View Full Version : 65 million dollar lawsuit over lost pants.

2nd May 07, 08:43 AM
I heard this story on the Today Show and I thought I'd spread the misery.

Lawyer's Price For Missing Pants: $65 Million

By Marc Fisher
Thursday, April 26, 2007; B01

When the neighborhood dry cleaner misplaced Roy Pearson's pants, he took action. He complained. He demanded compensation. And then he sued. Man, did he sue.

Two years, thousands of pages of legal documents and many hundreds of hours of investigative work later, Pearson is seeking to make Custom Cleaners pay -- would you believe more than the payroll of the entire Washington Nationals roster?

He says he deserves millions for the damages he suffered by not getting his pants back, for his litigation costs, for "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort," for the value of the time he has spent on the lawsuit, for leasing a car every weekend for 10 years and for a replacement suit, according to court papers.

Pearson is demanding $65,462,500. The original alteration work on the pants cost $10.50.

By the way, Pearson is a lawyer. Okay, you probably figured that. But get this: He's a judge, too -- an administrative law judge for the District of Columbia.

I'm telling you, they need to start selling tickets down at the courthouse.

Oh, where to start: How about the car? Why should Ki, Jin and Soo Chung -- the family that owns Custom Cleaners on Bladensburg Road NE in the District's Fort Lincoln section -- pay Pearson $15,000 so he can rent a car every weekend for 10 years?

The plaintiff, who says he has devoted more than 1,000 hours to represent himself in this battle, says that as a result of poor service at Custom, he must find another cleaner. And because Pearson does not own a car, he says he will have to rent one to get his clothes taken care of.

Back to the beginning. In 2002, Custom lost a pair of pants that Pearson had put in for cleaning. One week after the error was discovered, Custom gave Pearson a check for $150 for new pants. A few days later, the Chungs, Korean immigrants who live in Virginia and own three D.C. cleaners, told Pearson that he was no longer welcome at their store. That dispute was eventually put aside, and Pearson continued to use the company.

Move ahead to 2005, when Pearson got a new job as a judge. He needed to wear a suit to work every day. He dug out his five Hickey Freeman suits and found them to be "uncomfortably tight." He asked Custom to let the waists out two or three inches. Worried that he might be up against his Visa card limit, he took the suits in for alterations one or two at a time.

According to a statement filed by both parties in the lawsuit, Pearson dropped off one pair of pants May 3 so he could wear them to his new job May 6. But on May 5, the pants weren't ready. Soo Chung promised them for early the next morning, but when Pearson arrived, the pants weren't there.

At this point, I should let you in on the subject of hundreds of pages of legal wrangling. Custom Cleaners at that time had two big signs on its walls. One said "Satisfaction Guaranteed," and the other said, "Same Day Service."

Pearson relied on these signs. Deeply.

He was not satisfied. And he did not get his pants back on the same day or, for that matter, on any day.

This, he says, amounts to fraud, negligence and a scam.

A week after that routine mishap -- pants go astray all the time at cleaners -- Soo Chung came up with gray trousers that she said were Pearson's. But when the judge said that he had dropped off pants with red and blue pinstripes, there was no joy in Fort Lincoln.

Pearson's first letter to the Chungs sought $1,150 so he could buy a new suit. Two lawyers and many legal bills later, the Chungs offered Pearson $3,000, then $4,600 and, finally, says their attorney, Chris Manning, $12,000 to settle the case.

But Pearson pushes on. How does he get to $65 million? The District's consumer protection law provides for damages of $1,500 per violation per day. Pearson started multiplying: 12 violations over 1,200 days, times three defendants. A pant leg here, a pant leg there, and soon, you're talking $65 million.

The case, set for trial in June, is on its second judge. The Chungs have removed the signs upon which Pearson's case rests.

"This case shocks me on a daily basis," Manning says. "Pearson has a lot of time on his hands, and the Chungs have been abused in a ghastly way. It's going to cost them tens of thousands to defend this case."

A judge in the case has admonished Pearson about his take-no-prisoners tactics. When Pearson sought to broaden the case to try to prove violations of consumer protection laws on behalf of all District residents, D.C. Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz said that "the court has significant concerns that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith" because of "the breathtaking magnitude of the expansion he seeks."

Pearson has put the Chungs and their attorneys to work answering long lists of questions, such as this: "Please identify by name, full address and telephone number, all cleaners known to you on May 1, 2005 in the District of Columbia, the United States and the world that advertise 'SATISFACTION GUARANTEED.' "

In the world.

The answer: "None."

In a closet of a lawyer's office in downtown Washington, there is a pair of gray wool pants, waiting to be picked up by Roy Pearson.

"We believe the pants are his," Manning says. "The tag matches his receipt."


BTW Al Roker is God.

2nd May 07, 08:54 AM
I think he is sueing the wrong people. He should be sueing the doctor who dropped him on his head when was born.

