how much are the pants worth? at absolute best he should get double that. this is unbelievably r****ded and i seriously hope there's no jury out there willing to reward this man for being a jackass.
Just heard while flipping on the news that the judge/plaintiff was actually crying as he recited his story, talking about coming in to pick up his pants and realizing he wouldn't get them back. I think even OJ Simpson finds this case ridiculous. Seriously, can't the defendants counter-sue for putting them through all this crap?
There's a Seinfeld "cleaners" episode on right now, but not sure it's the Uncle Leo one... lol. Kramer wants to put concrete in their washing machines. How appropriate. *edit* : actually it's a "washeteria" episode... my bad. but the thought is still there...
Wow, I skimmed the thread and totally overlooked the article somehow...Carry on! And please don't get any ideas about suing me.
You know, I don't know if it's because it's truly comedic that I laugh. It's more of an "I give up, I can't believe this" laugh.
Here is todays update including a picture of the guy. the judge is supposed to give a ruling next week. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/06/14/a-judges-54-million-lawsuit-against-dry-cleaners-day-2/
white? Pearson said yesterday that “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.” this guy is looney.
I don't think so. The trial is over but the judge said she'd have a decision before the end of next week so it might be a few days.
Here's another update: Wearing Down the Judicial System With a Pair of Pants By Marc Fisher Thursday, June 14, 2007; Page B01 Don't look for Roy Pearson to be out shopping for new suit pants this weekend. At the end of the $54 million pants suit in D.C. Superior Court yesterday, Judge Judith Bartnoff said she wouldn't issue a decision until next week but nonetheless gave a strong hint of her direction. After listening to Pearson argue for hour upon hour that he was somehow protecting the interests of all Washingtonians by using the D.C. consumer protection law to punish Custom Cleaners for allegedly losing a pair of his pants, Bartnoff said: "This is a very important statute to protect consumers. It's also very important that statutes like this are not misused." Trying to get inside the head of Pearson -- a D.C. administrative law judge who launched his long, twisted legal odyssey after bringing pants in to be let out -- is tricky business. This is a man who, despite his soft voice and polite demeanor, told the court yesterday that "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." The Chung family, owner of Custom Cleaners, is accused of the terrible crime of not only misplacing Pearson's pants -- either for a few days, as the Chungs contend, or permanently, as Pearson claims -- but also posting a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign and then refusing Pearson's demand for vast sums of money. Pearson, according to the Chungs' lawyer, Christopher Manning, is "a bitter man, emotionally distressed . . . who has irrationally and uncompromisingly pursued this litigation. He wanted the Chungs to suffer." Soo Chung, who owns the shop on Bladensburg Road NE with her husband, broke down on the witness stand, just as Pearson had a day earlier. Pearson cried while recalling being handed pants that he believed were not his, but Chung spoke through her sobs of a different order of pain: "He is asking for an enormous amount of money," said the Korean immigrant, whose family's savings are gone as a result of defending this suit. "It has been really hard on us to deal with this." Pearson said he had no choice but to sue, because he is a "private attorney general" standing up for every person in Washington. Pearson told the judge he wants $500,000 in attorney's fees (though he represents himself), $2 million for his "discomfort, inconvenience and mental distress" and $51.5 million that he would use to help any D.C. resident sue businesses just as Pearson has. (Just before trial, Pearson lowered his demand from $65 million.) Bartnoff spent hours delving into the puzzle of Roy Pearson. Sometimes incredulous, sometimes gently joshing, she lured Pearson away from long monologues about the minutiae of D.C. consumer protection law, but she also let him spell out his odd notions of law. She gave him all the rope he needed. If a customer demands $1,000 for a lost garment, Bartnoff said, and the merchant truly believes the customer is lying, does a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign require the shop owner to hand over a check? "Yes," Pearson said. The courtroom broke into laughter. How does such a case get to trial? How does one man get to make a laughingstock of the system? Judges chipped away at Pearson's case for two years, limiting the witnesses he could call, trimming his claims. But Pearson prevailed by burying the court in paperwork and bringing up arguments just plausible enough to allow him a hearing. Nobody wants to be on the wrong end of a Pearson lawsuit; that fear lets him charge ahead. The pants suit united tort reformers and trial lawyers in a rare joint statement denouncing Pearson's excesses. But Pearson's zeal is only an exaggerated version of what goes on in virtually every institution of American life, where humane and reasonable behavior is quashed by reminders that someone could conceivably be sued. Did Pearson have a case? When the defense finally revealed the pants it says Pearson brought in for a $10.50 alteration, it wasn't clear whether they matched the jacket Pearson displayed the previous day. One thing was certain: The pants bore the same ticket number as Pearson's receipt.
Apparantly, he's been saying "the customer is always right" over and over again like some sort of mantra. As if that's what is the law actually is. The defense attourney asked him (paraphrasing) "If somebody took a red sweater worth $35 to the cleaners and the cleaners lost it but found it later, and it had a tag that matched the ticket, but the customer said it wasn't theirs and demanded $1,000, should they get it?" He said yes. I guess he thinks that as long as a satisfaction guaranteed sign is displayed, you can demand anything you want until you are actually satisfied. And he won't be satisfied until he sues them into bankruptcy. I hope he's satisfied with gaining a reputation as an asshat.
I'm wondering about this part. Has Pearson intimidated the DC court system by threatening to sue them for not ruling in his favor? How long can this guy keep on suing? If he sues the judges he will most likely run out of money and standing to sue. I'm also curious about the DC consumer protection laws. Is there any language in them regarding reasonable accomodation? I know many regulatory laws have that written in them to protect them from going out of business due to lawsuits, such as it would be reasonable that a steel mill wouldn't have handicap ramps on the factory floor.
