Roy L. Pearson Jr sues dry cleaner 2007
The famous "pants lawsuit" of 2007
In 2007, D.C. Administrative Law Judge Roy L. Pearson Jr., filed a civil lawsuit agianst his neighborhood dry cleaners over a pair of suit pants worth around $1000 with the suit. Soo and Jin Chung, owners of the dry cleaners Custom Cleaners, had been hired by Roy L. Pearson Jr. to adjust the waist. In the front window, a small sign was posted "Satisfaction Guaranteed", and according to Pearson, his satisfaction was in no way met and he believed the Chung's were not capable or willing to fulfill their promise as proclaimed by the sign. Bottom line, Pearson believed he was "defrauded" by the Chung's and their "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign.
This specific case became one for the history books, being refrenced as the "pants lawsuit" and Judge Roy L. Pearson Jr. being made a spectical as he filed one lawsuit after another seeking to demand the very most for the smallest amount of effort as possible. Originally, Pearson was seeking between $1000 to $2000 to compensate him for his pants and the "inconvience" of all the traveling back and forth to a new dry cleaners. However, Roy L. Pearson Jr. was labled as greedy, and that is in direct coorelation to the substantially different lawsuit sum of $54 million dollars. Although Pearson stated that he was seeking compensation for many things, including replacing his pants, the primary financial sum was to help others who believed they had also been taken advantaged of by the "defrauding sign".
Judge Judith Bartnoff, who was one of the judges to deny Judge Roy L. Pearson Jr. his unrealistic demands, was quoted as saying, "A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands or to accede to demands that the merchant has reasonable grounds to dispute. Pearson is not entitled to any relief whatsoever."
The final outcome was that, up to the Supreme Court, Judge Roy L. Pearson Jr. was denied any compensation and ordered to pay all legal fees for the Chung's. It was also revealed that Pearson did not have any funds available over the amount of $2000 due to a recent divorce which depleated his financial savings, making it appear his persuit of the Chung's and their establishment was fiercely driven by the need to replenish his accounts. At the end of the final rejection for Pearson to receive any compensation, he was also made aware that his job was no longer available and was denied rehiring as D.C. Administrative Law Judge, effectively removing his six figure income and reducing him to seek other employment. It was determined that his judgment capacity was severly impaired and incapable of being reasonable or sound, as in his personal life he was relentless and extremely unrealistic in his persuit of something that was unfounded and only set a negative light on his ability to maintain the standards as outlined and expected by the law.
The Chung family was found to be selling their other locations and focusing on a single location, and in talks of moving back to South Korea in order to recover a life of peaceful success.
Previous ArticleLiebeck v. McDonalds Restaurants 1994