Pearson v. Chung

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pearson v. Chung is an American civil court case initiated in 2005 by Roy L. Pearson, Jr., a District of Columbia administrative law judge, following a dispute with a dry cleaning company over a lost pair of trousers. Pearson filed suit against Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners in Washington, D.C., initially demanding $67 million for inconvenience, mental anguish and attorney's fees for representing himself, as a result of their failure, in Pearson's opinion, to live up to a "satisfaction guaranteed" sign that was displayed in the store.^[1] The case drew international attention^[2][3] when it went to trial in 2007 and has been held up as an example of frivolous litigation and the need for tort reform in the United States.^[4][5]

Contents 1 Lawsuit 1.1 Trial 1.2 Decision 1.3 Post-trial motions and appeal 2 Cultural impact 3 Further reading 4 References 5 External links

[edit] Lawsuit

Pearson sued a D.C. dry cleaning establishment, Custom Cleaners, for over $67 million for the loss of a pair of pants. The pants were from one of several suits that Pearson had brought to Custom Cleaners to be cleaned in May 2005. When Pearson requested the suit two days later, the pants were missing. Pearson then asked to be refunded for the full price of the suit, $1,000. The cleaners refused and later asserted that they had found the pants a week later. Pearson claimed the pants were not his, stating "I haven't worn pants with cuffs since the 1970s", providing a photograph of all his (cuffless) pairs of pants as evidence.^[6]

Pearson rejected a later offer to settle the case for $12,000. 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.

The owners of the business, South Korean immigrants Jin Nam Chung, Soo Chung and their son, Ki Chung, are reportedly considering moving back to South Korea.^[7] 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.^[8]

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.^[9][10] 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.^[11] 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.^[6]

[edit] Trial

On June 12, 2007, the trial began. Pearson broke down in tears during an explanation about his frustration after losing his pants, and a short recess had to be declared.^[12][13]

[edit] 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.^[14] 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 [Rhonda] VanLowe and her lawyer with disbarment."^[15][16]

[edit] Post-trial motions and appeal

On July 11, 2007, Pearson made a motion 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.^[17] Pearson stated that 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.^[18]

The Chungs' moved to recover $83,000 in attorneys' fees and impose sanctions, but withdrew the motion after recovering their costs through fund-raising; the Chungs stated that they did so in the hopes of persuading Pearson to stop litigating.^[19] But on August 14, 2007, Pearson filed a notice of appeal.^[19]

On August 2, 2007 it was revealed that a panel recommended not to give Pearson 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 will lose his $100,512 salary if a hearing upholds that decision.^[20]

On October 22, a D.C. commission voted against reappointing Pearson, a graduate of the Northwestern University School of Law, to the bench of the Office of Administrative Hearings. ^[21] On November 14, it was confirmed that Pearson had lost his job by not being affirmed for an extension. ^[22]

[edit] Cultural impact

The unusual circumstances of this case led the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and dozens of bloggers to refer to it as "The Great American Pants Suit,"^[4][23][24] and "Judge Fancy Pants."^[25][26][27] The case has garnered considerable international attention. BBC News quoted Chris Manning, attorney for the Chung family, as saying that the experience for the Chungs has become the "American nightmare"--an ironic reference to the American Dream. ^[28] Fortune magazine listed the case at #37 in its "101 Dumbest Moments in Business" of 2007.^[29]

On July 24, 2007, the American Tort Reform Association and the Institute for Legal Reform of the United States Chamber of Commerce hosted a fundraiser for the Chungs to help pay their attorneys fees that reported having raised up to $64,000.^[30] The Chungs say they have received close to $100,000 from supporters to cover their attorneys' fees and lost business.^[19]

Citing a loss of revenue and emotional strain from the lawsuit, the Chungs announced, on September 19, 2007, that they have closed and sold the dry cleaning shop involved in the dispute. The Chungs still own one additional dry cleaning shop and have stated they will be focusing their attention and resources on their remaining shop.^[31]

The plot of the Law and Order episode "Bottomless", first broadcast on 16 January 2008, was partially inspired by the Pearson case.

On May 2nd Roy Pearson filed suit against Washington DC, claiming that he had been wrongfully dismissed for exposing corruption within the Office of Administrative Hearings. Pearson sought $1 million in compensation for lost wages and punitive damages as well as his job back.^[32]

[edit] Further reading

• Pearson v. Chung, pre-trial statement (Superior Court of the District of Columbia 2007).
• Pearson v. Chung, court decision (Superior Court of the District of Columbia 2007).
• Pearson v. Chung, motion for reconsideration (Superior Court of the District of Columbia 2007).

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Olson, Walter. "The Great American Pants Suit", Wall Street Journal, 2007-06-18. Retrieved on 2007-07-20. 
• Manning & Sossamon. The Facts of Pearson v. Chung. Retrieved on 2007-07-20.