Judge Sues Cleaner for $65M Over Pants

Ainilome

Scout
Taken from: here.

WASHINGTON - The Chungs, immigrants from South Korea, realized their American dream when they opened their dry-cleaning business seven years ago in the nation's capital. For the past two years, however, they've been dealing with the nightmare of litigation: a $65 million lawsuit over a pair of missing pants.

Jin Nam Chung, Ki Chung and their son, Soo Chung, are so disheartened that they're considering moving back to Seoul, said their attorney, Chris Manning, who spoke on their behalf.

"They're out a lot of money, but more importantly, incredibly disenchanted with the system," Manning said. "This has destroyed their lives."

The lawsuit was filed by a District of Columbia administrative hearings judge, Roy Pearson, who has been representing himself in the case.

Pearson did not return phone calls and e-mails Wednesday from The Associated Press requesting comment.

According to court documents, the problem began in May 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alteration to Custom Cleaners in Northeast Washington, a place he patronized regularly despite previous disagreements with the Chungs. A pair of pants from one suit was not ready when he requested it two days later, and was deemed to be missing.

Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than $1,000.

But a week later, the Chungs said the pants had been found and refused to pay. That's when Pearson decided to sue.

Manning said the cleaners made three settlement offers to Pearson. First they offered $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000. But Pearson wasn't satisfied and expanded his calculations beyond one pair of pants.

Because Pearson no longer wanted to use his neighborhood dry cleaner, part of his lawsuit calls for $15,000 - the price to rent a car every weekend for 10 years to go to another business.

"He's somehow purporting that he has a constitutional right to a dry cleaner within four blocks of his apartment," Manning said.

But the bulk of the $65 million comes from Pearson's strict interpretation of D.C.'s consumer protection law, which fines violators $1,500 per violation, per day. According to court papers, Pearson added up 12 violations over 1,200 days, and then multiplied that by three defendants.

Much of Pearson's case rests on two signs that Custom Cleaners once had on its walls: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service."

Based on Pearson's dissatisfaction and the delay in getting back the pants, he claims the signs amount to fraud.

Pearson has appointed himself to represent all customers affected by such signs, though D.C. Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz, who will hear the June 11 trial, has said that this is a case about one plaintiff, and one pair of pants.

Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Association, has written a letter to the group of men who will decide this week whether to renew Pearson's 10-year appointment. Joyce is asking them to reconsider.

Chief Administrative Judge Tyrone Butler had no comment regarding Pearson's reappointment.

The association, which tries to police the kind of abusive lawsuits that hurt small businesses, also has offered to buy Pearson the suit of his choice.

And former National Labors Relations Board chief administrative law judge Melvin Welles wrote to The Washington Post to urge "any bar to which Mr. Pearson belongs to immediately disbar him and the District to remove him from his position as an administrative law judge."

"There has been a significant groundswell of support for the Chungs," said Manning, adding that plans for a defense fund Web site are in the works.

To the Chungs and their attorney, one of the most frustrating aspects of the case is their claim that Pearson's gray pants were found a week after Pearson dropped them off in 2005. They've been hanging in Manning's office for more than a year.

Pearson claims in court documents that his pants had blue and red pinstripes.

"They match his inseam measurements. The ticket on the pants match his receipt," Manning said
 
I watched a BBC report about this last night. As they said in it, the people being sued came to experience the American dream, but found instead an American nightmare. And for many people, lawyers are indeed an american nightmare.

"In America today there is one lawyer for every 200 adults. And if you live in Austin, Texas it is about 1 out of 100." Quoted from here.

Translation: we have 300 million people in the US, and roughly 75-80% of them are adults. Therefore we around 1.1 or 1.2 million lawyers in this country.

Granted many of them work in necessary and admirable positions, but how many of the others do you think are out there just waiting for (or actively encouraging) people to come to them with lawsuits to suck the blood out of some poor bastard?
 
Hmm.. I would have done it in a heart beat.

BUT.. I would have taken the money, given a large bulk to charity, given some to the owner of the dry cleaner so he can retire, and last but not least, spend the rest to buy Simutronics its own island in the Key's to develop HJ in perfect serenity.
 
Hmm.. I would have done it in a heart beat.

BUT.. I would have taken the money, given a large bulk to charity, given some to the owner of the dry cleaner so he can retire, and last but not least, spend the rest to buy Simutronics its own island in the Key's to develop HJ in perfect serenity.

But the money is coming mostly from the pockets of the cleaners, isn't it? Really..If it were me, I would have taken the pants back, but I'm rather lenient and would rather not go through all that trouble of suing someone over something so small as a piece of clothing. It's just...mean. Maybe if something truly bad could happen, but these are PANTS. They are not something to ruin someone's life over. Even if they were the pants Johnny Depp wore to play Captain Jack Sparrow, I wouldn't consider it worth ruining someone's life over if they found them too late.

..Not that someone would send something like that to the cleaners.
 
This is just plain gastly.

If I were the judge i'd throw the case out as an egregious attempt to manipulate the leagal system for personal profit. (like that never happens) And fine the individual who brought it on along with paying for their court cost, plus make him pay restitution the the Chungs for unnecesarry pain and suffering to the tune of $500,000.

For destroying their concept of the American Dream once every quarter he'd have to provide a week long; all expenses paid vacation to the destination of their choice for the next 15 years, and a new car yearly. And three days out of the week he would have to work in the cleaners cleaning so the Chungs can go shopping.

If he uttered one single word during my eloquent delivery of his sentence I would make him responsible for exactly what he's trying to make them responsible for so he gets the picture.

What a jerk that guy is.
 
If I were the judge i'd throw the case out as an egregious attempt to manipulate the leagal system for personal profit. (like that never happens) And fine the individual who brought it on along with paying for their court cost, plus make him pay restitution the the Chungs for unnecesarry pain and suffering to the tune of $500,000.

Indianapolis Star said:
Melvin Welles, former chief administrative law judge with the National Labor Relations Board, wrote to The Washington Post to say that if he were the judge in the case, he would throw out the lawsuit and order Pearson to pay the Chungs for their legal expenses and their mental suffering. He also called for Pearson's ouster and disbarment.

"The manifest absurdity of it is too obvious to require explanation," Welles wrote.

Looks like another judge is thinking along the same line as you. I'd have to agree as well.
 
"The manifest absurdity of it is too obvious to require explanation,"

Yeah, it's that absurd. Taking into account Div's observation, that he's representing himself - either he's insane or he's commiting career suicide. On purpose.
 
Well, I seriously doubt he would have been able to get another lawyer to represent him. The entire case is laughable.
 
"The manifest absurdity of it is too obvious to require explanation,"

Yeah, it's that absurd. Taking into account Div's observation, that he's representing himself - either he's insane or he's commiting career suicide. On purpose.

Or his ego is big enough and he actually thinks he has a case. More probable.
 
Back
Top