Judith L Pearson Popular Books

Judith L Pearson Biography & Facts

Pearson v. Chung, also known as the "$54 million pants" case, is a 2007 civil case decided in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in which Roy Pearson, then an administrative law judge, sued his local dry cleaning establishment for $54 million in damages after the dry cleaners allegedly lost his pants. On May 3, 2005, Pearson delivered a pair of gray pants to a local dry cleaning establishment in Washington, D.C. called Custom Cleaners, operated by Jin, Soo, and Ki Chung. When the pants were returned to him several days later, Pearson insisted that the pants he was presented with were not the pants he initially dropped off, and accused the Chungs of losing his pants. Pearson demanded to be compensated $1,000 by the Chungs, which Pearson claimed the pants to be worth, but the Chungs refused. In response, Pearson filed suit against the Chungs for inconvenience and mental distress, initially requesting $67 million in damages, though later reduced the amount to $54 million. The case went to trial on June 12, 2007. Representing himself pro se during the proceedings, Pearson argued that the Chungs had failed to fulfill the "Same Day Service" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed" promises posted outside their business. The Chungs argued that the signs could only be considered fraud if a reasonable person could be misled by them. Pearson lost the case and subsequent appeal. The Chungs made a motion to recover their legal fees, but withdrew it following the conclusion of a successful fundraising campaign. The case drew international attention and has been held as an example of frivolous litigation and the need for tort reform in the United States. Lawsuit Background On May 3, 2005, Pearson delivered a pair of gray pants to a dry cleaning establishment in Washington, D.C. called Custom Cleaners to be altered. The establishment was owned collectively by Jin and Soo Chung, a married couple, and their son Ki Chung, all of whom had immigrated from South Korea and did not speak fluent English. The pants that Pearson delivered belonged to a blue and maroon suit that he owned, and were described by him as being gray with "blue and red stripes on them". Pearson requested his pants be ready for pickup two days later on May 5, which Soo Chung, who took his order, agreed to. When Pearson returned on May 5 to pick up his pants, Soo Chung informed him that his pants were not ready and had been sent to another store they owned by mistake. Soo Chung promised to have them ready the following morning, but when Pearson returned on May 6, the pants "still had not been located". Soo Chung asked Pearson to return the following day. Pearson returned the next morning on May 7, where the Chungs presented him with a pair of charcoal gray pants. Pearson insisted that the pants were not his, contrary to the dry cleaner's records, tags, and his receipt, and refused to accept them. Pearson demanded what he claimed to be the price of the pants as compensation, an amount of over $1,000, which the Chungs refused. As a result, Pearson filed suit in the District of Columbia's Superior Court. The judge to whom the case was presented decided to bring it to trial on the basis of two of Pearson's claims. The first claim was the issue of the ownership by Pearson of the presented pair of pants. The second claim was on the issue of signs posted outside the business, advertising "Same Day Service" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed", which Pearson claimed to be misleading. The Chungs were reportedly considering moving back to South Korea. After an outpouring of support for the Chungs from members of the public, a website was set up to accept donations for the Chungs' legal defense. Over time, the Chungs presented three settlement offers in the amounts of $3,000, $4,600, and $12,000—all of which were rejected by Pearson. D.C. Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz stated that "the court has significant concerns that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith". The judge resolved some of the issues in the Chungs' favor in response to their motion for summary judgment (which was filed at the close of discovery), but could not dismiss the case because some facts were in dispute. On May 30, 2007, Pearson reduced his demands to $54 million in damages rather than $67 million. Among his requests were $500,000 in attorney's fees, $2 million for "discomfort, inconvenience, and mental distress", and $15,000 which he claimed would be the cost to rent a car every weekend to drive to another dry cleaning service. The remaining $51.5 million would be used to help similarly dissatisfied D.C. consumers sue businesses. Pearson also re-focused his lawsuit from the missing pants to the removal of window signs for "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service". Pearson claimed the signs represented fraud on the part of the Chungs. The Chungs' lawyer, Christopher Manning, alleged that the signs could only be considered fraud if a reasonable person would be misled by them, and that a reasonable person would not see the signs as an unconditional promise. The Chungs' lawyer portrayed Pearson as a bitter, financially insolvent man; under questioning, Pearson admitted that, at the start of the court case, he had only $1000–2000 in the bank due to divorce proceedings, and was collecting unemployment benefits. Trial The trial heard opening arguments on June 12, 2007, with Pearson representing himself pro se and the Chungs being represented by attorney Chris Manning. The trial drew a "standing-room-only" crowd. Pearson broke down in tears during an explanation about his frustration after losing his pants, and a short recess had to be declared. Decision On June 25, 2007, the trial ended with District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruling in favor of the dry cleaners, and awarding them court costs pursuant to a motion which the Chungs later withdrew. The court took judicial notice of Pearson's divorce proceedings, where he was sanctioned $12,000 by the trial court for "creating unnecessary litigation and threatening both his wife and her lawyer with disbarment". Post-trial motions and appeal Pearson made a motion on July 11, 2007, to reconsider in the trial court, stating that he felt the judge had "committed a fundamental legal error", and had failed to address his legal claims. Pearson stated he believed the court had imposed its own conditional interpretation of "satisfaction guaranteed", rather than what Pearson believes is an offer of unconditional and unambiguous satisfaction. The court denied the motion. It was revealed on August 2, 2007, that a panel recommended Pearson not be given a ten-year term as an administrative law judge after his initial two-year term expired mid-2007, in part because his suit against Mr. Chung demonstrated a lack of "judicial temperament". Pearson was appointed in 2005 and stood to lose his $100,512 salary if a hearing upheld that decision. On October 22, a D.C. commission voted against reappointing .... Discover the Judith L Pearson popular books. Find the top 100 most popular Judith L Pearson books.