Their lives remain on hold because of the nasty maneuverings of the pants judge.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.