When you're cheap, you're cheap. And the administrative law judge who sued the dry cleaner for $54 million because they lost his pants is cheap.
Via Patterico's Pontifications, we discover that Roy Pearson doesn't think he should have to pay the legal fees of the dry cleaners he sued.
Why not? Pearson wasn't interested in either justice or mercy when he sued the cleaners, even after they offered to pay him several times the cost of the pants. Pearson thought the emotional distress he caused the family was perfectly acceptable because he'd been inconvenienced, dammit!
By the time the case went to trial in June, Pearson had reduced his demand -- to $54 million. Members of the tort reform movement decried the case as an example of all that is wrong with America's legal system. Late-night comedians ridiculed Pearson. And other judges shook their heads in bewilderment.
The judge overseeing the trial, Judith Bartnoff, was, in the end, no more sympathetic. In a 23-page ruling a couple of weeks later, Bartnoff found for Soo and Jin Chung, the owners of the cleaners, saying Pearson was not entitled to a single cent.
That was only the beginning of Pearson's troubles. The Chungs' attorneys, Christopher C.S. Manning and Melinda A. Sossamon, filed a post-trial motion seeking $82,772 in legal fees from Pearson to sanction him for prosecuting what they considered a frivolous lawsuit.
Pearson's submission yesterday replied to the Chungs' requests, which, he said, lack factual or legal support. The fact that his case was allowed to go forward, he said, raises legitimate legal questions.
Beyond that, Pearson said, the Chungs have been so successful at raising money for their defense that any money from him would amount to "a windfall, not compensation."
Pearson's suit was the worst form of bullying and heavy-handedness. He deserves to have to pay the Chungs' legal fees.
|