:-/
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500443.html?hpid=topnews|Washington Post] has a story on it, too.
It was a pointed rebuke of Pearson's claim, and came with an order to pay the cleaners' court costs. But even bigger troubles may loom for Pearson.
Financially, he could soon be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees incurred by the owners of Customer Cleaners. Attorneys for the Chungs have said they will seek such payments, as well as sanctions against Pearson for bringing the lawsuit. Bartnoff said in her ruling that she would decide those issues after both sides have filed their motions, counter-motions and legal briefs.
Professionally, Pearson could find himself out of his $96,000-a-year job as an administrative law judge for the District government.
It's cases like these that make me think that bringing back the [link|http://www.villagenet.co.uk/reference/stocks.html|stocks] might not be such a bad idea.
Cheers,
Scott.