A guy takes his pants to a Washington, D.C. dry cleaner to be cleaned, they lose the pants, legal hilarity ensues:
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.
And, oh yea, there’s this tidbit:
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.
So, how did this whole thing get started ? That’s even more ridiculous:
Back to the beginning. In 2002, Custom lost a pair of pants that Pearson had put in for cleaning. One week after the error was discovered, Custom gave Pearson a check for $150 for new pants. A few days later, the Chungs, Korean immigrants who live in Virginia and own three D.C. cleaners, told Pearson that he was no longer welcome at their store. That dispute was eventually put aside, and Pearson continued to use the company.
Move ahead to 2005, when Pearson got a new job as a judge. He needed to wear a suit to work every day. He dug out his five Hickey Freeman suits and found them to be “uncomfortably tight.” He asked Custom to let the waists out two or three inches. Worried that he might be up against his Visa card limit, he took the suits in for alterations one or two at a time.
According to a statement filed by both parties in the lawsuit, Pearson dropped off one pair of pants May 3 so he could wear them to his new job May 6. But on May 5, the pants weren’t ready. Soo Chung promised them for early the next morning, but when Pearson arrived, the pants weren’t there.
At this point, I should let you in on the subject of hundreds of pages of legal wrangling. Custom Cleaners at that time had two big signs on its walls. One said “Satisfaction Guaranteed,” and the other said, “Same Day Service.”
Pearson relied on these signs. Deeply.
He was not satisfied. And he did not get his pants back on the same day or, for that matter, on any day.
This, he says, amounts to fraud, negligence and a scam.
Or, more likely, just a simple mistake.
What makes all of this even more absured is the fact that, a few weeks after the 2005 incident, the dry cleaners apparently found Pearson’s pants. He claimed they werent his but the claim tag matches his receipt. Nonethless, Pearson soldiered on through the legal system.
On behalf of every lawyer in America, I’d simply like to apologize for this absurdity. It is a testament both to a man who has way too much time on his hands, and a legal system that does next to nothing to stop frivolous litigation like this.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:03 am
I left an expensive Nordstroms suit at a dry cleaners as well . The cretins lost the pants!They took such a indifferent attitude and offerd me a mere $50 and I sued. After almost a yr. the found them , after both of us had retained attorneys. I’d do it again in a heart beat as one has to stand up for his rights.
The owner of the place was one of the most unethical person I ever talked with. I think she could lead the Manson family now that Charlie is in jail.
April 28th, 2007 at 7:54 am
You may be onto something here.
The vast dry cleaner conspiracy must be uncovered !
April 29th, 2007 at 9:18 am
After retiring from about 30 years in the drycleaning business, in many ways I side with the frustrations of customers when problems occur.
In any type of business, the owners should be prepared for the hopefully few problems that occur and either “self insure or have insuranc or it is also called “customer service” and is sometimes forgotten or never learned.
At one extreme, the drycleaner is legally only responsible for the depreciated value of a lost or ruined garment.
On the other extreme– what is the cost of frustration and aggrevation when a situation gets out of hand. In court, the lawyer/customer will only be entitled to at most the value of the depreciated age of the whole suit.
For the time and aggrevation of a once good customer, the drycleaner could have saved the day and offered to pay for a new suit or compromised on - “if you get it at a good sale price I will pay for it all, or if you pay full price let’s compromise at a percentage”. It could have been handled better by both parties involved.
In court the judge could take a hard line as only to the value of the ‘used pants” and in states with frivolous lawsuit laws, he could possibly fine the lawyer/customer.
April 29th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
This guy should be disbarred and goto prison. It is just amazing that people are this horrible. I don’t care how bad these dry cleaners are, you don’t solve this in the courts. If they are that bad then how do they stay in business. Find another dry cleaners or call the local news to highlight the bad service.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Courts are there to protect both the customers and the business owner. That is what the system is for, for hundreds of years.
A court should hopefully weigh the evidence and settle an argument between two people especially if they are truely naive about what the laws are.
A tv consumer reporter may not get the facts from both sides, nor have the experience as to what the consumer laws and rights are. His camera is not the judge and jury, but can be used to falsely accuse someone without the full truth being told.
A bad business can stick around as one customer doesn’t know ten people were treated badly the day before and he is quite happy with the service they got and feel no ill will towards the business. Or just the opposite, at what point are 1,000 customers totally happy, and then the one customer situation goes out of hand ?– doesn’t make a bad business.
Courts are a good thing and they are the will of the people to be there.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:33 am
i would really like to write an encouragement letter to the cho family. they moved here from korea in hopes to start a new life in america and are now debating moving back to korea. i want them to fight this and not give up just because they may feel that some people in america are not acting fair. some humans can just be cruel. what does all of that money matter when you have it anyway? sure you can buy lots of material things and be “rich”; but in the end it matters NONE.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:35 am
does anybody have an email to them i could use???
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:59 am
[...] Asshole lawyer/judge loses pants, sues dry cleaner for many ridiculous reasons. [...]
May 10th, 2007 at 8:09 am
[...] The Case Of the $ 65 Million Pants [link] [...]
