updated by Common Courtsey
Text
$54 Million Pants Case Set for Appeal
Monday September 15, 3:02 am ET
Jeff Jeffrey, Legal Times
The $54 million lawsuit against a family-owned dry cleaners that allegedly lost a pair of pants is going up on appeal next month.
Former administrative judge Roy Pearson lost his suit in trial court last year, but immediately filed for an appeal to have the D.C. Court of Appeals determine whether Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff erred in her ruling against him.
Bartnoff ruled that the dry cleaners' owners did not violate the consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson's interpretation of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign displayed in the store.
The appeal is set for Oct. 22.
The case drew national attention and was widely lampooned as an example of legal excess because of Pearson's method for calculating his losses.
Citing the city's consumer protection law, Pearson argued that the owners, Soo and Jin Chung and their son, Ki Chung, each owe $18,000 for each day the pants were missing over a nearly four-year period.
The Chungs have since sold Custom Cleaners in the Northeast neighborhood of Washington, D.C., citing the stress and revenue loss associated with the suit against them, and now run Happy Cleaners in northwest Washington on 7th Street.
Christopher Manning, a name partner at Manning Sossamon representing the Chungs, says he was not surprised that Pearson appealed the trial court's ruling, citing what he called Pearson's "unrelenting" approach to the case.
"We absolutely expected this. Immediately after the verdict, my clients withdrew their motion to have their legal fees repaid by Pearson as an olive branch to him and so they could move on with their lives. He filed the appeal anyway," Manning says.
Manning says he will represent the Chungs pro bono during the appeal.
Manning says he hopes this case will prompt city officials to revise the consumer protection law to keep similar cases from being filed in the future.
In a separate suit, Pearson has accused the District government of breaking the law when it decided not to reappoint him last year to a 10-year term as an administrative law judge. That position pays $100,000 a year.
Pearson did not immediately return calls to his home for comment.
Huge thanks to Queasy and the rest of the members for keeping this thread updated
As posted by Queasy:
Text
WASHINGTON (AP) - A judge on Monday ruled in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants in a case that garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform.
District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the Korean immigrant 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.
"Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr.," the ruling read.
Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs after he claimed they lost a pair of suit trousers and later tried to return a pair that he said was not his. He arrived at the figure by adding up years of law violations and almost $2 million in common law claims. Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.
Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, countered that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to be an unconditional promise of satisfaction.
The two-day trial earlier this month drew a standing-room-only crowd, including many Korean and international media outlets covering the story. It even overshadowed the drunken driving trial of former Mayor Marion Barry.
The Chungs also said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule.
***********************************
Long read but.... whew!!!
Text
The $67 Million Pants
Washington, D.C., Lawyer Sues Dry Cleaners for Lost Trousers
A Washington, D.C., dry cleaners says its their business a long-time customer is taking to the cleaners. A $10 dry cleaning bill for a pair of lost trousers has ballooned into a $67 million civil lawsuit.
Plaintiff Roy Pearson -- himself a local judge in Washington D.C -- says in court papers that he's been through the ringer over a lost pair of prized pants he wanted to wear on his first day on the bench. He says in court papers that he has endured "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort.''
He says he was unable to wear that favorite suit of his first day of work.
He's suing for ten years of weekend car rentals so he can transport his dry cleaning to another store.
The lawsuit is based in large part on Pearson's seemingly pained admission that he was taken in by the oldest and most insidious marketing tool in the dry cleaning industry arsenal.
"Satisfaction Guaranteed."
Pearson did not return numerous calls from ABC News for comment.
It's the kind of lawsuit that makes liability reform advocates' temples throb.
"People in America are now scared of each other,'' legal expert Philip Howard told ABC News' Law & Justice Unit. "That's why teachers won't put an arm around a crying child, and doctors order unnecessary tests, and ministers won't meet with parishioners. It's a distrust of justice and it's changing our culture.
The civil trial, set for June, has the scope of a John Grisham courtroom thriller and the societal importance of a traffic ticket. Pearson plans to call 63 witnesses. Defending themselves against the suit -- for two years running -- are Korean immigrants Jin and Soo Chung and their son, who own Custom Cleaners and two other dry cleaning shops in the Fort Lincoln section of Washington D.C.
The ABC News Law & Justice Unit has calculated that for $67 million dollars Pearson could buy 84,115 new pairs of pants at the $800 value he placed on the missing trousers in court documents. If you stacked those pants up they would be taller than eight Mount Everests. If you laid them side by side they would stretch for 48 miles.
