DC Judge Reconsiders Demands, Now Wants Only $54 Million For Misplaced Pants

You may remember Judge Roy “Fancy Pants” Pearson; he sued his Korean cleaners for $65 million after his pants were misplaced, claiming signs promising “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and “Same Day Service” constituted consumer fraud. Judge Fancy Pants has reconsidered his suit, and has reduced his demands to only $54 million. The cleaners’ attorney thinks Fancy Pants is being unreasonable:

Chris Manning, the Chungs’ attorney, says that can be considered fraud only if the signs misled a “reasonable” person. No reasonable person, he says, would interpret them to be an unconditional promise of satisfaction.

We think this is the perfect case to be adjudicated either by Judge Judy, or the Judge Judy Soundboard. — CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER

Judge Now Wants Just $54M From Cleaner [Washington Post]
PREVIOUSLY: DC Judge Seeks $65 Million In Damages From Korean Cleaner
(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. timmus says:

    Geez — he’s taking those people to the cleaners!

    Ok, with that obligatory joke out of the way, we may now proceed.

  2. MentalDisconnect says:

    Way to suck money out of people who probably have little to spare. Suing a multimillion dollar corporation over something like this would be ridiculous, but some Korean cleaners? That’s just mean, dude. Too bad this judge didn’t come with a “Sanity Guaranteee”.

  3. philbert says:

    What an ass!!!!!!!

  4. sled_dog says:

    No “reasonable” person would believe a pair of pants are worth more than $10 million. At least that what I pay for mine.

  5. Bourque77 says:

    I have a problem with the fact that apparently this moron is still a judge. I mean really if you do something this stupid shouldnt you automatically give up your right to judge over people. Clearly the man is not reasonable I wouldnt want him presiding over my trial. Unless of course i lost a pair of pants in the ordeal.

  6. SOhp101 says:

    I’m somewhat surprised they haven’t already tried to get congress’s attention to this matter. This judge (the plaintiff) needs to be seriously censured and/or removed from his position. I honestly believe that his ethics are in question if he’s willing to sue for such lbatantly frivolous reasons.

  7. superlayne says:

    I’ve never had to use the cleaners, but this is just tacky. He’s a judge, he’s already loaded.

  8. PlanetExpressdelivery says:

    I wonder if he would put HIS job on the line if a similar case were put to the test in his court. I can see him banging the gavel to award judgement followed by men in police uniforms removing his robes and shoving the gavel in his mouth.

  9. Buzz Lightyear says:

    Perhaps you may be interested in donating to the defense fund:

    http://www.customcleanersdefensefund.com/

  10. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    Oh..well at least he’s finally being reasonable now. My Target denim jeans are worth at least $25 million. (give or take $24.999 million or so)

  11. TSS says:

    I don’t know which state bar(s) this guy is a member of, but this needs to be looked into. It is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

  12. cryrevolution says:

    I’m lovin

  13. cryrevolution says:

    Oh god whats with the comments. Sorry what I MEANT to say was Im lovin their website customcleanersdefensefund.com. Glad they got one.

  14. asherchang says:

    from the site linked to by Buzzy:

    “- Mr. Pearson alleges that on May 3, 2005 he left a pair of pants with the Chungs to be altered by May 5, 2005. The pants he submitted were grey in color and were unique in that they had a succession of three belt loops very close together on each side of the front waistband of the pants.
    - The Chungs offered the altered grey pants to Mr. Pearson a few days after the May 5, 2007 deadline.
    - Mr. Pearson refused to accept the pants the Chungs offered even though (1) the pants had the same unique belt loop configuration as the pants he originally submitted; (2) the pants’ measurements were identical to measurements he requested for the alteration; and, (3) the tag number on the pants matched his receipt.”

    So it’s very possible that the judge made up this whole thing in the first place? WTF!

  15. hypnotik_jello says:

    This guy is scum. Scumity scum scum scum.

  16. slapstick says:

    Who does that? No, seriously, who does that?

  17. 2Legit2Quit says:

    “Chris Manning, the Chungs’ attorney, says that can be considered fraud only if the signs misled a “reasonable” person. No reasonable person, he says, would interpret them to be an unconditional promise of satisfaction.”

