$65 Million Dollar suit.

Washington judge suing after store lost trousers taken in for alterations
May 04, 2007 04:30 AM
Lubna Takruri
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON–A missing pair of pants has led to one big suit.
A customer got so steamed when a dry cleaner lost his trousers that he sued for $65 million (U.S.). Two years later, he is still pressing his suit.
The case has demoralized the South Korean immigrant owners and brought demands that the customer – an administrative law judge in Washington – be disbarred and removed from office for pursuing a frivolous and abusive claim.
"They're out a lot of money, but more importantly, incredibly disenchanted with the system," said Chris Manning, lawyer for the owners. "This has destroyed their lives."
The customer, Roy Pearson Jr., who has been representing himself, declined to comment.
According to court documents, the problem began in May 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alterations to Custom Cleaners in Washington. A pair of pants from one suit was missing when he requested it two days later.
Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than $1,000.
But a week later, the owners said the pants had been found and refused to pay. Pearson said those were not his pants and decided to sue.
Manning said the cleaners have made three settlement offers to Pearson: $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000.
But Pearson was not satisfied and expanded his calculations beyond one pair of pants. Because he no longer wanted to use his local dry cleaner, he asked in his lawsuit for $15,000 – the cost of renting a car every weekend for 10 years to go to another business.
The bulk of the $65 million demand comes from Pearson's strict interpretation of Washington consumer protection law, which imposes fines of $1,500 per violation, per day. Pearson counted 12 violations over 1,200 days, then multiplied that by three defendants.
Much of Pearson's case rests on two signs Custom Cleaners once had on its walls: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service." He claims the signs amount to fraud.
The case is set for trial June 11.
Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association, an organization that fights what it considers abusive lawsuits against small businesses, has asked that Pearson be denied a renewal of his 10-year appointment. The association has also offered to buy Pearson a new suit.
Chief Administrative Judge Tyrone Butler had no comment on Pearson's reappointment prospects.
Melvin Welles, former chief administrative law judge with the National Labour Relations Board, wrote to The Washington Post to say that if he were the judge in the case, he would throw out the lawsuit and order Pearson to pay the dry cleaners for their legal expenses and their mental suffering. He also called for Pearson's ouster and disbarment.
"The manifest absurdity of it is too obvious to require explanation," he wrote.

A perfect example of a judge that knows the differnce between legal and illegal but not right and wrong. Hopefully the suit will be tried by a judge that knows the latter

He doesn't want 65 mil, he just wants to ruin these poor people. What a petty, petty man.

i cant believe it

I hope this guy loses the suit and gets disbarred. This guy's a jerk who's trying to play with the legal system. If he wins and ruins these poor people's lives it'll be horrible.

Really suing the pants off of these people.

Stupid legal immigrants trying to run a business and make a better life for themselves and live the American dream. For shame.

-HECK!

I heard an update on this dude yesterday. He says he's a pioneer or some shit. I forget exactly, but he basically said that he's doing it for all the people who have been poorly treated by shoddy small businesses.

And here I was just thinking the guy was simply an asshole.

You've got to wonder, does he sit around with his family or friends on the weekends and just chuckle about how he's going to ruin these people's lives? Or does he talk to everybody about the case seriously, like, oh yeah, my pants... "This 65 million dollars won't come even close to repairing the damage the loss of my pants has done... I wake up screaming at nights. 'PANTS!' I scream, and I know they're not there, in my closet, where they should be.

"I almost ended my life over this situation. The pants... they're... they were like a part of me, or at least part of my wardrobe, and I don't know what I'll do without them...

This case should get tossed and dude should be disbarred. It's a fuckin' joke. Sure, I don't know if this is some shitty, crooked business, but the lawsuit is idiotic. He was offered his pants back and a bunch of cash but he wants to ruin these people.

-HECK!

I hate him.

HECK! wrote:

This case should get tossed and dude should be disbarred. It's a fuckin' joke. Sure, I don't know if this is some shitty, crooked business, but the lawsuit is idiotic. He was offered his pants back and a bunch of cash but he wants to ruin these people.

-HECK!

Problem is, he's a lawyer. He knows how to drag this shit on as long as possible... which I'm sure is what he'll do.

He is a lawyer and a judge. A double whammy. Guy is sick in the head, that's for sure. I can see sueing for the suit, but take the 12 grand or whatever. Demanding millions is pure rudeness.

Stupidity, as well as rudeness.

Probably wants his name in the paper.

Also probably wants people to know that if they have a frivolous lawsuit... bring it on, I'll take it no matter how dumb it is.

Oh, hell yeah!

Dry cleaner wins missing pants case
By LUBNA TAKRURI, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - No pair of pants is worth $54 million. A judge rejected a lawsuit Monday that sought that amount by taking a dry cleaner's promise of "Satisfaction Guaranteed" to its most litigious extreme.

Roy L. Pearson became a worldwide symbol of legal abuse by seeking jackpot justice from a simple complaint — that a neighborhood dry cleaners lost the pants from a suit and tried to give him a pair that were not his.

His claim, reduced from $67 million, was based on a strict interpretation of the city's consumer protection law — which imposes fines of $1,500 per violation — as well as damages for inconvenience, mental anguish and attorney's fees for representing himself.

But District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store.

"A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands," the judge wrote.

Bartnoff wrote that Pearson, an administrative law judge, also failed to prove that the pants the dry cleaner tried to return were not the pants he took in.

Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay clerical court costs of about $1,000 to defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung. A motion to recover the Chungs' tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be considered later.

"Judge Bartnoff has spoken loudly in suggesting that, while consumers should be protected, abusive lawsuits like this will not be tolerated," the Chungs' attorney, Chris Manning, said in a statement. "Judge Bartnoff has chosen common sense and reasonableness over irrationality and unbridled venom."

Speaking to reporters outside their dry cleaners, the Chungs said they held no hard feelings toward Pearson. "If he wants to continue using our services, then, yes, he is welcome," Soo Chung, a Korean immigrant, said through a translator.

Pearson, who came to court during the two-day trial earlier this month carrying the jacket he said went with the missing pants, did not respond to a call and an e-mail seeking comment.

The case began in 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alterations to Custom Cleaners in Washington. A pair of pants from one suit was missing when he requested it two days later.

Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than $1,000.

But a week later, the Chungs said the pants had been found and refused to pay. Pearson said those were not his pants and decided to sue.

Over the course of the litigation, the Chungs said they made three settlement offers — $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000 — all rejected.

The case garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform.

"This case was giving American justice a black eye around the world, and it was all the more upsetting because it was a judge and lawyer who was bringing the suit," said Paul Rothstein, a Georgetown University law professor.

Rothstein said Monday's ruling "restores one's confidence in the legal system."

Calls have come from around the world for Pearson to lose his position on the bench and be disbarred. The city's chief administrative law judge is still considering Pearson's 10-year reappointment.

Funny. Looks like he will end up paying their court costs. What an idiot.

I'll feel sorry if they're expected to pay it all. I'm sure their lawyer is hoping that this guy will have to pay.