Pearson v. Chung
Encyclopedia
Pearson v. Chung, better known as the "pants lawsuit", is a civil case filed in 2005 by Roy L. Pearson, Jr., an administrative law judge
in the District of Columbia in the United States
, 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. The case drew international attention 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.
establishment, Custom Cleaners, for over $67 million for the loss of a pair of pants. On May 3, 2005, Pearson allegedly left a pair of gray pants that could be distinguished by a unique trio of belt loops on both sides of the front waistband. After a delay due to the pants being mistakenly sent to another dry cleaners, the pants were offered back completed several days after May 5, 2005, the initial pickup date. Pearson refused to accept the pants, claiming they were not his, despite confirmation by the cleaners' records, tags, and Pearson's receipt. Pearson demanded what he claimed to be the price of the pants as compensation, an amount of over $1000, which the Chungs refused. As a result, Pearson filed suit in the District of Columbia's Superior Court. The judge to whom the case was presented decided to bring it to trial on the basis of two of Pearson's claims. The first claim was the issue of the ownership by Pearson of the presented pair of pants. The second claim was on the issue of signs posted outside the business, advertising "Same Day Service" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed", which Pearson claimed to be misleading.
Over time, the Chungs presented three settlement offers in the amounts of $3000, $4600, and $12000, all of which were rejected by Pearson. 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 Korea
n immigrants Jin Nam Chung, Soo Chung and their son, Ki Chung, were reportedly considering moving back to South Korea
. 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.
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. 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. 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.
pursuant to a motion
which the Chungs later withdrew. 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."
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, but on August 14, 2007, Pearson filed a notice of appeal.
On August 2, 2007, it was revealed that a panel recommended Pearson not be given 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. 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. On November 14, it was confirmed that Pearson had lost his job by not being affirmed for an extension.
On September 10, 2008, an appellate court agreed to hear Pearson's appeal in P. v. Chung, scheduled for October 22, 2008. Manning represented the Chungs on the appeal pro bono. On December 18, 2008, the three-judge D.C. Court of Appeals panel that heard Pearson's appeal announced that they were rejecting it. According to the Washington Post, "Pearson has two remaining avenues of appeal left: He could ask the entire nine-judge appellate court to review the case, or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in." On January 6, 2009, Roy Pearson filed a petition with the D.C. Court of Appeals, requesting the case be reheard this time by a nine-judge panel. On March 2, 2009, the appeals court rejected his request to have the case reheard by the full panel. Pearson's final option was to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. The 90-day deadline for seeking Supreme Court review elapsed without Pearson filing a petition for certiorari
. Pearson's appeal options thus exhausted, the long-running dispute finally came to an end.
On May 2, 2008, 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. On July 23, 2009, federal district judge Ellen Segal Huvelle
dismissed Pearson's May 2008 lawsuit claiming that the District of Columbia had not broken the law by not reappointing him as an administrative law judge. Pearson had maintained in the suit that the failure to reappoint him to the ten-year term was in part intended as retaliation for his suit against the dry cleaners. Pearson lost his appeal when the D.C. Circuit ruled against him on May 27, 2010.
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
. Fortune magazine listed the case at #37 in its "101 Dumbest Moments in Business" of 2007.
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. The Chungs say they have received close to $100,000 from supporters to cover their attorneys' fees and lost business.
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.
The incident and lawsuit served as a basis for "Bottomless", an 18th-season episode of Law & Order
.
Administrative law judge
An administrative law judge in the United States is an official who presides at an administrative trial-type hearing to resolve a dispute between a government agency and someone affected by a decision of that agency. The ALJ is usually the initial trier of fact and decision maker...
in the District of Columbia in the United States
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
, 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.
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C., formally the District of Columbia and commonly referred to as Washington, "the District", or simply D.C., is the capital of the United States. On July 16, 1790, the United States Congress approved the creation of a permanent national capital as permitted by the U.S. Constitution....
, 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. The case drew international attention when it went to trial in 2007 and has been held up as an example of frivolous litigation
Frivolous litigation
In law, frivolous litigation is the practice of starting or carrying on law suits that, due to their lack of legal merit, have little to no chance of being won. The term does not include cases that may be lost due to other matters not related to legal merit...
and the need for tort reform in the United States.
