Dry Cleaners case update - did judge lose job?

The Washington Post is reporting that Judge Pearson will not be reappointed as administrative judge.

Dry Cleaners fundraiser a success

A fundraiser for Jin Nam Chung and Soo Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners, netted $64,000. The Chungs are still waiting the court's decision on whether to award the Chungs their attorneys' fees after prevailing in their case.

Dry Cleaners case decision

Judge Barnoff granted judgment to the defendants, the owners of the dry cleaners business. In the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the judge reserved ruling on the defendants' motion for sanctions and request for attorneys' fees.

Live Blogged Updates on the $65 million pants case

Check here for updates from the trial on the infamous dry cleaners case. Note that the plaintiff has amended his complaint downwards to $54 million. This article noted that Pearson asked the judge to award attorneys' fees (even though he represents himself) "at a rate of between $390 and $425 an hour" claiming he spent 1,400 on this case. At the higher billing rate, that would be $525,000. For a case about a pair of pants allegedly lost at a dry cleaners.

Send your money to the dry cleaners defense fund

Here's the link if you wish to contribute to the defense fund for the dry cleaners sued for $65 million by a lawyer/administrative judge.

Lawyer/Judge sues dry cleaners for $65 million

How did this guy become a judge of anything? Seems he took his pants to a dry cleaner for alterations. They weren't ready the day they were supposed to be. When they were ready, the lawyer/judge claimed "those aren't my pants." Because the dry cleaner had signs in the window claiming "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service," the lawyer/judge alleged fraud and negligence. Suing under the District's consumer protection act, he multiplied the maximum daily damages at $1,500 per day, times 3 defendants, times the number of days he has been without his pants, adding on some punitives, I guess. Meanwhile, the pants he refused to accept will be introduced as evidence because the tag on the pants matches the customer receipt. He turned down settlement offers of up to $12,000. For a pair of pants. He certainly is living the adage attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client."