"The whole city is aware of this lawsuit,'' said Bob King, who representing Fort Lincoln on the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions. "Everybody's laughing about it.''
Everybody except the Chungs, who have spent thousands of dollars defending themselves against Pearson's lawsuit.
"It's not humorous, not funny and nobody would have thought that something like this would have happened,'' Soo Chung told ABC News through an interpreter.
Her husband agreed.
"It's affecting us first of all financially, because of all the lawyers' fees,'' Jin Chung said. "For two years, we've been paying lawyer fees... we've gotten bad credit as well, and secondly, it's been difficult mentally and physically because of the level of stress.''
Later, Soo Chung broke down in tears.
"I would have never thought it would have dragged on this long,'' she told ABC News. "I don't want to live here anymore. It's been so difficult. I just want to go home, go back to Korea."
"I've been in the dry cleaning business for 14 years, but this has never ever happened before ? if anything happened to our customers' clothing we would always compensate them accordingly and fairly,'' Jin Chung said through a translator.
The problems date back to 2002.
Pearson says in court papers that he took a pair of pants in to Custom Cleaners in the Fort Lincoln section of D.C. that year, and the pants were lost. So Jin and Soo Chung, the Korean immigrant couple who own Custom Cleaners and two other dry cleaning shops, gave Pearson a $150 check for a new pair of pants.
Three years later, Pearson says he returned to Custom Cleaners and - like some real life "Groundhog Day'' nightmare - his trousers went missing.
Again.
It was May, 2005 and Pearson was about to begin his new job as an administrative judge. Naturally, he wanted to wear a nice outfit to his first day of work. He said in court papers that he tried on five Hickey Freeman suits from his closet, but found them all to be 'too tight,' according to the Washington Post.
He brought one pair in for alterations and they went missing -- gray trousers with what Pearson has described in court papers as having blue and red stripes on them.
First, Pearson demanded $1,150 for a new suit. Lawyers were hired, legal wrangling ensured, and eventually the Chungs offered Pearson $3000 in compensation.
No dice.
Then they offered him $4,600.
No dice.
Finally, they offered $12,000 for the missing gray trousers with the red and blue stripes.
Pearson said no.
With neither satisfaction nor his prized gray pants, Pearson upped the ante considerably.
The judge went to the lawbooks. Citing the District of Columbia's consumer protection laws, he claims he was entitled to $1,500 per violation.
Per day.
What follows was the beginning of thousands of pages of legal documents and correspondence that -- two years later -- has led to a massive civil lawsuit in the amount of $67 million dollars.
According to court papers, here's how Pearson calculates the damages and legal fees:
He believes he is entitled to $1,500 for each violation, each day during which the "Satisfaction Guaranteed'' sign, and another sign promising "Same Day Service'' was up in the store -- more than 1200 days.
And he's multiplying each violation by three because he's suing Jin and Soo Chung and their son.
He also wants $500,000 in 'emotional damages' and another $542, 500 in legal fees, even though he is representing himself in court.
He wants $15,000 for ten years worth of weekend car rentals as well.
After enlisting neighbors and fellow customers, he sought to expand the case into a class action suit, but was denied, angrily, by District of Columbia civil judge Neal Kravitz.
"The Court has significant concerns that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith and with an intent to delay the proceedings,'' the judge wrote in court papers. "Indeed, it is difficult to draw any other conclusion, given the plaintiff's lengthy delay in seeking to expand the scope of the case, the breathtaking magnitude of the expansion he seeks, his failure to present any evidence in support of the thousands of claims he says he wishes to add, and his misrepresentation concerning the scope of his first amended complaint."
The case will now be heard by another judge in June. Both Kravitz and the new judge declined to comment on the case to ABC News.
Ironically, less than a week after he dropped off the missing trousers in 2005, Soo Chung says she found them. She tried to return them to Pearson but he said they were the wrong pants.
The Chungs say they are certain they have located the missing trousers.
"So these are the missing pants, huh,'' Avila asked the Chungs' attorney Chris Manning.
"These are,'' Manning said, holding up a flimsy pair of gray trousers. Manning's argument is based on both the receipt and the telltale "three belt loop situation,'' as he explains it.
"When the pants were brought in, Mrs. Chung noticed the three belt loop situation and in finding them realized that they were Mr. Pearson's pants based on that." He also said the receipt tag on the pants "exactly matches the receipt that Mr. Pearson has.''
Manning himself is angry with Pearson, claiming the judge has terrorized the Chungs for spite.
"They came to the United States hoping for the American dream,'' Manning said. "And Roy Pearson has made it a nightmare.''