May 12th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Hey why are all the drycleaners run by orientals anyway? Conspiracy, hum these guys could actually be terrorist cells. You find em in every major city. This lawyer/judge guy could be on to something… I bet at least 75% of all lawyers in this country get drycleaning done. could you imagine what this country would do with say even 50% less lawyers. the whole country would just freeze up! Thats at least half the politicians. You get rid of them and well there goes the service industries and most of the military pork projects. are gnp would basically just shrivel up and think of all the paper we wouldnt use and the printers and the ink manufacturers. sokmebody needs to give that fellow a medal. god bless america
June 6th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
[...] Pearson, famous for being the man who filed a lawsuit seeking $ 65 million in damages because a dry cleaner lost his pants, is reducing the amount of damages he’s claiming…..by $ 9 million dollars: WASHINGTON [...]
June 12th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
[...] The Case Of The $ 65 Million Pants The Case Of The $ 65 Million Pants, Part II Because, You Know, $ 9 Million Makes All The Difference [link] [...]
June 12th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Being an Afro-American I know what this is really about. Most of America does not realize that “inner-city blacks? resent Asian Americans for their success in the very neighborhoods that we, Afro-Americans, claim hold no promise. Roy Pearson hopes that the Black Advocacy Groups will back him and everyone will ?fold? for fear of being labeled prejudice. Mr. Pearson will subpoena fellow Afro-Americans to take the stand and testify how they have been repeatedly mistreated; mostly verbally. If the mental damages were really that great, wouldn?t you simply find other dry cleaner? Nope, let?s sue for $64 million on an $85 pair of pants. Mr. Pearson may think he is hitting a moral home run with Afro-Americans and the self inflicted plight we find ourselves in; when in fact he is making us appear to be simple, without the ability to stand as capable citizens and a race of intelligent people.
June 13th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Umm…afro-americans suffering verbal abuse from asians? in dc to boot? get real i live in northeast dc and am constantly appalled at the language of my fellow afro-americans from child to grandparents.
June 13th, 2007 at 9:47 am
and the judge should be tossed into prison and this is from a fellow black man…what a disgrace. p.s. as an added delight take jesse and al with him!
June 13th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
[...] The Case Of The $ 65 Million Pants The Case Of The $ 65 Million Pants, Part II Because, You Know, $ 9 Million Makes All The Difference A Frivolous Case Goes To Trial [link] [...]
June 13th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
[...] The Case Of The $ 65 Million Pants The Case Of The $ 65 Million Pants, Part II Because, You Know, $ 9 Million Makes All The Difference A Frivolous Case Goes To Trial Even Pants Get Their Day In Court [link] [...]
June 14th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Of all the ridiculous things i have seen or heard of in my life,this has to be somewhere at the top.He is a big grown ass man cryin over a pair of pants.The owners even offered him 12,000 dollars and yet he still says that was’nt enough.When they actually found his pants,he said they were’nt his even though the ticket number matched his receipt.But yet he’s not talkin about that little detail of the story.He’s sayin it’s not the fact that they lost pants as much as it is a company misleading it’s customers.So i guess this korean family just has 54 million dollars layin around to give him.We as afro-americans have through so many hardships and this case just makes it all seem frivilous.This brotha is a disgrace to people in general.And should be barred from being both judge and lawyer.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
[...] The Case Of The $ 65 Million Pants The Case Of The $ 65 Million Pants, Part II Because, You Know, $ 9 Million Makes All The Difference A Frivolous Case Goes To Trial Even Pants Get Their Day In Court The Multi-Million Dollar Pants Saga Continues [link] [...]
June 18th, 2007 at 2:32 am
If you got bad service from a business, YOU DON’T GO BACK TO THAT BUSINESS. There is a grocery store here that sells milk on the day it expires… they got me twice. Pearson had bad trouble with the business before the pants incident. They lost his suit, they reimbursed him for it. It should have ended it there; he could have taken his patronage elsewhere. What is bugging me is all the extra stuff he’s asking for. He wants them to pay for a rental car FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS. Why? Is he THAT LAZY to go buy one? This slime is out to destroy the Cho family and he’s using the legal system to do it.
June 20th, 2007 at 5:23 am
Hey guys!
I just read all comments. This is ridiculous. Every business has lot of loop holes. Since he is a lawyer, he can play wasting his time and court time by pulling these silly cases. In my opinion, the only conclusion for this case is that pearson should get his pants back and loose his job. If this happens, then everyone in this world should aim to be a lawyer or judge.
June 25th, 2007 at 10:33 am
[...] The Case Of The $ 65 Million Pants The Case Of The $ 65 Million Pants, Part II Because, You Know, $ 9 Million Makes All The Difference A Frivolous Case Goes To Trial Even Pants Get Their Day In Court The Multi-Million Dollar Pants Saga Continues Losing Your Pants, And Your Job [link] [...]
July 7th, 2007 at 7:07 am
[...] The Case Of The $ 65 Million Pants The Case Of The $ 65 Million Pants, Part II Because, You Know, $ 9 Million Makes All The Difference A Frivolous Case Goes To Trial Even Pants Get Their Day In Court The Multi-Million Dollar Pants Saga Continues Losing Your Pants, And Your Job Judge Rules Against Plaintiff In Pants Lawsuit [link] [...]