If the dry cleaners were to lose your favourite pair of dance trousers...

Pacion

New Member
...would you sue and if so, for how much? I heard the below true story below yesterday on the radio. The radio guy also went on to say that the husband of drycleaning company (I think they were Vietnamese? Don't quote me on that!) reportedly said "this is all too much. I want to go home" [Home being back to Vietnam, if it is Vietnam he is originally from.] Although I have never been sued, I feel for this guy and his wife!

The $65 million dollar pants
When the neighborhood dry cleaner misplaced Roy Pearson's pants, he took action. He complained. He demanded compensation. And then he sued. Man, did he sue.
Two years, thousands of pages of legal documents and many hundreds of hours of investigative work later, Pearson is seeking to make Custom Cleaners pay -- would you believe more than the payroll of the entire Washington Nationals roster?

He says he deserves millions for the damages he suffered by not getting his pants back, for his litigation costs, for "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort," for the value of the time he has spent on the lawsuit, for leasing a car every weekend for 10 years and for a replacement suit, according to court papers.

Pearson is demanding $65,462,500. The original alteration work on the pants cost $10.50.

By the way, Pearson is a lawyer. Okay, you probably figured that. But get this: He's a judge, too -- an administrative law judge for the District of Columbia.
 
I first thought that was an urban myth, but apparently it's true - here's an aritcle on it.

The guy (Judge Pearson) is a disgrace to his profession - he's refused very generous settlement terms, and he's abusing his power and knowledge in a vindictive and malicious way.
 
:( :( So, you thought I would post 'an urban myth' did you?

Only on April 1! ;)

But, as the saying goes... "only in America..."
 
He is an administrative court judge so he does not have that much power and authority. I happen to think he'll have a lot less of it once he's done with this ridiculous lawsuit. Just thought I'd mention this since it's happening in DC where I happen to live and practice law. He is definitely vindictive though!
 
yes, but has the court agreed to hear his case? it doesn't have to... could be deemed frivolous or without merit & tossed out... if the court does, tho, they could open the way for a counter-suit for frivolous litigation.
 
wow, if losing a pair of trousers causes $65M worth of pain and suffering, shouldn't the guy have some kind of psychiatric evaluation? If I went round claiming that losing a pair of trousers merited that kind of reaction I'd be sectioned!
 
If I went round claiming that losing a pair of trousers merited that kind of reaction I'd be sectioned!

:? Are you sure? :roll: :lol:

Remember this is modern day Britain, where someone can break into YOUR house, to rob/hurt you and if you have a dog that attacks/bites him (or her), they can sue YOU! :doh:

[I think - but don't quote me - they can also sue you, successfully, if they use a ladder on your property, fall off and hurt themselves... yet, they were using the ladder a) without permission, b) on your property where they weren't invited, c) were up to no good]
 
I've been reading about this in the paper over the last couple of weeks. I believe his "administratorship" is up for renewal and being reviewed by a 4-judge panel. The article I read seemed to indicate that his failure to settle reasonably could impact whether or not he gets to keep his $100k job...
 
The cleaners are originally from South Korea, and they had offered a variety of settlements for WAY more than the price to replace the pants (one offer was for 6 thousand dollars), but the plaintiff would not settle and so now we have this mess clogging up the US court system.

This will go down in history along with that hot coffee-McDonald's thing from a long time ago (was it in the 1980s? it was at least in the 1990's).
 
leaving aside the human angle, i think it is an interesting case.

personal belongings can be.. irreplacable. services dealing with such must be held accountable to much higher standards. my dad... had a vhs player that he sent out for repair. inside the player, there was a vhs casette (stuck inside) with the only known recordings of his recently deceased mom (or the only known recent pictures of her either - she was camera shy). the vhs player came back, the vhs casette never did. no amount of chasing after the manufacturer could bring the casette back. If he'd sued for $65M, it might have been for a lot of money, but it would have been a precedent worth setting.
 
I do agree with the comment on how some personal items truly are irreplaceable and that services dealing with them must be impeccably responsible for the items...but:

There's a big difference between a pair of pants -- even if they were custom-made in London or Hong Kong, which I have no idea if the pants in question were -- and the only video of one's deceased parent.

The dry cleaners offered a settlement of more than enough money to get the pants re-made, or even a whole new suit made, yet the plaintiff presses on for $65M. As if the dry cleaners could even pay that much! I'm sure their entire net worth doesn't come to $65M. The dry cleaners are being made an example of, and for what? It was just a pair of suit pants -- it wasn't even like it was some bride having her wedding dress lost right before the big day, or some antique in a museum collection being lost or ruined.

Here's the text of the article that came through the Associated Press:

Judge sues dry cleaner over pants
By LUBNA TAKRURI
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- A missing pair of pants has led to one big suit.

A customer got so angry when a dry cleaner lost his trousers that he sued for $65 million. Now, two years later, he is still pursuing his suit.

The case has demoralized the South Korean immigrant owners of the mom-and-pop business and brought demands that the customer -- an administrative law judge in Washington -- be disbarred and removed from office for pursuing a frivolous and abusive claim.

Jin Nam Chung, Ki Chung and their son, Soo Chung, are considering moving back to Seoul, seven years after they opened their business in the nation's capital, said their lawyer, Chris Manning.

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

The customer, Roy Pearson Jr., who has been representing himself, declined to comment.

According to court documents, Pearson brought several suits for alterations beginning in May 2005 after he became a judge to Custom Cleaners. A pair of pants from one suit was missing when he requested it two days later.

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. Pearson said the pants weren't his and decided to sue the Chungs. Manning said the cleaners have made three settlement offers to Pearson: $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000.

But Pearson was not satisfied and expanded his calculations beyond one pair of pants. Because Pearson no longer wanted to use his neighborhood dry cleaner, he asked in his lawsuit for $15,000 -- the cost of renting a car every weekend for 10 years to go to another business.

The bulk of the $65 million demand comes from Pearson's strict interpretation of the District of Columbia's consumer-protection law, which imposes fines of $1,500 per violation, per day.

Pearson counted 12 violations over 1,200 days and then multiplied that by three defendants.

Much of Pearson's case rests on two signs Custom Cleaners once had on its walls: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service." He claims the signs amount to fraud. The case is set for trial June 11.

Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association, an organization that fights what it considers abusive lawsuits against small businesses, has asked that Pearson be denied a renewal this week of his 10-year appointment. The association has also offered to buy Pearson the suit of his choice.

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.

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 almost right away and have been hanging in Manning's office for more than a year. Pearson claims in court documents that his pants had blue and red pinstripes.

But Manning said: "They match his inseam measurements. The ticket on the pants matches his receipt."

Well, this will definitely be interesting, and a change from hearing about Paris Hilton going to jail.
 
The customer, Roy Pearson Jr., who has been representing himself, declined to comment.
What's that saying??? The man who represents himself has a fool for a client?

...can't imagine why that would be brought to mind...
 
it's ok that they can't ever pay $65M. it's unlikely that he will get that much awarded anyway even if he is awarded damages. he will probably get a couple of 100's...

my thought - the $65M figure is a publicity stunt. if he wins (and i hope he does), it will set a legal precedent that nobody has to fight again in future for. i think he is after that - to have an important case under his name, not the money.
 

Dance Ads

Advertise on Dance Forums Reach dancers, teachers, studios, event organizers, and dance-friendly brands. View ad options
Back
Top