$54 million suit over lost pants gets rejected again
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals last month rejected Roy L. Pearson,
Jr.’s request to have his case heard by all nine of the court’s judges in his long-running lawsuit against the owners of Custom Cleaners in
Washington, DC.
A three-judge panel of the court had rejected Pearson’s request for a new trial in December. Pearson followed that with a request for
all nine judges of the court to hear his case, which led to last month’s ruling.
Having been rebuffed in several court venues in his attempt to recover $54
million in a dispute over some missing trousers, Pearson’s last recourse now is the U.S. Supreme Court.
Pearson alleged that the cleaners failed to live up to a “satisfaction guaranteed” sign posted in the store. He appealed to District Court after a District of
Columbia Superior Court judge ruled against him in 2007. Pearson never
demonstrated in court that the store’s posted sign stating “satisfaction guaranteed” amounted to fraud, the judges agreed.
The ongoing case has captured headlines and the public’s attention across the nation and around the world; most commentators have
sympathized with the drycleaners.
The case began when Pearson, an administrative law judge at the time, sued Soo
and Jin Nan Chung for $67 million after he had taken several suits in to be
cleaned and a pair of dress pants to be altered in May of 2005.
When he returned to pick up the pants he claimed that the ones presented to him
were not the same as the trousers he dropped off. Soo Chung said she was
certain that they were the pants, having performed the alterations on them
herself.
Soon after, Pearson wrote to the Chung family and sought a $1,150 payment as
recompense for the slacks and the company’s failure to fulfill their promise of “satisfaction guaranteed” posted on the premises.
The Chungs, still confident that the pants were the right ones, refused to pay.
Over the course of the next two years of litigation, Pearson’s request for compensation climbed to a staggering $67 million.
The Korean immigrants countered with settlement offers of $3,600, $4,600 and
$12,000, but were rejected each time.
Pearson reduced the amount of the lawsuit to $54 million by the time the case
went to trial in June of 2007.
In court, he represented himself and contended that the “satisfaction guaranteed” sign was an unconditional warranty that required the business owners to honor
any claim by any customer, without limitation.
District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnof disagreed, ruling that
the Chungs owed the disgruntled judge nothing. Pearson was also ordered to pay
the Chungs $1,000 in court costs.
That amount was far less than what the Chungs had spent during the years of
litigation. The couple initially planned to countersue Pearson to pay for their
lofty legal bills. However, they received ample sympathy from the public,
especially after they were forced to close down their Custom Cleaners business
due to financial reasons relating to the case.
Ultimately, the public, including many fellow drycleaners, helped provide
financial support with through fund-raising efforts on the Chungs’ behalf and the couple decided to drop the case once and for all, hoping Pearson
would do the same.
Instead, Pearson pressed on in the Court of Appeals where a three-judge panel
upheld Bartnof’s decision, claiming it showed “basic common sense.”
Currently, Pearson is also partaking in a wrongful dismissal suit. When his
judicial post’s two-year term expired in 2005, he asked to be appointed for a ten-year term to
the $100,000-a-year job. The reappointment panel rejected that request and
Pearson has taken them to court, as well.