Text
$54 Million Pants Case Set for Appeal
Monday September 15, 3:02 am ET
Jeff Jeffrey, Legal Times
The $54 million lawsuit against a family-owned dry cleaners that allegedly lost a pair of pants is going up on appeal next month.
Former administrative judge Roy Pearson lost his suit in trial court last year, but immediately filed for an appeal to have the D.C. Court of Appeals determine whether Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff erred in her ruling against him.
Bartnoff ruled that the dry cleaners' owners did not violate the consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson's interpretation of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign displayed in the store.
The appeal is set for Oct. 22.
The case drew national attention and was widely lampooned as an example of legal excess because of Pearson's method for calculating his losses.
Citing the city's consumer protection law, Pearson argued that the owners, Soo and Jin Chung and their son, Ki Chung, each owe $18,000 for each day the pants were missing over a nearly four-year period.
The Chungs have since sold Custom Cleaners in the Northeast neighborhood of Washington, D.C., citing the stress and revenue loss associated with the suit against them, and now run Happy Cleaners in northwest Washington on 7th Street.
Christopher Manning, a name partner at Manning Sossamon representing the Chungs, says he was not surprised that Pearson appealed the trial court's ruling, citing what he called Pearson's "unrelenting" approach to the case.
"We absolutely expected this. Immediately after the verdict, my clients withdrew their motion to have their legal fees repaid by Pearson as an olive branch to him and so they could move on with their lives. He filed the appeal anyway," Manning says.
Manning says he will represent the Chungs pro bono during the appeal.
Manning says he hopes this case will prompt city officials to revise the consumer protection law to keep similar cases from being filed in the future.
In a separate suit, Pearson has accused the District government of breaking the law when it decided not to reappoint him last year to a 10-year term as an administrative law judge. That position pays $100,000 a year.
Pearson did not immediately return calls to his home for comment.
Huge thanks to Queasy and the rest of the members for keeping this thread updated
As posted by Queasy:
Text
WASHINGTON (AP) - A judge on Monday ruled in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants in a case that garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform.
District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the Korean immigrant 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.
"Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr.," the ruling read.
Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs after he claimed they lost a pair of suit trousers and later tried to return a pair that he said was not his. He arrived at the figure by adding up years of law violations and almost $2 million in common law claims. Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.
Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, countered that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to be an unconditional promise of satisfaction.
The two-day trial earlier this month drew a standing-room-only crowd, including many Korean and international media outlets covering the story. It even overshadowed the drunken driving trial of former Mayor Marion Barry.
The Chungs also said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule.
***********************************
Long read but.... whew!!!
Text
The $67 Million Pants
Washington, D.C., Lawyer Sues Dry Cleaners for Lost Trousers
A Washington, D.C., dry cleaners says its their business a long-time customer is taking to the cleaners. A $10 dry cleaning bill for a pair of lost trousers has ballooned into a $67 million civil lawsuit.
Plaintiff Roy Pearson -- himself a local judge in Washington D.C -- says in court papers that he's been through the ringer over a lost pair of prized pants he wanted to wear on his first day on the bench. He says in court papers that he has endured "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort.''
He says he was unable to wear that favorite suit of his first day of work.
He's suing for ten years of weekend car rentals so he can transport his dry cleaning to another store.
The lawsuit is based in large part on Pearson's seemingly pained admission that he was taken in by the oldest and most insidious marketing tool in the dry cleaning industry arsenal.
"Satisfaction Guaranteed."
Pearson did not return numerous calls from ABC News for comment.
It's the kind of lawsuit that makes liability reform advocates' temples throb.
"People in America are now scared of each other,'' legal expert Philip Howard told ABC News' Law & Justice Unit. "That's why teachers won't put an arm around a crying child, and doctors order unnecessary tests, and ministers won't meet with parishioners. It's a distrust of justice and it's changing our culture.
The civil trial, set for June, has the scope of a John Grisham courtroom thriller and the societal importance of a traffic ticket. Pearson plans to call 63 witnesses. Defending themselves against the suit -- for two years running -- are Korean immigrants Jin and Soo Chung and their son, who own Custom Cleaners and two other dry cleaning shops in the Fort Lincoln section of Washington D.C.
The ABC News Law & Justice Unit has calculated that for $67 million dollars Pearson could buy 84,115 new pairs of pants at the $800 value he placed on the missing trousers in court documents. If you stacked those pants up they would be taller than eight Mount Everests. If you laid them side by side they would stretch for 48 miles.
