Back to court for cleaners
in $54 million pants case
in $54 million pants case
It’s back to court this month for the Washington, DC, drycleaners who thus far have
successfully fended off a lawsuit by a customer who claims they owe him $54
million for losing a pair of his pants.
The case began in 2005 when Roy Pearson, a customer at Soo and Jin Nam Chung’s Custom Cleaners, brought trousers to the store for alteration. When he
returned several days later, he claimed that the pants Soo Chung presented to
him were not his. She was certain that they were, having performed the
alterations herself.
Pearson left without the pants, then wrote to the Chungs demanding payment of
$1,150 to cover the lost pants and to fulfill their promise of “Satisfaction Guaranteed.” The Chungs were confident that the pants they had were Pearson’s, so they didn’t pay.
During the course of two years of litigation, Pearson’s demand for compensation inflated to $67 million, which he scaled back to $54
million before the case went to trial in June, 2007. Pearson contended that a “satisfaction guaranteed” sign was an unconditional warranty that required the Chungs to honor any claim
by any customer, without limitation, based on the customer’s determination of whatever would make him “satisfied.”
District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnof disagreed, ruling that
the Chungs owed Pearson nothing. Pearson was ordered to pay the Chungs $1,000
in court costs.
Initially the Chungs planned to go to court to get Pearson to pay their massive
legal bills, but they decided to drop that case, hoping to bury the hatchet
with Pearson and get on with their lives. Widespread publicity had generated
considerable sympathy for the family, resulting in fund-raising efforts on
their behalf.
Christopher Manning, the family’s attorney, said at the time that with their expenses largely recouped, the
Chung’s, “want nothing more than to quietly return to running their drycleaning business.”
They sold Custom Cleaners to concentrate on running their other drycleaning
business in the city. But Pearson, their former customer, wouldn’t go away. He filed an appeal of the Superior Court ruling which will go before
a three-judge Appeals Court panel October 22. Manning has said that he will
represent the Chungs pro bono during the appeal.
Pearson is in court on another matter in part stemming from his $54 million
lawsuit. At the time he filed the lawsuit, Pearson was a $100,000-a-year
administrative law judge in the District of Columbia. He lost that position a
year ago after he was not reappointed. The commission that oversees
administrative law judges questioned his judgment and temperament.
So he is now suing the District of Columbia over his lost job.
