Thread: Judge suing dry cleaner cries over pants

Judge suing dry cleaner cries over pants
By LUBNA TAKRURI, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jun 12, 6:55 PM ET

WASHINGTON - A judge had to leave the courtroom with tears running down his face Tuesday after recalling the lost pair of trousers that led to his $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner.

Administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson had argued earlier in his opening statement that he is acting in the interest of all city residents against poor business practices. Defense attorneys called his claim "outlandish."

He originally sued Custom Cleaners for about $65 million under the District of Columbia consumer protection act and almost $2 million in common law claims. He is no longer seeking damages related to the pants, instead focusing his claims on two signs in the shop that have since been removed.

He alleges that Jin Chung, Soo Chung and Ki Chung, owners of the mom-and-pop business, committed fraud and misled consumers with signs that claimed "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service."

Pearson, representing himself, said in opening that he wanted to examine the culture that allowed "a group of defendants to engage in bad business practices for five years."

An attorney for the Chungs portrayed Pearson as a bitter man with financial troubles stemming from a recent divorce who is taking out his anger on a hardworking family. "This case is very simple. It's about one sign and the plaintiff's outlandish interpretation," attorney Chris Manning said.

The Chungs were to present their case Wednesday. Manning asked D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff to award them reimbursement for their legal costs if they win.

Pearson called several witnesses Tuesday who testified that they stopped going to Custom Cleaners after problems with misplaced clothes. Pearson also called himself as a witness, saying his problems began in May 2005 when he brought in several suits for alterations. A pair of pants from a blue and maroon suit was missing when he requested it two days later. He said Soo Chung tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants.

As Pearson explained that those weren't the pants for the suit, he choked up and left the courtroom crying after asking Bartnoff for a break.

Pearson originally asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit, which was more than $1,000. But because the Chungs insisted the pants had been found, they refused to pay.

Manning has said the cleaners made three settlement offers to Pearson, but the judge was not satisfied and increased his demands — including asking for money to rent a car so he could drive to another business.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070612/...c1XESFb0Gs0NUE


This should be thrown out of court with punitive damages paid to the defendents; furhter the "Judge" should be held for a phyc eval

Pants plaintiff: Customer always right
By LUBNA TAKRURI, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 13, 11:01 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The customer is always right, said a judge who testified Wednesday in his $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner who lost his pants. Administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson argued that he is acting in the interest of all city residents against poor business practices. Attorneys for the dry cleaner call his claim "outlandish."

The attorneys delivered closing arguments Wednesday, and Judge Judith Bartnoff said she would rule by the end of next week.

Under cross-examination, Pearson said the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act, under which he is suing Custom Cleaners, should grant a customer whatever he or she wants if there is a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign.

Pearson, 57, originally sued Custom Cleaners for about $65 million by adding up violations under the act and almost $2 million in common law claims. He is no longer seeking damages related to the pants, focusing his claims on two signs in the shop that have since been removed.

Bartnoff ruled Wednesday that the "Same Day Service" sign was no longer to be considered, leaving "Satisfaction Guaranteed" the only issue in question.

Defense attorney Chris Manning asked Pearson repeatedly whether, if he was a merchant, he would pay any customer who asked for compensation. Pearson kept responding with convoluted legal language, and each time Judge Judith Bartnoff instructed him to answer the question. Finally, he said, "Yes."

Pearson alleges that Jin Chung, Soo Chung and Ki Chung, owners of the small business, committed fraud and misled consumers because they put up the signs but did not meet the satisfaction of several customers, including him.

Defense attorney Chris Manning portrayed Pearson as a bitter man with financial troubles stemming from a recent divorce who is taking out his anger on a hardworking family.

Manning went into the details of Pearson's divorce on Wednesday. Under questioning, Pearson confirmed he had only $1,000 to $2,000 to his name when his problems with the dry cleaners started. Pearson said he did not have a job at the time and was collecting unemployment benefits.

Pearson says his problems with Custom Cleaners began in May 2005 when he brought in several suits for alterations. A pair of pants from a blue and maroon suit was missing when he requested it two days later. The Chungs say they found the pants soon after and tried to give them to Pearson, but Pearson insists those are not his. The charcoal-gray, cuffed pants are now evidence.

"I haven't worn pants with cuffs since the 1970s," Pearson said. He also submitted into evidence a photograph of every pair of pants in his home to show that he does not like pants with cuffs.

Pearson said that he wants only $2 million in damages for himself — for his mental anguish and inconvenience — plus $500,000 in attorney's fees for representing himself. Anything more that Bartnoff might award him would go into a fund "to educate people of their rights under the Consumer Protection Act," he said.

After closing arguments, Bartnoff said she was taking the issues in the case seriously. "I do think that this is a very important statute to protect to consumers, and I also think it's important that statutes like this are not misused," she said.

The courtroom was standing-room only for both days of the trial, with many Korean and international media outlets covering the story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070614/...eCCBe9pOAZ.3QA

If that nut wins, then the judge in the case is sleeping with him

Cases of bad judgment
Fri Jun 15, 7:22 AM ET

Will somebody please get Roy Pearson a new pair of pants - and some sense of proportion?

For those who've somehow missed the international headlines, the blogs and the morning talk shows, Pearson is the Washington, D.C., administrative law judge who sued his dry cleaner for $65 million for losing his pants. (Yes, you read that correctly: $65 million and lost pants.) Pearson has since slashed his claim to a mere $54 million.

Pearson dragged the establishment's Korean immigrant owners into court, claiming that they violated the city's consumer fraud law by failing to make good on a "satisfaction guaranteed" pledge. This week, two years after the incident, the case went to trial, and a ruling is expected soon. Pearson's rambling, emotional testimony included his description of one traumatic moment - when the cleaners allegedly tried to pass off some other pants as his - as a "Twilight Zone experience."

