The lawsuit brought forth by Roy Pearson, “The Case of the $54 Million Pants,” was lost today. Judge Judith Bartnoff rightfully ruled in favor of the defendants, the Chungs. Also, in a rare move in civil cases, the Judge awarded the defendants the court costs. Unfortunately, that is for actual court costs only and will not begin to cover the mountain of attorney’s fees they have accumulated defending this ridiculous lawsuit.

If you are unfamiliar with the case, here are some additional posts:

• Those must have been some great pants
• Judge Roy Pearson owes me $2,595,000

This case is a fine example of why we must institute a “loser pays” system. Frivolous lawsuits such as this can bankrupt an innocent business owner such as the Chungs. If you would like to help the Chungs, visit www.chungfundraiser.com

I’m sure we haven’t heard the last of Roy Pearson. An appeal is more than likely, and the Chungs will most certainly incur additional costs defending themselves.

Some stories on the verdict:

• Pants Verdict: Judge Stuffs The Pants Man
• Dry Cleaner Wins Missing Pants Case

We still await a ruling in “The Case of the Missing Pants.”

Judge Roy Pearson, the administrative law judge “suing the pants” off his dry cleaners for losing his custom tailored trousers, apparently broke down and cried on the witness stand. Those must have been some great pants! And, boo hoo, “he needed those pants for his administrative law judge job!” <sniffle>

I don’t like to resort to name calling, since it usually indicates you have absolutely no argument, but either those were the most incredible pants he ever owned, or he is an absolute wimp. I guess the other possibility would be that he is a gifted and talented actor. Since this case calls into question his suitability to be a judge, perhaps he might be more suited to playing one on TV.

To show that he is not an unreasonable man, (and probably to help his PR situation), he dropped his original claim of $67 million to a much more sensible $54 million. That should make his side of the story more popular with the general public. I mean really, $67 million for a pair of pants? Come on! But $54 million? Yes, that’s much more in line with today’s norm for a “pant suit.”

Get it? Pant suit? ROFL!

And what about this poor man’s legal fees? He is representing himself and has (according to him) spent some 1400 hours working on the case and preparing witnesses. That is the equivalent of more than 23 solid 60 hour work weeks. My question is, if he’s put that much time into this case, when is he finding time to do his administrative law, a job that is paid for by taxpayers? I smell a rat in this case.

The dry cleaners are not the only ones being “taken to the cleaners” in this case.