Lawsuit
Pearson sued a D.C. dry cleaningDry cleaning
Dry cleaning is any cleaning process for clothing and textiles using a chemical solvent other than water. The solvent used is typically tetrachloroethylene , abbreviated "perc" in the industry and "dry-cleaning fluid" by the public...
establishment, Custom Cleaners, for over $67 million for the loss of a pair of pants. On May 3, 2005, Pearson allegedly left a pair of gray pants that could be distinguished by a unique trio of belt loops on both sides of the front waistband. After a delay due to the pants being mistakenly sent to another dry cleaners, the pants were offered back completed several days after May 5, 2005, the initial pickup date. Pearson refused to accept the pants, claiming they were not his, despite confirmation by the cleaners' records, tags, and Pearson's receipt. Pearson demanded what he claimed to be the price of the pants as compensation, an amount of over $1000, which the Chungs refused. As a result, Pearson filed suit in the District of Columbia's Superior Court. The judge to whom the case was presented decided to bring it to trial on the basis of two of Pearson's claims. The first claim was the issue of the ownership by Pearson of the presented pair of pants. The second claim was on the issue of signs posted outside the business, advertising "Same Day Service" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed", which Pearson claimed to be misleading.
Over time, the Chungs presented three settlement offers in the amounts of $3000, $4600, and $12000, all of which were rejected by Pearson. D.C. Superior Court
Superior Court of the District of Columbia
The Superior Court of the District of Columbia is the local trial court for the District of Columbia. It hears cases involving criminal and civil law. The court also handles specialized cases in the following areas: family court, landlord and tenant, probate, tax, and traffic offenses...
Judge Neal Kravitz stated that "the court has significant concerns that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith
Bad faith
Bad faith is double mindedness or double heartedness in duplicity, fraud, or deception. It may involve intentional deceit of others, or self deception....
." The judge resolved some of the issues in the Chungs' favor in response to their motion
Motion (legal)
In law, a motion is a procedural device to bring a limited, contested issue before a court for decision. A motion may be thought of as a request to the judge to make a decision about the case. Motions may be made at any point in administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, although that right is...
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 Korea
South Korea
The Republic of Korea , , is a sovereign state in East Asia, located on the southern portion of the Korean Peninsula. It is neighbored by the People's Republic of China to the west, Japan to the east, North Korea to the north, and the East China Sea and Republic of China to the south...
n immigrants Jin Nam Chung, Soo Chung and their son, Ki Chung, were reportedly considering moving back to South Korea
South Korea
The Republic of Korea , , is a sovereign state in East Asia, located on the southern portion of the Korean Peninsula. It is neighbored by the People's Republic of China to the west, Japan to the east, North Korea to the north, and the East China Sea and Republic of China to the south...
. 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.
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. 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
Fraud
In criminal law, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation...
on the part of the Chungs. The Chungs' lawyer, Christopher Manning, alleged that the signs could only be considered fraud if a reasonable person
Reasonable person
The reasonable person is a legal fiction of the common law that represents an objective standard against which any individual's conduct can be measured...
would be misled by them, and that a reasonable person would not see the signs as an unconditional promise. 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.
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.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 costsCourt costs
Court costs are the costs of handling a case, which, depending on legal rules, may or may not include the costs of the various parties in a lawsuit in addition to the costs of the court itself. Court costs can reach very high amounts, often far beyond the actual monetary worth of a case...
pursuant to a motion
Motion (legal)
In law, a motion is a procedural device to bring a limited, contested issue before a court for decision. A motion may be thought of as a request to the judge to make a decision about the case. Motions may be made at any point in administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, although that right is...
which the Chungs later withdrew. The court took judicial notice
Judicial notice
Judicial notice is a rule in the law of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious or well known that it cannot be refuted. This is done upon the request of the party seeking to have the fact at issue determined by the court...
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."
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. 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.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, but on August 14, 2007, Pearson filed a notice of appeal.
