Law Humor

Now with ample time on his hands, having not been reappointed to another term as a D.C. administrative-law judge, Roy L. Pearson, Jr., continues on his quest for justice.  As you may recall, that quest began years ago when, according to Pearson, his dry cleaners lost a pair of his pants and did not remedy the situation to his full and complete satisfaction.  This resulted in a lawsuit that sought $54 million but fell short of that goal (by exactly $54 million).  Appeals failed.  Pearson then filed another lawsuit going after the people who had refused to reappoint him, claiming they had unfairly retaliated.  That case was also dismissed, but Pearson has appealed.

In his opening brief, which is long (65 pages), difficult to follow, and not remotely compelling, Pearson argues that his case should be reinstated and the judge removed from the case for alleged bias.  Most of this is too dull to repeat, but there is some comedy in the section on Pearson's second cause of action for First Amendment violations.  Pearson claimed that defendants violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for pursuing what he repeatedly calls "a public interest lawsuit" that was a matter of "public concern":

[T]he public interest lawsuit sought injunctive relief that would benefit thousands of consumers, as well as the imposition of punitive damages to deter a group of merchants from persisting in the fraudulent and unfair trade practice of displaying deceptive advertisements.

Again, Pearson was demanding $54 million from dry cleaners who allegedly lost one pair of his pants on the grounds that they had not acted to his complete satisfaction despite having posted a sign reading "Satisfaction Guaranteed."  The brief does not really mention any of that.  And:

Count II alleges that plaintiff's public interest lawsuit was of such public concern that it received newspaper, magazine, television, cable and Internet coverage all over the world, and that the coverage continued every day, for months.

Indeed it did, because it was so freaking stupid.  Being openly (and fairly) mocked probably does not automatically convert your case into a matter of public concern, would be my guess.

Link: The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times