Dry Cleaners Win the Case of the $54 Million Pants

This is probably more appropriate for my weekly Friday Funny column, but its too damned funny not to comment on today.

Striking a blow for common sense and against the rampant abuse of power and position, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled against Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson in his utterly ridiculous suit over the loss of a pair of pants from a maroon and blue suit. In a 23 page opinion, the court took Judge Pearson to task for his frivolous lawsuit, pointing out such embarrassing personal facts such as the Northwestern University educated lawyer collected unemployment and that the judge in his divorce made specific findings of fact that it had taken inordinately long, and blamed Pearson for the “excessive driving up of everything that went on [in the divorce].” In respect of the “missing pants” case, the court noted that Pearson presented nine witnesses and tendered over 100 exhibits, as compared to three witnesses and four exhibits for the defense.

After reciting a dozen pages of facts revealed in the two-day bench trial, the court finally ruled that

A reasonable consumer would not interpret “Satisfaction Guaranteed” to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer’s unreasonable demands or to accede to demands that the merchant has reasonable grounds to dispute.

Even though the court ruled in favor of the defendant dry cleaners, the saga is not quite over. The court has yet to rule on the defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and other sanctions for frivolous litigation against Judge Pearson. Also, there’s no word as to whether he will retain his position as an ALJ. Stay tuned.