"The whole city is aware of this lawsuit,'' said Bob King, who representing Fort Lincoln on the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions. "Everybody's laughing about it.''
Everybody except the Chungs, who have spent thousands of dollars defending themselves against Pearson's lawsuit.
"It's not humorous, not funny and nobody would have thought that something like this would have happened,'' Soo Chung told ABC News through an interpreter.
Her husband agreed.
"It's affecting us first of all financially, because of all the lawyers' fees,'' Jin Chung said. "For two years, we've been paying lawyer fees... we've gotten bad credit as well, and secondly, it's been difficult mentally and physically because of the level of stress.''
Later, Soo Chung broke down in tears.
"I would have never thought it would have dragged on this long,'' she told ABC News. "I don't want to live here anymore. It's been so difficult. I just want to go home, go back to Korea."
"I've been in the dry cleaning business for 14 years, but this has never ever happened before ? if anything happened to our customers' clothing we would always compensate them accordingly and fairly,'' Jin Chung said through a translator.
The problems date back to 2002.
Pearson says in court papers that he took a pair of pants in to Custom Cleaners in the Fort Lincoln section of D.C. that year, and the pants were lost. So Jin and Soo Chung, the Korean immigrant couple who own Custom Cleaners and two other dry cleaning shops, gave Pearson a $150 check for a new pair of pants.
Three years later, Pearson says he returned to Custom Cleaners and - like some real life "Groundhog Day'' nightmare - his trousers went missing.
Again.
It was May, 2005 and Pearson was about to begin his new job as an administrative judge. Naturally, he wanted to wear a nice outfit to his first day of work. He said in court papers that he tried on five Hickey Freeman suits from his closet, but found them all to be 'too tight,' according to the Washington Post.
He brought one pair in for alterations and they went missing -- gray trousers with what Pearson has described in court papers as having blue and red stripes on them.
First, Pearson demanded $1,150 for a new suit. Lawyers were hired, legal wrangling ensured, and eventually the Chungs offered Pearson $3000 in compensation.
No dice.
Then they offered him $4,600.
No dice.
Finally, they offered $12,000 for the missing gray trousers with the red and blue stripes.
Pearson said no.
With neither satisfaction nor his prized gray pants, Pearson upped the ante considerably.
The judge went to the lawbooks. Citing the District of Columbia's consumer protection laws, he claims he was entitled to $1,500 per violation.
Per day.
What follows was the beginning of thousands of pages of legal documents and correspondence that -- two years later -- has led to a massive civil lawsuit in the amount of $67 million dollars.
According to court papers, here's how Pearson calculates the damages and legal fees:
He believes he is entitled to $1,500 for each violation, each day during which the "Satisfaction Guaranteed'' sign, and another sign promising "Same Day Service'' was up in the store -- more than 1200 days.
And he's multiplying each violation by three because he's suing Jin and Soo Chung and their son.
He also wants $500,000 in 'emotional damages' and another $542, 500 in legal fees, even though he is representing himself in court.
He wants $15,000 for ten years worth of weekend car rentals as well.
After enlisting neighbors and fellow customers, he sought to expand the case into a class action suit, but was denied, angrily, by District of Columbia civil judge Neal Kravitz.
"The Court has significant concerns that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith and with an intent to delay the proceedings,'' the judge wrote in court papers. "Indeed, it is difficult to draw any other conclusion, given the plaintiff's lengthy delay in seeking to expand the scope of the case, the breathtaking magnitude of the expansion he seeks, his failure to present any evidence in support of the thousands of claims he says he wishes to add, and his misrepresentation concerning the scope of his first amended complaint."
The case will now be heard by another judge in June. Both Kravitz and the new judge declined to comment on the case to ABC News.
Ironically, less than a week after he dropped off the missing trousers in 2005, Soo Chung says she found them. She tried to return them to Pearson but he said they were the wrong pants.
The Chungs say they are certain they have located the missing trousers.
"So these are the missing pants, huh,'' Avila asked the Chungs' attorney Chris Manning.
"These are,'' Manning said, holding up a flimsy pair of gray trousers. Manning's argument is based on both the receipt and the telltale "three belt loop situation,'' as he explains it.
"When the pants were brought in, Mrs. Chung noticed the three belt loop situation and in finding them realized that they were Mr. Pearson's pants based on that." He also said the receipt tag on the pants "exactly matches the receipt that Mr. Pearson has.''
Manning himself is angry with Pearson, claiming the judge has terrorized the Chungs for spite.
"They came to the United States hoping for the American dream,'' Manning said. "And Roy Pearson has made it a nightmare.''