Hey, Mr. Pants Man, play a song for me!

I almost couldn't believe it when I heard it, but Roy Pearson, the DC administrative law judge who sued a family-owned dry cleaning business a few years back over a lost pair of pants (to the tune of $54 million, I might add!), is trying once again to appeal his overturned case. And his rationale for appealing the case is just laughable.

"This is not about a pair of suit pants," Pearson, representing himself, told a three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals. The term "satisfaction guaranteed" is "very subjective" and with "no parameters at all," he complained, accusing the cleaners of fraud.

Fraud? That's seriously a stretch to say that a dissatisfied customer is the victim of fraud. Like everyone else in this world, I've already had times where I've been unsatisfied with some service or some store, but having worked in customer service already, I know just how demanding and unreasonable some customers can be. And Mr. Pearson isn't doing the customer any justice (no pun intended) with this venture. My rationale is, if you're unhappy with a service or a store, just don't go back there. There's no need to let your ego get so entangled with your dissatisfaction.

Having said that, I repeat my earlier advice to Mr. Pearson: give it up, dude. You've already made yourself an irreparable laughingstock with this most frivolous of lawsuits, and you've succeeded in taking the Chungs down with you, since they've opted to close down their business. Really, what more do you want?

To paraphrase Steve Buscemi . . . do you see this? It's the world smallest violin playing just for a pair of pants.

The Chungs have closed down

I was very surprised to learn recently that the Chungs, the Korean family of dry-cleaners being sued by DC administrative judge Roy Pearson for a lost pair of pants, have closed down two of their dry-cleaning businesses in the District—particularly the one that served the venerable Mr. Pearson.

While saddened at first, I was quick to notice a great irony of the situation: Pearson lost his lawsuit against the Chungs (appeal notwithstanding), but he still wins in the technical sense because, with his lawsuit, he essentially set out to take the Chungs down . . . and with the Chungs closing two of their dry-cleaning stores, Pearson basically succeeded.

I seriously doubt he has a lot of sympathizers these days, but I still have to wonder if Pearson's doing a little happy dance to mark the occasion.

Note to Roy Pearson: give it up!!!

Well, Roy Pearson has effectively told the Chungs to take yesterday's peace offering and stick it where the sun don't shine. In other words, Pearson is not taking the high road, and instead has opted to appeal his dismissed lawsuit.

I wish I knew what this guy was smoking, but apparently he thinks that fighting for the principle is going to vindicate him. Hardly!!! He has no credibility anymore, his lawsuit has been mocked and ridiculed from here to ya-ya, he's barely holding onto his job, and if he continues to fight this to the bitter end, he's barely going to come away from this with his dignity intact (let alone his name).

If I may say so, the Chungs showed an amazing act of kindness in offering Pearson an olive branch, and it's truly unbelievable that Pearson had the nerve to take that kind act and throw it back in their faces. If he was smart, he'd just let the whole thing drop and let everyone get on with their lives.

The Chungs have granted clemency

According to the Post, the Chungs (the dry cleaners sued in DC's infamous pants lawsuit) are withdrawing their request that Roy Pearson (he who was doing the suing) cover their rather hefty legal expenses.

Their rationale: they just want it all to be over and done with. Can't say I blame them! If I was in their place (God forbid), I'd want it all to be behind me as well.

Now the question is, will Roy Pearson accept the situation as it is (the smarter move, in my opinion), or will be press on and make an even bigger mockery of himself?

And for his next lawsuit: wrongful dismissal!

I don't know how many of you have been following the whole "pants" lawsuit down here, but just to give you a quick recap, in 2005, local administrative law judge Roy Pearson filed a lawsuit against a family-owned dry cleaner for "losing" a pair of his pants. The dry cleaners, owned by the Chung family, either gave him back the wrong pair or said they lost them (I don't remember which), but either way, Pearson sued for somewhere in the neighborhood of $54 million (and if I'm not mistaken, this was reduced from $65 million originally).

The grounds for Pearson's lawsuit were based on merely the principle of customer service—i.e., satisfaction guaranteed, which the Chungs advertised. Pearson wasn't satisfied, so his rationale was that he should be amply compensated. In principle, it sort of makes sense, but the way he went about this was all wrong. He tried to make the impression that he was "standing up for the little guy," taking a stand on the principle of good customer service and fighting for those who have had bad customer service experiences. But when you break into tears in the courtroom over the "trauma" caused by the loss of a pair of pants, I don't think that adds to your credibility. Rather, I think that makes you a laughingstock!

Plus . . . $54 million for a lost pair of pants??? That's just ludicrous.

In the final analysis, the judge hearing the case pretty much laughed the lawsuit right out the window, and hopefully struck a serious blow to the litigiousness of our culture. Pearson is of course appealing the decision, but given all the legal fees incurred, both he and the Chungs are pretty much broke right now (though I believe the Chungs have received quite a lot of contributions to help cover their fees).

As for Pearson himself . . . well, right now his future as a judge is in some serious doubt. I almost have to wonder if he'll file a wrongful dismissal lawsuit if he isn't reappointed.