The Pants Suit

When I first heard about this case, I thought "stupid lawsuit". When I saw it again last night, I thought, "I was thinking about blogging on that." When I saw it again tonight, I thought, "This is a judge that at least should know the law. What part of the case is the news not reporting?"

For anyone who hasn't heard, a Washington, D.C. administrative law judge named Roy Pearson is suing a "mom and pop" dry cleaner owned by Jin, Soo, and Ki Chung for $54 million. The suit started over a pair of lost suit pants and was originally for $67 million.

As best I can tell, here's what has happened. Pearson took his suit to the Chung's shop for a $10.50 alteration. The suit was worth over $1,000. When Pearson went back to pick up his pants, they couldn't find them for three days. After three days, the Chung's produced a pair of pants that they said was Pearson's, but Pearson disagreed and demanded that the Chungs pay for the suit. The Chungs would not pay as they believe the pants they are trying to give Pearson are his. Pearson filed a law suit for $67 million that was later dropped to $54 million. He arrives at these figured based on $65 million under Washington, D.C.'s consumer protection act and another $2 million under common law. Of these claims, Pearson is looking for $2 million for his "pain and suffering" and another $500,000 for the cost of defending himself. The rest would be used to encourage lawsuits similar to his. The Chung's have offered settlement options, but Pearson refuses to budge. Pearson now says that this is no longer about the pants, but about two signs the Chungs had in their window. One said "Same Day Service" and the other said "Satisfaction Guaranteed".

Thoughts:
1. The suit was blue and maroon and the pants the Chungs have are gray. They appear to be the wrong pants.

2. The pants have cuffs. Pearson claims that he hasn't worn cuffed pants since the 70s and photos of his wardrobe show that he has no other pants with cuffs. Again, they appear to be the wrong pants.

3. Pearson admitted that when he started this suit he had no job and only $1,000 to $2,000 to his name. This appears to be, as the defense has suggested, Pearson's way of trying to get himself back into a good financial position at another's expense.

4. Pearson cried during his testimony about his pants. This guy is either unstable or putting on a show. They're pants.

5. Pearson is asking for $15,000 for his rental car fees as this is the only dry cleaner in the area and he doesn't have a car. Having a dry cleaner that you can get to without a car is not a guaranteed right so this is a frivolous charge.

6. The judge presiding over the case has closed the "same day service" issue so now it is about the meaning of "satisfaction guaranteed". While "satisfaction guaranteed" means different things to different people, most sane people seem to think it doesn't mean that the customer gets whatever they want. Pearson disagreed with this idea in his testimony saying that "satisfaction guaranteed" meant they have to do whatever he says to make things right.

Some interesting quotes:

"There is no case in the District of Columbia or in the United States that comes anywhere close to the outrageousness of the behavior of the defendants in this case." - Roy Pearson

"I'm very concerned about it. You're standing here as a lawyer, making an argument, and you have an obligation to the court about what the cases are about." - Judge Judith Bartnoff

"I do think that this is a very important statute to protect to consumers, and I also think it's important that statutes like this are not misused." - Judge Judith Bartnoff

"This case is very simple. It's about one sign and the plaintiff's outlandish interpretation." - defense attorney Chris Manning

"The Chungs, who immigrated from South Korea in 1992, have grown disillusioned with the United States and might return to their native country" - defense attorney Chris Manning

Technically, due to the number of offenses and the time it has been, Pearson is claiming the right amount which is why the judge hasn't simply thrown the case out. Still, this seems to be a case that should have been open and shut in favor of Pearson in small claims court. Does anyone see this differently? Is this just a case of a punishment that was set with large companies in mind (due to the cost) and is being used against a small company?