Jin Nam and Soo Chung of Custom Cleaners
Photo courtesy of The Korea Times
-Ellyn Pak
Call it a case of fancy pants. Or the pantsuit.
It started when a Washington, D.C., drycleaner misplaced a pair of Roy L. Pearson Jr.’s gray wool pants in 2005. Two years later, Pearson is seeking more than $67 million in damages from the owners of Custom Cleaners for a slew of reasons that stem from this one pair of pants.
Pearson’s argument: Soo and Jin Nam Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners, and their son Ki, owe him the millions for putting him through “mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort” and causing him to incur legal fees. Pearson is basing his case on Washington, D.C.’s consumer protection law, which imposes $1,500 per day fines for each violation. Twelve violations multiplied by 1,200 days, in addition to multiplying that number by three for each of the Chungs.
In addition, the suit demands that the Chungs pay him $15,000 so he can rent a car every week for 10 years to drive to a different drycleaner, as well as $500,000 in emotional damages and $542,000 in legal fees.
“It’s been very difficult for them, emotionally and physically,” said Chris Manning, an attorney hired by the family who spoke on behalf of the Chungs. “This has taken a toll for two years. … They don’t really understand how one pair of pants can turn into a lawsuit like this.”
The customer-client relationship, which began in 2000, unraveled in 2005. Two years before that, the Chungs had given Pearson a $150 check to replace a pair of pants that Pearson said the family lost. He took the money, but continued to patronize the business, Manning said.
In May of 2005, Pearson dropped off a pair of pants for a $10.50 alteration and told the cleaners — who had signs posted that read “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and “Same Day Service” at the store — that he needed the pants two days later. He wanted to wear the pants for his new job as an administrative judge.
When the owners couldn’t find the pants on the pickup day, Pearson was not happy. He wanted more than $1,000 from the Chungs to buy a replacement suit because he claimed the missing pants were part of an expensive Hickey Freeman brand suit set.
When the drycleaners found the pants a week later, Pearson claimed they weren’t his. The Chungs insisted, and still argued, that the gray trousers are his. And the pants weren’t Hickey Freemans, according to Manning.
Pearson refused to take the pants and decided to sue, claiming that the signs at Custom Cleaners were misleading and amounted to fraud.
Time passed, and the Chungs offered $3,000, then $4,600 and then $12,000 to opt out of the case. The figure ballooned to $50,000. Pearson wasn’t satisfied.
He wanted $67 million.
“Claims such as these are ridiculous,” Manning said. “He’s trying to claim that he has a right to have a dry cleaner four blocks from his house.”
The case, which will be heard by a second judge, is slated to go to trial this month. Pearson, whose term as administrative law judge in Washington, D.C. expired last month, is no longer hearing cases and is representing himself. He earns more than $100,000 per year and is up for reappointment.
Pearson was a contract hearing examiner for the Office of Police Complaints in the District two years prior to his appointment as a judge. He was also an attorney with the Neighborhood Legal Services Program from 1978 to 2002.
The following statement was included in a press release e-mailed by Pearson to KoreAm Journal:
“As an attorney I am restricted by the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct from making statements about a pending lawsuit in which I represent myself if I know my statements could create a serious and imminent threat to the impartiality of the judge hearing the case. In my judgment, that ambiguous standard makes any comment inadvisable.”
The American Tort Reform Association, an organization that works to reform the civil justice system, said the District’s consumer protection laws allows people like Pearson to pursue such claims. The organization has urged District officials and a four-member board to re-think the reappointment of Pearson as a judge.
“[But] how do you fire a guy who is pursuing a lawsuit, which in theory is any American’s right? This is an extraordinary and apparently vindictive lawsuit that seeks to manipulate the vaguely-worded consumer protection law here in the District of Columbia,” said Darren McKinney, a spokesman for the association.
“He’s certainly a laughing stock here in this region, although those who live here have developed a tolerance to crazy stories out of D.C.’s bureaucracy,” McKinney added.
The association has even offered to buy Pearson a new suit.
Manning said that the Chungs’ move to the United States in 1992 to attain the American dream has become a nightmare. The family currently resides in Northern Virginia and is considering moving back to their native Seoul.
Online bloggers, columnists and Howard Stern alike have used the “pantsuit” as fodder and say Pearson’s demands are ridiculous. In addition, tremendous national attention has spawned the Custom Cleaners Defense Fund.
Manning said community members have shown an outpouring of support for the Chungs.
As for the pair of pants, estimated to be now valued at about $100, Manning said he keeps them in his house. The pants, he said, belong to Pearson and are not the brand the judge claims they are.
“The tags on the pants match the tags on the receipt,” Manning said.
How one pair of pants turns into $67 million:
Damages under D.C. consumer protection procedures act: $1,500 (violation fee per day) x 12 (no. of violations) = $18,000 x 1,200 (no. of days since the incident) = $21,600,000 x 3 (no. of defendants) = $64,800,000 + $542,500 (legal fees) + $200,000 (punitive damages) = $65,542,500
Common law claims:
$1,500 (fraud/conversion/negligent bailment) + $15,000 (car rental fee) + $500,000 (emotional damages) = $516,500 x 3 (no. of defendants) = $1,549,500 + $200,000 (punitive damages) = $1,749,500
GRAND TOTAL: $67,292,000
