Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

One leg at a timeFollow

#1 Oct 31 2007 at 11:17 AM Rating: Good
Clicky

WaPo wrote:
Roy L. Pearson Jr., the administrative law judge who lost his $54 million lawsuit against a Northeast Washington dry cleaner, lost his job yesterday and was ordered to vacate his office, sources said.

Pearson, 57, who had served as a judge for two years, was up for a 10-year term at the Office of Administrative Hearings, but a judicial committee last week voted against reappointing him.

The panel had a seven-page letter hand-delivered to Pearson about 3:30 p.m., directing him to leave his office by 5 p.m. Pearson's term ended in May, at the height of his battle with the dry cleaners. Since then, he has remained on the payroll, making $100,000 a year as an attorney adviser.

A source familiar with the committee's meetings said Pearson's lawsuit played little role in the decision not to reappoint him.

Instead, the committee said it had reviewed Pearson's judicial decisions and audiotapes of proceedings over which he had presided and found he did not demonstrate "appropriate judgment and judicial temperament," according a source who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case.

Sources said Pearson also was criticized for displaying a "combative" nature with supervisors and colleagues and for failing to comply with policies in drafting opinions.

Administrative law judges hear cases involving city agencies and commissions.

The Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges first notified Pearson in August that it might not reappoint him, several weeks after he lost his civil suit against the dry cleaners. Pearson was asked to provide witnesses on his behalf. However, no witnesses testified.

The group met last week at D.C. Superior Court and officially voted not to reappoint Pearson.

Pearson has not responded to recent requests for comment.

Pearson waged a legal battle against Custom Cleaners, alleging that the shop on Bladensburg Road NE lost a pair of pants he brought in for $10.50 worth of alterations. Pearson sued the owners, Soo Chung and her family, and lost when a D.C. Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the Chungs.

The judicial committee was made up of its chairman, D.C. Superior Court Judge Robert R. Rigsby; Judge Anita Josey-Herring, presiding judge of Family Court; and Peter Willner, a senior policy analyst at the nonprofit Council for Court Excellence. Two others serve as nonvoting members: Tyrone T. Butler, chief administrative law judge, and George Valentine, a senior lawyer in the D.C. attorney general's office.


And so this long, sordid tale of dry cleaning gone bad comes to an end.
#2 Oct 31 2007 at 11:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Well... until he sues.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#3 Oct 31 2007 at 11:19 AM Rating: Decent
****
5,870 posts
A pleasant ending.
#4 Oct 31 2007 at 11:53 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
He sued for $54mil over a pair of pants? Did I read that right?
#5 Oct 31 2007 at 11:54 AM Rating: Good
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
He sued for $54mil over a pair of pants? Did I read that right?


Indeed.

And he is was a judge.
#6 Oct 31 2007 at 11:54 AM Rating: Good
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
He sued for $54mil over a pair of pants? Did I read that right?
Some obscene sum. I thought it was $34 million, but I'm too lazy to check.
#7 Oct 31 2007 at 12:02 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Mindel wrote:
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
He sued for $54mil over a pair of pants? Did I read that right?
Some obscene sum. I thought it was $34 million, but I'm too lazy to check.


Its the first line of your copypaste >.>

I bet he would have won if he'd sued for the cost of the pants + court fees. Greedy *******.
#8 Oct 31 2007 at 12:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:


I bet he would have won if he'd sued for the cost of the pants + court fees. Greedy *******.


I believe they offered him the cost of the pants.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#9 Oct 31 2007 at 12:32 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Samira wrote:
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:


I bet he would have won if he'd sued for the cost of the pants + court fees. Greedy *******.


I believe they offered him the cost of the pants.


This is completely unreasonable. I demand the cost of the pants, plus the time I lost working on this lawsuit, plus court fees, plus $53,999,900 emotional damages.
#10 Oct 31 2007 at 1:11 PM Rating: Decent
**
576 posts
The guy was an embarrassment to people working in law.. I was kind of surprised that they didn't can him when he filed the lawsuit, but I'm sure he would have sued the city if they did.

Edited, Oct 31st 2007 4:11pm by TidusBlue
#11 Oct 31 2007 at 1:21 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,901 posts
TidusBlue wrote:
The guy was an embarrassment to people working in law.. I was kind of surprised that they didn't can him when he filed the lawsuit, but I'm sure he would have sued the city if they did.

Edited, Oct 31st 2007 4:11pm by TidusBlue


I have it on good authority that is exactly what he would have done, too. He was planning on suing them for $79.99.
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#12 Oct 31 2007 at 1:23 PM Rating: Good
Glad to hear he got canned. Talk about useless lawsuits.
#13 Oct 31 2007 at 1:55 PM Rating: Good
****
6,760 posts
Karma is a *****.
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 273 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (273)