The Harbinger

For the first time in a long time I actually found myself glued to the tv recently for the ending of the Judge Pearson vs. The Korean Dry Cleaners. It was like OJ suspense, it was killing me.

If you haven’t heard of the case though, here is a refresher: Judge Roy Pearson brought a pair of green pants to the dry cleaner owned by the Chung family in 2005, the day before he started his new job in Washington D.C. When the Chung’s couldn’t find the pants he brought in the Judge reportedly made a scene and threatened to sue them. The Chung’s found the pants at a later date and offered them back to the Judge, but he wasn’t interested in them at that point. He immediately filed a lawsuit against the Chung’s for false advertising (a sign that said same day service was his defense) and that the customer is always right no matter what.

His lawsuit in the amount of $54 million dollars has been seen as a little excessive in the legal community and frivolous in the real world. The Chung’s also offered to pay the Judge $12,000 to settle out of court, but Pearson sighted emotional distress and other claims that only $54 million dollars could sooth. He had originally sued for $65 million dollars which included a separate lawsuit for $10,000 which he claimed was the cost of renting a car every weekend for 10 years to drive his pants to another cleaner 2 miles down the road. That lawsuit was recently tossed along with the Same Day Service claim, leaving only the Satisfaction Guaranteed claim as Pearson’s defense.

Under cross-examination, Pearson said the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act, under which he is suing Custom Cleaners, should grant a customer whatever he or she wants if there is a “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign.

Defense attorney Chris Manning asked Pearson repeatedly whether, if he was a merchant, he would pay any customer who asked for compensation. Pearson kept responding with convoluted legal language, and each time Judge Judith Bartnoff instructed him to answer the question. Finally, he said, “Yes.”

Pearson said that he wants only $2 million in damages for himself — for his mental anguish and inconvenience — plus $500,000 in attorney’s fees for representing himself. Anything more that Bartnoff might award him would go into a fund “to educate people of their rights under the Consumer Protection Act,” he said.

Judge Bartnoff closed the case by telling both parties that Consumer Protection was a very important issue and is important in protecting people against fraud, but she also said it isn’t something to be abused by people out to use it to their own advantage.

Pearson has reportedly been up for dismissal from his job over this case and may still be fired whether he wins this or not.

Lisa Risa is I live in quiet, and at times boring, Deltona, FL. I am married to Mike and we have both been on the many incarnations of the board since 1999. I love writing, photography and collecting antiques.
Email this author | All posts by Lisa Risa