$54 Million Pants Case Set for Appeal

The $54 million lawsuit against a family-owned dry cleaners that allegedly lost a pair of pants is going up on appeal next month.

Former administrative judge Roy Pearson lost his suit in trial court last year, but immediately filed for an appeal to have the D.C. Court of Appeals determine whether Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff erred in her ruling against him.

Bartnoff ruled that the dry cleaners’ owners did not violate the consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson's interpretation of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign displayed in the store.

The appeal is set for Oct. 22.

The case drew national attention and was widely lampooned as an example of legal excess because of Pearson’s method for calculating his losses.

Citing the city’s consumer protection law, Pearson argued that the owners, Soo and Jin Chung and their son, Ki Chung, each owe $18,000 for each day the pants were missing over a nearly four-year period.

The Chungs have since sold Custom Cleaners in Northeast, citing the stress and revenue loss associated with the suit against them, and now run Happy Cleaners in northwest Washington on 7th Street.

Christopher Manning, a name partner at Manning Sossamon representing the Chungs, says he was not surprised that Pearson appealed the trial court’s ruling, citing what he called Pearson’s “unrelenting” approach to the case.

“We absolutely expected this. Immediately after the verdict, my clients withdrew their motion to have their legal fees repaid by Pearson as an olive branch to him and so they could move on with their lives. He filed the appeal anyway,” Manning says.

Manning says he will represent the Chungs pro bono during the appeal.

Manning says he hopes this case will prompt city officials to revise the consumer protection law to keep similar cases from being filed in the future.

In a separate lawsuit, Pearson has accused the District government of breaking the law when it decided not to reappoint him last year to a 10-year term as an administrative law judge. That position pays $100,000 a year.

Pearson did not immediately return calls to his home for comment.

Comments

[larry]

Well, good for the law firm for representing the Chungs pro bono. This time however when costs are granted to the Chungs, they should take it so we will hopefully see the last of Roy Pearson....

[UncleSam]

Sounds to me like ole Roy is a die-hard Democrat...always wanting a free handout at the expense of the working people.

[Darko]

Wow... what a loser ... GET A LIFE YOU JACKASS... A JUDGE SUING FOR $54 MIL , LIKE YOU DONT HAVE ENOUGH OF MONEY AS IS. GIVE HIM $54 DOLLARS AND SHUT HIS ASS UP! WE ALL KNOW THAT LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE NOTHING MORE THAN THEIFS ANYWAYS!!!

[Nony Moose]

This is crazy. The man needs to give up. I detect some resentment towards Asians, life in general, and the DC government from this man. I wish he would just give up already!

[Supremecourtjester]

He lost his pants, he lost his suit. Thank goodness he still has his briefs.

[David H]

"Former administrative judge Roy Pearson lost his suit in trial court last year..."

I wonder what he will seek for damages for the lost suit.

[DarrenInDC]

As with practically every frivolous lawsuit, consumers are the ultimate losers. Other than the vindictive and seemingly insane plaintiff, Roy Pearson, neighborhood dry-cleaning customers were generally quite pleased with the walking-distance convenience and quality of service at the Chungs' Northeast D.C. store. But the cost -- financial and emotional -- the Chungs paid defending themselves against the crazy "pantsuit" forced them to close that store. Perhaps Pearson's neighbors can find special little ways to express their gratitude.