PDA

View Full Version : Judge sues cleaner for $65M over pants



kaorder1999
05-03-2007, 08:21 AM
Judge sues cleaner for $65M over pants

WASHINGTON - The Chungs, immigrants from South Korea, realized their American dream when they opened their dry-cleaning business seven years ago in the nation's capital. For the past two years, however, they've been dealing with the nightmare of litigation: a $65 million lawsuit over a pair of missing pants.

Jin Nam Chung, Ki Chung and their son, Soo Chung, are so disheartened that they're considering moving back to Seoul, said their attorney, Chris Manning, who spoke on their behalf.

"They're out a lot of money, but more importantly, incredibly disenchanted with the system," Manning said. "This has destroyed their lives."

The lawsuit was filed by a District of Columbia administrative hearings judge, Roy Pearson, who has been representing himself in the case.

Pearson did not return phone calls and e-mails Wednesday from The Associated Press requesting comment.

According to court documents, the problem began in May 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alteration to Custom Cleaners in Northeast Washington, a place he patronized regularly despite previous disagreements with the Chungs. A pair of pants from one suit was not ready when he requested it two days later, and was deemed to be missing.

Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than $1,000.

But a week later, the Chungs said the pants had been found and refused to pay. That's when Pearson decided to sue.

Manning said the cleaners made three settlement offers to Pearson. First they offered $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000. But Pearson wasn't satisfied and expanded his calculations beyond one pair of pants.

Because Pearson no longer wanted to use his neighborhood dry cleaner, part of his lawsuit calls for $15,000 — the price to rent a car every weekend for 10 years to go to another business.

"He's somehow purporting that he has a constitutional right to a dry cleaner within four blocks of his apartment," Manning said.

But the bulk of the $65 million comes from Pearson's strict interpretation of D.C.'s consumer protection law, which fines violators $1,500 per violation, per day. According to court papers, Pearson added up 12 violations over 1,200 days, and then multiplied that by three defendants.

Much of Pearson's case rests on two signs that Custom Cleaners once had on its walls: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service."

Based on Pearson's dissatisfaction and the delay in getting back the pants, he claims the signs amount to fraud.

Pearson has appointed himself to represent all customers affected by such signs, though D.C. Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz, who will hear the June 11 trial, has said that this is a case about one plaintiff, and one pair of pants.

Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Association, has written a letter to the group of men who will decide this week whether to renew Pearson's 10-year appointment. Joyce is asking them to reconsider.

Chief Administrative Judge Tyrone Butler had no comment regarding Pearson's reappointment.

The association, which tries to police the kind of abusive lawsuits that hurt small businesses, also has offered to buy Pearson the suit of his choice.

And former National Labors Relations Board chief administrative law judge Melvin Welles wrote to The Washington Post to urge "any bar to which Mr. Pearson belongs to immediately disbar him and the District to remove him from his position as an administrative law judge."

"There has been a significant groundswell of support for the Chungs," said Manning, adding that plans for a defense fund Web site are in the works.

To the Chungs and their attorney, one of the most frustrating aspects of the case is their claim that Pearson's gray pants were found a week after Pearson dropped them off in 2005. They've been hanging in Manning's office for more than a year.

Pearson claims in court documents that his pants had blue and red pinstripes.

"They match his inseam measurements. The ticket on the pants match his receipt," Manning said.

kaorder1999
05-03-2007, 08:28 AM
unbelievable...i hope this judge loses and his career is ruined by negative publicity

big daddy russ
05-03-2007, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by kaorder1999
unbelievable...i hope this judge loses and his career is ruined by negative publicity
Me too. This is a bunch of crap. I hope they raise enough money for a good defense lawyer and then turn around and countersue the judge.

BILLYFRED0000
05-03-2007, 12:06 PM
Believe me folks when I tell you that this is what the legal system has fallen to. There is no true justice anymore. Just those with money manipulating the system to get the results they want. I am not accusing the rich here. Look at all the innocent people popping up since DNA testing has come along. I am suggesting that Prosecutors are elected and need results they can point to, not the truth.
And the Liberals cannot get law passed for things such as gay marriage so they try to use the courts and activist judges to force the issue i.e massachusetts. The average citizen no longer is garaunteed a fair shake in the legal system.

Ranger Mom
05-03-2007, 04:41 PM
I am a firm believer in "guilty until proven innocent" now.

I have very little faith in police, judges, lawyers, etc....pretty much any law enforcement person!!

Gobbla2001
05-03-2007, 04:43 PM
:(

people are just a buncha d***s these days...

Txbroadcaster
05-03-2007, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Ranger Mom
I am a firm believer in "guilty until proven innocent" now.

I have very little faith in police, judges, lawyers, etc....pretty much any law enforcement person!!

Srry RM but that makes no sense..If you did not trust the Law then you would be MORE Innocent until proven guilty. But saying Guilty until innocent means u think when someone is arrested the LAw is right

Old Tiger
05-03-2007, 04:53 PM
This is what our great country is coming to.

shellman54
05-03-2007, 05:35 PM
http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2007/05/roy_pearson_is_an_id.html

this link has the guy's email, and some other on this real winner

Ranger Mom
05-03-2007, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Srry RM but that makes no sense..If you did not trust the Law then you would be MORE Innocent until proven guilty. But saying Guilty until innocent means u think when someone is arrested the LAw is right

Maybe I didn't state it right.....in the experiences I have been witness to the past year.....it seems like "Guilty until proven Innocent" is the norm the days!!

From what I have seen, "they" no longer have to prove you guilty, you have to prove yourself innocent.......sure is hard to fight the system!!:rolleyes:

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
05-03-2007, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000

And the Liberals cannot get law passed for things such as gay marriage so they try to use the courts and activist judges to force the issue i.e massachusetts. The average citizen no longer is garaunteed a fair shake in the legal system.

If you're going to say that the average citizen isn't guaranteed a fair shake in the legal system, then why are you accusing liberals of being part of the downfall of the courts for trying to uphold the same rights to all individuals. Doesn't make much since to me, so I'm going to have to ask you to explain.