The Sacramento Union, August 3, 2007

As Americans await the next big frivolous lawsuit, Roy Pearson, the D.C. judge who unsuccessfully sued his dry cleaners for $54 million over an alleged lost pair of pants, serves as a reminder of serious flaws in the American civil justice system.

The ordeal started two years ago when Roy Pearson paid Custom Cleaners $10.50 to alter a pair of pants. According to Pearson, the small business owners, Korean immigrants, not only failed to finish the job on time, but they also lost his pants and then attempted to give him a pair belonging to somebody else. He originally demanded $1,150 in compensation for his alleged loss, but after failing to receive the money, Pearson took the three storeowners to court and demanded a new sum – $67 million.

That total, Pearson explained, included compensation for "emotional distress," attorney fees – even though he represented himself – and 10 years of car rentals to visit a different dry cleaner out of walking distance of his home. The $67 million also included millions Pearson felt he was entitled to on the basis of local consumer protection laws.

Pearson alleged that signs in the store that declared "Same Day Service" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed" were deceptive. He explained that under the Washington, D.C., consumer protection law a customer was lawfully entitled $1,500 from each of the storeowners for each day their own personal level of satisfaction was not met. Though the amount ultimately requested was lowered to $54 million, Pearson continued his pursuit. In court, he claimed his lawsuit was filed to protect the rights of every potential Washington, D.C., customer to whom the storeowners misled with their signs and he often referred to himself as "we."

Meanwhile, the storeowners faced growing defense costs as the lawsuit was allowed to continue and they were forced to redirect much of their focus away from their business and onto Pearson' s lawsuit. They made multiple attempts to avoid costly legal fees by offering Pearson a settlement, ranging from $3,000 to $12,000, but to no avail.

When the judge presiding over the case eventually ruled in favor of the defendants on all charges, defense costs had soared to more than $100,000. And while Pearson was ordered to pay court costs, even the lawyers for the defense were doubtful that he' d ever be required to pay the storeowners' attorney fees.

Though legally victorious, the storeowners lost big time because of a system that kept them constantly at a disadvantage. The storeowners were responsible for paying more than $100,000 to defend themselves against a frivolous lawsuit and forced to forego business income for the time spent fighting the outrageous claim of Pearson, who recently attempted to have the case reconsidered. The judge was quick to dismiss the motion but lawyers representing the storeowners expect that he will appeal both the original decision and the dismissal of the motion to reconsider the case.

There is no question as to why Pearson continues his quest to sue the pants off the immigrant owners of a small business. The possibility of winning $54 million in a "jackpot justice" scheme far outweighs the costs he knew he' d face. After all, there is no "loser pays" rule in America.

If there were, people like Pearson would think twice before wasting everyone' s time and money by filing meritless lawsuits. His bizarre pant-suit action calls into question his fitness to serve as judge, on any level.

Some oversight body should look into that. Whatever Pearson' s fate, legislators must change the rules so that clearly frivolous cases are not allowed to proceed and impose unwarranted costs on hardworking business owners.

Hovannes Abramyan is a public policy fellow in business and economic studies at the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco and coauthor of Jackpot Justice: The True Cost of America' s Tort System. Email him at habramyan@pacificresearch.org.