I've been watching this one like a hawk:

A judge ruled today in favor of a dry cleaner who was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants in a case that garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform.

The owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's consumer protection act by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign that was once placed in the store window, D.C. Superior Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled.

Judge Bartnoff ordered Mr. Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung. The costs were slightly more than $1,000 and include photocopying, filing and similar expenses, said the Chungs' attorney. A motion to recover the Chungs' tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be considered later.

Thankfully, a fair and just ending came in what may have very well been the silliest lawsuit in history (well, maybe not THE silliest).

Let's face it, we've all been subject to less-than-satisfactory service at some point -- an overcooked order of french fries, an illegible tattoo, a slightly inaccurate palm reading, etc.

And in the heat of the moment, sure, it's plausible to want to sue the pants off the local dry cleaner (no pun intended) for losing your garments. But a few days to simmer should've cleared this guy's head and led to an amicable solution.

For a judge, of all people, to go to these lengths as a matter of principle -- and over a pair of pants -- is laughable. Unless there was a winning lottery ticket for $54 million in the pocket of said pants, this case had no business existing outside of small-claims court.

Maybe it's time for someone else to get "Nifong-ed."

-- Tarron Lively, reporter, The Washington Times