Move over Sarah. He's back. The pantless wonder, former DC Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson has returned.
Unlike the pants he lost at the cleaners, Pearson just refuses to get lost. As I last noted about Pearson last spring, in A Hole in His Pants:
Roy Pearson. The man who sued this dry cleaners after they lost a pair of pants, pursuing his $54 Million lawsuit with the zeal of a man on a mission to save the world from clean pants. Hell Hath No Fury . . . Not only did he lose his pants, he lost the case. See They Beat the Pants off Him. Although I had lots of fun making jokes about the pantless Pearson, in the end, although Pearson eventually lost his job, the Chungs also closed their dry cleaner's shop.Pearson then sued the city over the loss of his job and appealed the case against the dry cleaners.
After losing his appeal before a Three Judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals, Pearson has now filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Former Judge Seeks Another Hearing in Case of Missing Pants. With the hustle and bustle of the holidays, I missed the original decision of the Court of Appeals, denying Pearson's request for a new trial over his claim against the dry cleaners. Appeals Court Rejects Request for New Trial in Pants Case.
Although he didn't quite get the ending right, Marc Fisher of the Washington Post describes the latest in Appreciation: The Pants Suit Finally Ends:
Adjust your belts, check your cuffs. The pants suit is over. The D.C. Court of Appeals today put the finishing touches on Roy Pearson's $67 million lawsuit over the pair of pants that he claimed never came back from the cleaners.The truth is that the case is over except for the last throes of a sad man who can't seem to let go. As Fisher notes, there is no chance that the full Court will rehear the appeal.
The good news: Pearson got cuffed, stuffed and otherwise rebuffed. The three-judge panel unanimously found not a shred of evidence, reasoning or argument to support any of Pearson's claims against Custom Cleaners, the Chung family or the District of Columbia's consumer protection law.
The bad news: The judges demonstrated far more discretion and class than Pearson ever displayed, and so today's ruling says not a thing about Pearson's abuse of the courts, his harassment of the Chung family (the owners of the cleaners, whose business was ruined by his wildly overblown legal crusade) or the shame he brought on the city, the courts and himself.
But at least this case provides a bit of entertainment that eclipses the escapades of Sarah Palin and her zany antics -- and family.
(Thanks to Anne for the heads up on this one!)