    Personally, I think they made need to get a new attorney, this one is a retard with a defense like that.

  18. homerjay says:

    I’m sorry I have to be the one to say it but this judge is totally right. If a company is going to guarantee satisfaction and not provide it then they deserve what they get. This kind of suck-ass service has probably been doled out by this company for years and it took this judge to finally put them in their place.

    Obviously he’s not going to get $54 Million from them. The worst that going to happen is that he’ll close down the company. They’ve probably got it coming anyway. This is America. Don’t let your mouth write checks your ass can’t cash.

  19. homerjay says:

    Naw, I’m just screwin’ with ya. This guys a total douchebag and deserves to be…disbarred? dis…robed? comitted! Yeah, thats it. Comitted.

  20. segfault, registered cat offender says:

    I’m not sure what is up with it costing them “tens of thousands of dollars” to hire an attorney to defend the case, either. E&O (business liability) insurance normally covers attorney’s fees once you have a claim. I’m guessing maybe they didn’t have liability insurance (not required to run a business, but you’d be crazy to go without it).

  21. ftablogger says:

    Re: MaxPayne’s Comment

    The “reasonable” person argument is probably the legal standard. The at-issue actions of one individual are judged based on what other individuals would do in the same situation. Granted, “reasonable” doesn’t always sufficiently capture the behavior of most people–that’s how the law does it–it presumes reasonableness in people’s actions and everything is measured against that.

  22. coss3n says:

    For the record, he’s an Administrative Law Judge, not a real Judge. He doesn’t even get to use a gavel.

  23. Hoss says:

    @coss3n: Is this “Administrative Law Judge” a lawyer? Can’t the Board of Bar Overseers or some organization do something about this blowhard?

  24. Crazytree says:

    @segfault:

    Did you really just say “E&O insurance” and in a comment about a Korean dry cleaners?

    ;p

  25. gamble says:

    Isn’t “unconditional promise of satisfaction” pretty much the definition of a satisfaction guarantee?

    That being said, I think the appropriate recourse here would be to have his cleaning done free the next time he comes in. Or to have his bill for that first time refunded. That’s what a satisfaction guarantee means to me. It certainly doesn’t mean that if you don’t get your pants back on time, then you get to sue for $54 million.

  26. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    @gamble: I think a “reasonable person” would define “unconditional satisfaction” as getting the pants back and having the bill refunded..or maybe getting a $25 gift certificate and an apology for your troubles…not a 7 figure monetary settlement. Is this guy on crack?

    The magnitude of the “satisfaction” here needs to fit the original condition of “unsatisfaction.” In order for a $54 million settlement to be reasonable, one would have had to had $54 million worth of dry-cleaning done to begin with. That’s a lot of pants!

  27. Cary says:

    The judge needs to take it in the shorts.

    The trial judge needs to throw the case out and the defendant needs to counter-sue for abuse of process.

    $54 million sounds right… just the other way around.

  28. NeoteriX says:

    @Crazytree:

    E/O insurance is liability protection for professionals… probably does not apply here.@

    MaxPayne3476:
    If one of the cause of actions used in the plaintiff’s complaint is the tort of fraud, then yes, this is a perfectly acceptable defense. Fraud has a series of specific elements that much be made for a successful case of fraud–namely a material misrepresentation that a customer reasonably relies upon and then suffers damages.

    In any defense, once you have identified the cause of action, you punch holes in each of the elements.

    not legal advice.

  29. JustThisGuy says:

    Lemme play devil’s advocate here…

    No, wait a minute. I can’t. I just can’t find a decent defense for the plaintiff that isn’t absolutely absurd and full of holes the size of Wisconsin.

    Anyone else care to give it a shot?

  30. Trai_Dep says:

    “I’m a racist asshole judge wannabe that gets beaten by my wife and spat on by my kids, so I’m going to take it out on the poor laundry shop guy up the street”?

  31. sonichghog says:

    The only way I can see this leading to 50+ million is if something is missing from the story. Something like the Pants were lined with 1c Diamonds, but when completeed they were gone.