The industry’s best showcase
Once again the Clean Show demonstrated that it is central to the vitality of the
industry. No other venue provides the scope and scale for thousands of cleaners
and allied trades people to gather and assess where we are as an industry and
where we might be going. Yes, regional trade shows are a great opportunity to
meet local suppliers and other cleaners from a particular area, but only at a
Clean Show do you get full exposure to the national, and even international,
array of products, people and ideas that keep the industry alive, well and
moving forward.
The recently concluded Clean Show in Las Vegas saw a welcome reversal of a trend
of declining attendance. Final figures aren
’t in, but the first three days of the four-day show counted 14,564 attendees,
topping the 13,951 who attended the 2005 show in Orlando. That
’s one sign that cleaners know they need new ideas and information to manage
their way into the future. Another sign was the attendance at seminars
sponsored by the Drycleaning and Laundry Institute, which itself recognized the
need for renewal by taking on a new name as the organization previously known
as the International Fabricare Institute begins its second century. From the
opening bell on Monday morning, the seminar rooms were packed to standing room
only. Off-hours activities in the evenings may have kept people up past their
normal bedtimes
— and DLI kept hundreds of cleaners hopping at their anniversary party on Monday
night
— but no one seemed to be sleeping in or sleeping it off come morning.
The Clean Show comes but once every other year. There is time to rest during the
intervening 103 weeks. For those who were there, not a moment was to be missed.
For those who weren
’t, start thinking now about joining the crowd at Clean 2009 in New Orleans.
A mockery made of the justice system
Most drycleaners have lost a garment, but imagine being sued for $65 million
(not a typo) for a missing pair of pants. By now, you have probably heard about
the case involving a judge suing a mom-and-pop cleaning plant for that ungodly
sum due to the unbearable loss of his beloved trousers. The pants were not worn
by Elvis, mind you, nor were they magical or jewel-encrusted. They were an
ordinary pair of suit pants sent in for $10.50 worth of alterations.
So, how on earth does that merit a $65 million lawsuit (that figure has since
been generously reduced to $54 million by plaintiff Roy Pearson)? It does not
add up, of course, but when Custom Cleaners (owned by Jim, Soo and Ki Chung)
balked at paying $1,150 for a new suit, Pearson filed suit. He asked for a half
million dollars in emotional distress (he broke down in tears in court while
discussing the pantsless pain he felt) and another $542,000 in legal fees,
despite the fact that he represents himself on the matter. He claims to have
spent more than 1,400 hours preparing for the case (again, not a typo).
Furthermore, he claimed that the signs on display in Custom Cleaners promising “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and “Same Day Service” were fraudulent, thus the cleaners violated a Washington, DC, consumer law that
is subject to $1,500 per day in penalty fees. Pearson
’s fuzzy math meant multiplying that figure by 12 violations, times the three
defendants, times 1,200 days of infractions. He also sought ten years
’ worth of weekend car rentals because he was forced to go to a faraway cleaners.
Trying to avoid costly legal fees and a PR nightmare, the Chungs offered to
settle for $12,000, but Pearson wanted his day in court. He certainly knows
that even if he loses, the Chungs may still end up going out of business. They
have been overwhelmed with court costs and have even considered moving back to
Korea to find peace of mind. That seems fair. One man loses a pair of pants,
and a whole family stands to lose its shirt
— in other words, its store, savings and sanity.
Without fear of hyperbole, this is easily one of the most frivolous lawsuits
ever, and it threatens to turn the U.S. legal system into a complete laughing
stock. The final verdict was not available at press time, but it
’s hard to imagine a scenario where Pearson will win. Of course, he does not need
a verdict in his favor to cause irreparable harm to the Chungs. In a better
world, the presiding judge would rule in favor of the Chungs and make Pearson
pay for their lofty legal fees borne out of his blatant abuse of the law.
Scratch that. In a better world, this case would never have even seen the light
of day.