At one level, the case is just an oddity - a particularly extreme example of the many ludicrous claims filed every year. They are inevitable because anyone is entitled to go to court, and should be. But the handling of the case points to broader problems. For starters, why didn't a judge shut this down sooner? Pearson could have been dispatched to small claims court. Part of a judge's job is to weed out meritless claims.

Moreover, how does someone who would file such a claim end up as an administrative judge, deciding cases that affect other people's lives? Pearson was serving a two-year term, which ended last month, and he's up for reappointment. Meanwhile, he continues to pull down $100,512 a year on the public payroll as an attorney adviser.

Aren't judges supposed to have, well, some sense of judgment?

And where does Pearson shop anyway? Someone should tell him you can buy a really nice pair of pants for less than $54 million.

Shoe on other foot.

Compared with Pearson's $54 million suit, Robert Bork's decision to sue the Yale Club for $1 million is small potatoes. And the facts of the case - Bork fell while trying to get onto a dais that had neither a step nor a railing - are unremarkable.

Unremarkable, that is, except that Bork, 80, is one of the nation's leading conservative legal scholars and has occasionally taken aim at the type of tort he is now bringing. To wit, in a 1995 op-ed piece that he co-authored, the former appellate judge and Supreme Court nominee argued that the constant threat of personal injury lawsuits makes America's civil justice system "expensive, capricious, unpredictable."

Bork managed to deliver his scheduled Yale Club speech despite the injury. But he later underwent surgery. In his complaint, he blames the club for "pain and suffering, a continuing leg injury, medical bills and related costs of treatment, and lost work time and income." The amount of his claim, and the fact that he is asking for unspecified punitive damages, has prompted a number of Bork's critics to cry hypocrisy.

Well, maybe. But the pain of personal experience also has a way of overriding opinions formed from detached study or ideological rigidity. Or perhaps the great social theorist Cyndi Lauper had it right: Money changes everything.

Letter of the law.

From less rarefied legal circles comes this story: In 2003, Genarlow Wilson, 17, attended a New Year's Eve party involving alcohol and marijuana. There, he received oral sex from a 15-year-old girl, all videotaped by a fellow partygoer. Police saw the tape, and Wilson was arrested.

Although the sex was consensual, Georgia law at the time deemed it to be aggravated child molestation, which carried a mandatory 10-year sentence. Lawmakers might not have had consenting teens in mind when they wrote that law, but Wilson was convicted and got the 10-year sentence.

Now 21, Wilson has served 28 months. During his incarceration, Georgia lawmakers downgraded the offense he committed to a misdemeanor, but it wasn't retroactive.

Does keeping Genarlow Wilson in prison amount to reasonable justice? Not according to Georgia Superior Court Judge Thomas Wilson (no relation), who earlier this week called the case a "grave miscarriage of justice" and ordered Wilson released.

End of story? Not quite. Georgia's by-the-book attorney general, Thurbert Baker, filed a notice of appeal, saying the judge had exceeded his authority and set a bad precedent. Wilson is still in prison.

The best that can be said for the Wilson case is that the state has a legitimate interest in keeping older teens from preying on younger ones - if that even happened. But it's a weak argument.

Georgia, like every other state, has no shortage of serious crime. And, like every other state, it has a limited number of prosecutors, prison cells and other resources that make a criminal justice system work.

Aren't there other cases more worthy of the attorney general's attention? And, regardless, is prison really the right remedy for consensual teenage sex?

Justice demands judgment, not rigidity. That's true whether the issue is teen sex, an unfortunate fall or a $54 million pair of pants.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...xwSvD3Tlv8B2YD

Dry Cleaner Wins Missing Pants Case

Jun 25, 10:40 AM (ET)

By LUBNA TAKRURI

WASHINGTON (AP) - A judge ruled Monday in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants.

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 once displayed in the store window, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled.

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

Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs, claiming they lost a pair of suit trousers and later tried to give him a pair that he said was not his. He arrived at the amount by adding up years of alleged 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, argued that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to mean an unconditional promise of satisfaction.

The Chungs said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule.

The two-day trial earlier this month drew a standing-room-only crowd and overshadowed the drunken driving trial of former Mayor Marion Barry.

Originally Posted by LuvBigRip

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

wtg judge bartnoff
if this is how pearson handles his cases as a judge he should be disrobed and disbarred, this is one case that shows parts of the US as sue happy MORONS

Scooped me again !



Dry Cleaner Wins Missing Pants Case
June 25, 2007 - 11:32am
By LUBNA TAKRURI -- Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - A judge ruled Monday in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants.

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

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

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

Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs, claiming they lost a pair of trousers from a blue and maroon suit, then tried to give him a pair a pair of charcoal gray pants that he said were not his. He arrived at the amount by adding up years of alleged law violations and almost $2 million in common law fraud claims.

Bartnoff wrote, however, that Pearson failed to prove that the pants the dry cleaner tried to return were not the pants he taken in for alterations.

Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.

The court costs amount to just over $1,000 for photocopying, filing and similar expenses, according to the Chungs' attorney. A motion to recover the Chungs' tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be considered later.

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

Pearson did not immediately respond to a call and an e-mail seeking comment.

http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=456&sid=1174420


( I think the plaintiff should be forced to pay the ENTIRE legal bill of the dry cleaners since this was such a frivilous ccase.... )

I think he needs disbarred too. He is a laughing stock and should be ashamed of himself.

Those dry cleaner owners attempted to give him back his pants within 7 days of the original trial.

The lawyer is a nut case.