On August 2, 2007, it was revealed that a panel recommended Pearson not be given 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. On October 22, a D.C. commission voted against reappointing Pearson, a graduate of the Northwestern University School of Law
Northwestern University School of Law
The Northwestern University School of Law is a private American law school in Chicago, Illinois. The law school was founded in 1859 as the Union College of Law of the Old University of Chicago. The first law school established in Chicago, it became jointly controlled by Northwestern University in...
, to the bench of the Office of Administrative Hearings. On November 14, it was confirmed that Pearson had lost his job by not being affirmed for an extension.
On September 10, 2008, an appellate court agreed to hear Pearson's appeal in P. v. Chung, scheduled for October 22, 2008. Manning represented the Chungs on the appeal pro bono. On December 18, 2008, the three-judge D.C. Court of Appeals panel that heard Pearson's appeal announced that they were rejecting it. According to the Washington Post, "Pearson has two remaining avenues of appeal left: He could ask the entire nine-judge appellate court to review the case, or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in." On January 6, 2009, Roy Pearson filed a petition with the D.C. Court of Appeals, requesting the case be reheard this time by a nine-judge panel. On March 2, 2009, the appeals court rejected his request to have the case reheard by the full panel. Pearson's final option was to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. The 90-day deadline for seeking Supreme Court review elapsed without Pearson filing a petition for certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
. Pearson's appeal options thus exhausted, the long-running dispute finally came to an end.
On May 2, 2008, 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. On July 23, 2009, federal district judge Ellen Segal Huvelle
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Ellen Segal Huvelle is a federal judge sitting in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. She has overseen several significant cases...
dismissed Pearson's May 2008 lawsuit claiming that the District of Columbia had not broken the law by not reappointing him as an administrative law judge. Pearson had maintained in the suit that the failure to reappoint him to the ten-year term was in part intended as retaliation for his suit against the dry cleaners. Pearson lost his appeal when the D.C. Circuit ruled against him on May 27, 2010.
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," and to Pearson as "Judge Fancy Pants." The case has garnered considerable international attention. BBCBBC
The British Broadcasting Corporation is a British public service broadcaster. Its headquarters is at Broadcasting House in the City of Westminster, London. It is the largest broadcaster in the world, with about 23,000 staff...
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
American Dream
The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States in which freedom includes a promise of the possibility of prosperity and success. In the definition of the American Dream by James Truslow Adams in 1931, "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each...
. Fortune magazine listed the case at #37 in its "101 Dumbest Moments in Business" of 2007.
On July 24, 2007, the American Tort Reform Association
American Tort Reform Association
The American Tort Reform Association , founded in 1986, is an organization that advocates for tort reform. Its membership consists of more than 300 businesses, corporations, municipalities, associations, and professional firms....
and the Institute for Legal Reform
Institute for Legal Reform
The US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform is an advocacy group founded in 1998 by the United States Chamber of Commerce, with a focus on what it calls "tort reform."- Stances on Issues :...
of the United States Chamber of Commerce
United States Chamber of Commerce
The United States Chamber of Commerce is an American lobbying group representing the interests of many businesses and trade associations. It is not an agency of the United States government....
hosted a fundraiser for the Chungs to help pay their attorneys fees that reported having raised up to $64,000. The Chungs say they have received close to $100,000 from supporters to cover their attorneys' fees and lost business.
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
Dry cleaning
Dry cleaning is any cleaning process for clothing and textiles using a chemical solvent other than water. The solvent used is typically tetrachloroethylene , abbreviated "perc" in the industry and "dry-cleaning fluid" by the public...
shop involved in the dispute. The Chungs still own one additional dry cleaning
Dry cleaning
Dry cleaning is any cleaning process for clothing and textiles using a chemical solvent other than water. The solvent used is typically tetrachloroethylene , abbreviated "perc" in the industry and "dry-cleaning fluid" by the public...
shop and have stated they will be focusing their attention and resources on their remaining shop.
The incident and lawsuit served as a basis for "Bottomless", an 18th-season episode of Law & Order
Law & Order
Law & Order is an American police procedural and legal drama television series, created by Dick Wolf and part of the Law & Order franchise. It aired on NBC, and in syndication on various cable networks. Law & Order premiered on September 13, 1990, and completed its 20th and final season on May 24,...
.