2nd May 07, 09:13 AM
He should be sueing somebody who actually had money. Dumbass.

2nd May 07, 09:19 AM
From the same story, different source (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3119381&page=1)

"He brought one pair in for alterations and they went missing -- gray trousers with what Pearson described in court papers as blue and red stripes on them."

He's not just a jerk, he dresses like a clown.

Yiktin Voxbane
2nd May 07, 10:17 AM
Heh .... Clown Jerk .... Bizzare circus olympics weightlifting ?

2 x Herschel Krustoffskys with a lift bar between them ..

2nd May 07, 03:49 PM
Fuck that guy. He should be put down immediately.

2nd May 07, 06:57 PM
He should be sueing somebody who actually had money. Dumbass.


2nd May 07, 10:09 PM
I am now in favor of the death penalty. Via skinning alive.

2nd May 07, 11:07 PM
Just how much money does that fucking clown need?

2nd May 07, 11:25 PM
Just how much money does that fucking clown need?

A judge working the legal system?

Don't get me started on how Congress can vote for it's own raises...

3rd May 07, 12:27 AM
Obviously, he's racist against Koreans.

Kill whitey.

3rd May 07, 06:12 AM
Let's not mistake need for want. A common mistake in these parts, I hear.

3rd May 07, 08:12 AM
I think it's just for publicity.

3rd May 07, 11:09 AM
Well, if it's for the Laundromat, it's a terrible publicity stunt. If it's for the lawyer, why would he want to publicize that he is, in effect, the biggest fucking crybaby pussy in the history of crybaby pussies. somebody change his diaper before he gets diaper rash, we'll never hear the end of it. he'll bankrupt the damn country!

this should have gotten no further than the peoples court. he was compensated already.

unrelated peoples court lulz:

3rd May 07, 12:51 PM
That was hilarious. I love people who think they know "the law" and end up looking like fucking morons.

3rd May 07, 04:08 PM
Makes me miss Night Court.

4th May 07, 01:36 AM
anarchy has it's redeeming qualities...


4th May 07, 05:59 AM
Datsik rides again!!!

6th June 07, 05:56 PM
Judge now wants just $54M from cleaner (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070606/ap_on_fe_st/odd_67_million_pants)

WASHINGTON - A judge who was seeking $67 million from a dry cleaners that lost his pants has loosened the belt on his lawsuit. Now, he's asking for only $54 million, according to a May 30 court filing in D.C. Superior Court.
Roy L. Pearson, a District of Columbia administrative law judge, first sued Custom Cleaners over a pair of pants that went missing two years ago. He was seeking about $65 million under the D.C. consumer protection act and almost $2 million in common law claims.
He is now focusing his claims on signs in the shop that have since been removed. The suit alleges that Jin Nam Chung, Soo Chung and Ki Chung committed fraud and misled consumers with signs that claimed "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service."
But Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, says that can be considered fraud only if the signs misled a "reasonable" person. No reasonable person, he says, would interpret them to be an unconditional promise of satisfaction.
Pearson, who is representing himself, said in an e-mail that the focus of the case, from the start, was based on the "false, misleading and fraudulent advertisements displayed by the Chungs."

6th June 07, 06:51 PM
Don't get me started on how Congress can vote for it's own raises...

Actually, they DON'T vote to get their raises. It's fitting, really, they do nothing to get a raise doing a job where they basically do nothing.

7th June 07, 01:16 AM
Actually, they DON'T vote to get their raises. It's fitting, really, they do nothing to get a raise doing a job where they basically do nothing.

Huh, I thought I heard that they did (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/20/dobbs.june21/index.html)....

Who then give's them a raise? I've never seen it on a ballot.

7th June 07, 09:57 AM
"Up until 1989, Congress had to actually proactively vote themselves pay raises. These votes were politically embarrassing to everyone involved, and they would usually happen in the dead of night on a Friday... or any other time congressfolk hoped the media were looking the other way. Because they got tired of getting political heat back in their own districts for such votes, they changed the rules (note that Democrats were still in control, so this can't be blamed on Republicans). From 1989 onwards, they got an automatic pay raise, euphemistically called a "Cost Of Living Adjustment" (COLA). The rules changed so that (this is either Orwellian or something out of Wonderland, I haven't quite decided which), if Congress doesn't vote to deny themselves a pay raise, they got one... automatically.

Got that? If they do nothing, they get a raise. If they hold a vote against a pay raise and it goes through, then they don't get a raise. Pretty sweet to be a Congressman, huh?"


25th June 07, 01:21 PM
Cleaner beats suit over missing pants

Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung.

That's great.

25th June 07, 01:50 PM
This is the best possible outcome. Also, renewed faith in 'the system'.

25th June 07, 02:08 PM

25th June 07, 03:53 PM
Who's gonna clean his pants now??? Huh??

25th June 07, 05:32 PM
Who's gonna clean his pants now??? Huh??

I'm guessing he's going to have to go this route from now on: