Dry Cleaner Victorious In The Case Of The $54 Million Dollar Pants

Judge Roy “Fancy Pants” Pearson is probably crying his poor, litigious little eyes out this morning. He’s lost his infamous $54 million lawsuit against a local DC dry cleaner. Pearson originally sought $65 million in damages after the cleaner allegedly gave him the wrong pants.

He later changed tactics, asking for only $54 million and focusing on the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign that was placed in the cleaner’s window. From the AP:

District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the Korean immigrant owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city’s Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson’s expectations of the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign that was once placed in the store window.

“Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr.,” the ruling read.

During the trial, Pearson emotionally recalled the moment someone else’s pants were substituted for his own, tears welling up in his eyes. He also produced a witness who compared Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung to Nazis. —MEGHANN MARCO

Dry cleaner wins in missing-pants case
[Yahoo!] (Thanks, Everyone Who Sent This In!)
(Photo: Inside Edition)


Edit Your Comment

  1. MonkeyMonk says:

    Awesome. So how much do people estimate that this little publicity stunt cost the good Judge Roy?

  2. zero_o says:

    Pearson needs to be dis-barred (or however you spell the losing of your right to practice law)

  3. Falconfire says:

    good, now lets get this shithead dis-barred and get the Chungs some undue stress money from a nice lawsuit.

    54 million I think has a nice ring.

  4. OnceWasCool says:

    This Judge has mental problems. They need to review all his court cases and file for mistrials .

  5. emax4 says:

    I wholeheartedly agree that the judge should be disbarred as well, whether he had won the case or not. I’m not sure about reviewing his own court cases though. The focus should be on the present and the future, not the facts. I do hope that the dry cleaners can now move on with their lives in a better manner (being clear on their “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign), and that the judge has learned a hard lesson from this.

  6. shoegazer says:

    Definitely the Chungs should file a countersuit for emotional damages. Maybe they can now compare Judge Crybaby’s harassment of them to the horrors of the Khmer Rouge, or to Al Qaeda flying planes into buildings.

  7. banned says:

    What kind of world is this when one cannot collect a measly $54 million for a lost pair of pants!?

  8. Falconfire says:

    @emax4: well it depends, while there would be little point of reviewing cases if they where judged by a jury, if he was the deciding factor in the case (which for many small cases is the norm) then there is a very valid reason to review his cases as his judgment is seriously flawed.

  9. nweaver says:

    You missed the HA HA line…

    Judge CrappyPants has to pay the Chung’s legal fees!

  10. Pelagius says:

    Once this case gained attention outside of DC’s incestuous circles, the Administrative Courts put his contract renewal on hold. Scuttlebutt has it that they were waiting on the court’s decision. Now that Pearson has lost, let’s hope that common sense prevails with his bosses as well. This man is mentally unstable.

  11. chili_dog says:

    Even his peers think he’s a tool

  12. NanaMissB says:

    Sorry Nweaver, I wish your statement was true! Unfortunately, they were still taken to the cleaners because “costs” only includes court costs, depositions, etc., not attorney fees. He should be sued for civil damages and abuse of process, if such is available in DC

  13. Hoss says:

    Here’s a reprint of the judgement — for those that need some bathroom reading.


  14. I can’t believe this peckerhead cried on the stand.

  15. nequam says:

    @nweaver: Not exactly. He was awarded “costs,” which are different than attorney’s fees. In fact, the decision says: “The issue of the defendantsÂ’ claim for
    attorneyÂ’s fees against the plaintiff will be addressed after the defendantÂ’s motions for sanctions and for attorneyÂ’s fees have been filed and briefed by the parties.”

  16. @zero_o: Like that but w/o the hyphen. :)

    If you read the testimony, the man seems very unstable. And whether or not his older cases SHOULD be opened for rehearing on grounds of incompetence, they’re certianly GOING to be appealed by the losers! His lunacy is going to keep on costing taxpayers for years.

  17. guymandude says:

    @emax4: “The focus should be on the present and the future, not the facts.”

    Yeah.. the facts are totally irrelevant. Spoken like a true american legal analyst.

  18. mupethifi says:

    He sure used every tactic possible to win this one. He must have taken notes during his hearings and tried to use them during his trial. i wonder if he cries and has a funeral at home when he wears a pair of pants out and need to be tossed?

  19. Thrust says:

    One pair of executive dress pants, $100.
    Drycleaning charge for one pair of pants, $4.25.
    Paying legal fees for a frivilous lawsuit, $250,000.
    Looking like a douchebag in front of the world, PRICELESS.

  20. nequam says:

    @nequam: I meant “they were awarded”

  21. bpark says:


    He is an administrative law judge, which means that none of his cases were before a jury. As an ALJ, he makes both the findings of fact and rulings of law. Incidentally, even if his cases were before a jury, he still retains the power to make rulings of law, e.g. JNOV, as well as determining which facts the jury sees.


    Costs are not the same as attorney’s fees.

  22. jeffj-nj says:

    Does Mr. FancyPants have to pay the dry cleaners’ legal bills now? He better.

  23. emax4 says:

    @guymandude: Duh, my bad. I meant “past” and not “facts”. Hey, it’s Monday. :)

  24. Saboth says:

    A court case where common sense wins out? Are we still in America??? Now if only the kid that had the “Bong Hits for Jesus” had won…it would be a good day. 1 point against frivolous lawsuits…1 point for lawsuits against freedom of speech.

  25. Shadowman615 says:

    Their legal fees won’t necessarily be covered, only court costs so far.

    From the Washington Post:

    “…awarding the Chung family the costs of the case–an unusual move in a civil case in which each side would ordinarily be expected to pay their own costs. (But awarding costs is not the same as awarding attorney’s fees–the big financial blow in any legal matter–and Judge Bartnoff said she would make that decision at a later date.)”

  26. philbert says:

    Glad the muther fucker lost the case – no wonder our legal system is so fucked up that he can even file such a suit!!!!!!

    He needs to burn in hell too!

  27. Hoss says:

    @nequam: I think that says that there will be a judgement specifying the exact costs and fees when they are determined. No?

  28. startertan says:

    I know this is a bit off topic but the last bit in that article mentioned the DUI trial of Marion Barry. I live in Baltimore and WTF is wrong with DC? They have @ssholes like Pearson on the bench and crackhead f*ck ups like Barry in office. Sigh…

  29. Amsterdaam says:


    That was stated so eloquently! You, my friend, are a true wordsmith.

  30. mmcnary says:

    I cant believe I get to say this first.

    The Chungs should sue the pants off him…

  31. Thrust says:

    @Saboth: Bong Hits for Jesus DID win.

  32. eli_b says:

    @mmcnary: I was just going to say that!

    He won the greatest award of all however, being the butt of everyones jokes for life.

  33. aikoto says:

    I can’t believe it. Actual justice! Next thing you know they’ll actually impeach a president for violating the law, the constitution, and the rights of Americans instead of just a scandalous affair with an intern… Nah, that’s just too unbelievable.

  34. plim says:

    i’m reading through the actual judgement (not sure if i can finish the whole thing), but the ironic part in all of this:

    the judge had become a “consumer law specialist in the law reform unit” in a prior position. if this is his idea of consumer law reform, he’s clearly failed.

    oh yeah, then there was the matter of his unemployment from 03-05, while he was conveniently representing himself during his own divorce proceedings, where he was found to have unnecessarily delayed and strewen out a relatively simple case with “unnecessary litigation.” (btw, he was ordered to pay his wife’s attorney’s fees)

    hmm…he doesn’t own a car either. is he an bike-riding environmentalist, or did he lose the car in his divorce settlement? =)

    he’s also a poor lawyer. he chose 26 “witnesses” to bad customer service from the cleaners, however none of those witnesses (only 4 were selected to testify) shared his belief that satisfaction guaranteed means that the cleaners have to move mountains in order to please their customer (unconditional and unlimited warranty). all of them testified that they shared the common sense definition of the sign and term: that the cleaners would do their best to rectify the situation (re-do, etc), or repay them an agreed upon amount for the clothing in question.

    and to top it off, here’s probably the best sentence that sums up the entire finding: “Nothing in the law supports that position.”

  35. nachas101 says:

    It is not likely that he will be disbarred over this. Losing your law license hardly seems reasonable.
    However, he will likely lose his administrative law judge appointment. He will then need to find a creative and clever way to convince clients that he isn’t a total doofus.
    Would YOU want to accept counsel from a man who sued a dry cleaner for $50+ million over a pair of pants?
    I understand the anger, but do we need to hang the man? He’s done plenty of damage to his own reputation. Everyone has heard of this case. Everyone knows his name. He’s pretty well f-ed enough, don’t you think?

  36. TinaT says:

    My favorite line from the judgement:

    “The Court also will accept that Mr. Pearson does not like cuffs on his pants.”


  37. nequam says:

    @Hossofcourse: Like bpark said above, costs and attorney’s fees are different things. In American courts (it is different elsewhere), attorney’s fees are available in only limited situations and the judge has to make an affirmative finding that they are warranted in a particular case. The way I read the decision, there is a motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees filed by the Chungs. The court will hold a hearing on this motion and may award the Chungs their attorney’s fees and may additionally levy sanctions against Pearson for bringing a frivolous suit.

    On the other hand, costs are routinely awarded but typically do not amount to much. They generally consist of filing fees and other expenses paid to the court. (In many cases the prevailing party doesn’t even bother calculating or collecting their costs because they are minimal)

    That said, I don’t think anybody should be surprised if the judge awards attorney’s fees.

  38. eli_b says:

    How did this just not get thrown out? That’s almost more offensive.

  39. enm4r says:

    @eli_b: From watching the local DC news, they made it seem as if this wouldn’t go away if it had just been thrown out, so the judge took the case knowing full well it would go the distance to put a “case closed” stamp on this guy.

  40. eli_b says:

    Yeah, I guess better to publicly humiliate him for doing the same to the cleaners.

  41. lilyHaze says:

    I’m very happy to hear about the ruling. I’m just pessimistic enough that Mr. FancyPants will appeal (which the defendants’ attorney knows). At the very least, it’s not likely the Chungs will ever be awarded attorney’s fees.

  42. nequam says:

    @eli_b: It really was the amount he was seeking, not his claims themselves that were off the wall. For instance, his claim would have seemed legit if he brought it in small claims court.

    Typically the amount sought is not a material aspect of the case (though it may be relevant for questions of jurisdiction) and the court is never held to awarding a particular amount.

    The court could have short-circuited the case based on unfounded claims but would have no basis for saying “$54 million is outrageous, get out of my court.” I’m not saying $54 mill. is reasonable, just that it has no bearing on the merits of the case.

    Of course, the way he conducted the case appears to have been absurd and wasteful. It looks like the court will be dealing with that.

  43. eli_b says:

    @nequam: Really? It’s about the amount? If it was 5 dollars would we be talking about this?

  44. @nachas101: “Losing your law license hardly seems reasonable…. I understand the anger, but do we need to hang the man?”

    I think it’s entirely reasonable. I swore a friggin’ oath to the citizens of this state to support my state and federal Constitutions and to faithfully execute my duties as an attorney and officer of the court. I don’t take that lightly.

    Roy Pearson swore a similar oath when he was admitted to practice. There is hardly a canon of legal ethics he has left unbroken, and beyond the absolute abuse of legal process, total disregard for professional ethics, and complete lack of legal reasoning skills, the man QUITE OBVIOUSLY has no respect for justice and is entirely willing to abuse his power.

    It’s unacceptable. A man like that has no business in the bar. He’s an embarassment to the profession, and that’s in a profession that spawns embarassments like it’s going out of style.

  45. nachas101 says:

    Legally speaking, this case has some merit.
    Basically, the customer felt wronged by the customer and based on the ‘satisfaction guaranteed’, he felt he had a right to satisfaction. Clearly though, they had attempted to satisfy him.
    Had this case been thrown out of court, Pearson could have easily just fine tuned the argument and re-filed the suit.
    In essence, this HAD to go to the system so he couldn’t level the same charges. He sued and lost- now all he can do is appeal, not refile, or file a suit using new accusations. The judge in this case was very smart in being meticulous in her ruling to avoid any factual errors or questionable legal interpretations specifically to make it difficult for Pearson to appeal.
    And yes, if this had been a case for a reasonable amount of money, not only would we not be discussing it, but it likely wouldn’t have made a ripple in the media.
    And the judge awarded attorneys fees to them, releiving the Chungs of pretty much all costs incurred.

  46. homerjay says:

    Our legal system may be fucked up, but at least its not THAT fucked up that he won this disaster.

    Not only should be be disbarred, he should be deported. We don’t need Americans like that. They make the rest of us look bad.

  47. fairweather says:


    I’m afraid not–unless you’re siding with Starr. Apparently, drug laws trump our Constitution.


  48. nachas101 says:

    @Eyebrows McGee:
    Try to stay calm here.
    You swore a ‘friggin oath’?
    Come on. Seriously.
    There is no question that he behaved improperly, but I don’t think this had the same effect on the way people look at the law as, say, the way Nifong handled the Duke case. And if you are a practicing attorney, you should know that what he did happens all the time, all over the country with frightening regularity.
    Certainly you don’t think that an attorney should be persecuted for bringing a suit that he felt had merit, do you?
    He’s going to continue to be punished, both professionally and personally, based on his own frivolous lawsuit. He will likely lose his judgeship and will have an extremely difficult time getting clients if he chooses to practice law to begin with.
    I just don’t believe that Pearson deserves to be completely destroyed because he brought a suit that he should have more carefully considered.
    Pearson made quite a few mistakes, most notably hiring himself as an attorney. As you likely know, a man who represents himself has a fool for a client. A competent attorney would have more carefully constructed a case or advised against one to begin with.
    Considering his history, I doubt he will have his law license pulled.
    Doing so would be adding insult to injury and would amount to cruel and unusual punsihment.

  49. markedward says:

    $56 million for a pair of pants? Holy crap… The smart thing to do would have been to sue for the cost of the pants, the cost of the dry-clean process, the cost for legal fees, the cost for gas money to drive to the court house, and the then just a bit extra for “emotional damages.” The sheer idiocy of suing someone millions and millions of dollars over pants is just incredible.

  50. nequam says:

    @eli_b: I don’t understand your sarcasm. You suggested the case should have been thrown out: “How did this just not get thrown out? That’s almost more offensive.” My response is that there is no reason (or way) to throw it out based strictly on the amount of money he was requesting. But since you agree that it’s the amount of money that is sticking in everybody’s craw, maybe you can explain the reason for throwing it out.

    @nachas101: “now all he can do is appeal, not refile, or file a suit using new accusations.” In fact, he cannot file a new suit based on the same pair of pants, even if his claims are different.

  51. zaky says:

    What. A. Fucking. Douche. I hated this guy the moment I heard about him. How the hell is he actually a judge???

  52. superbmtsub says:


  53. superbmtsub says:

    The reason why Mr (ex Judge) Pearson lost the case was because the Chungs didn’t lose the suit. Jus the pants. :P

  54. Marce says:

    Judge Pearson challenged Godwin and lost. You don’t challenge Godwin over pants. Lesson learned? Probably not.

  55. emax4 says:

    I don’t understand why he was adding in the cost to rent a vehicle every day to drive to the dry cleaners when it stated that he didn’t have a car of his own. It wasn’t the dry cleaners’ decision to make Pearson rent a car so that he could drive to their establishment. The guy has been photographed in a jogging suit, so it’s not as if he’s physically unable to get from point A to point B. Think of what the outcome might have been had he won: everyone who walks or takes public transportation would be able to rent a car and possibly have their employers pay for it all.

  56. tkozikow says:

    I think that the judge’s decision makes it clear that ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’ does not establish a foundation for limitless claims and financial compensation, but rather what would be expected by a “reasonable person”. The Chung family made multiple offers of up to $12000 that go well beyond what a reasonable person could expect to satisfy their claim and Pearson clearly demonstrated that he had either an agenda or was seriously delusional. I think that it is also interesting that Pearson had a similar incident with the Chung family years earlier and they paid him $150 asking him to take his business elsewhere.

  57. @nachas101: “Certainly you don’t think that an attorney should be persecuted for bringing a suit that he felt had merit, do you?

    No, I think he should have his license pulled for abuse of process ONE HE BROUGHT THE SUIT, not for bringing a potentially meritorious suit.

    Nifong’s criminal case was potentially meritorious as well. He, too, abused the system, although his abuses (particularly hiding evidence) were more egregious.

    “Try to stay calm here.”

    I wasn’t wound up, but if had I been, I’d still find this comment fairly offensive. I’m a fan of justice and I don’t really think “justice” (like “truth” and “freedom”) are things we should “stay calm” about.

    Why whenever anyone is passionate about anything is there some asshole who has to come in and be all, “don’t get excited! It’s no big deal!” Are you FRIGHTENED of people being committed to abstract ideas? Or are we just not supposed to talk about ideals in public? That whole attitude disgusts me, because clearly what this country needs is more anomie and apathy.

    “You swore a ‘friggin oath’?
    Come on. Seriously.”

    I did. Seriously. I was there for it.

    “And if you are a practicing attorney, you should know that what he did happens all the time, all over the country with frightening regularity.”

    Yes. And “everybody’s doing it” is an EXCELLENT reason not to crack down on people abusing the justice system. Fine principle of law you’ve got there.

  58. BadCall says:

    Y’all know that if Joe Blow brings the same lawsuit, it gets tossed in a nanosecond.

    I think the Judge should get to spend a night in the same jail cell as Paris Hilton. They deserve each other.

  59. nachas101 says:

    @Eyebrows McGee:
    The reason I said to calm down is because the way you write, you sure seem all wound up.
    Maybe thats the way you express ‘passion’, but all I see is a hotheaded loon, eager to vent some frustration. And I sense that this happens frequently from this gem:
    “Why whenever anyone is passionate about anything is there some asshole who has to come in and be all, “don’t get excited! It’s no big deal!” “

    So let me get this straight, I’m an asshole now?
    Fine. I agree with you. Let’s all get batshit crazy about it and hang this motherfucker before the sun goes down.
    Saying ‘settle down’ doesn’t mean I disagree with your passion or think you are necessarily wrong – it can mean many things. You know, like “hey dude, let’s not have a fucking aneurysm about it.”
    You are right – this was an abuse of justice and the legal system.
    You are also right – he should be punsihed further.
    But you are wrong – I’m not an asshole. And I’m not offended by or upset with your passion.
    But there are better ways to express your passion without coming off like a shreiking lunatic.

    ‘Are you FRIGHTENED of people being committed to abstract ideas?’

    No. And I didn’t say that you shouldn’t be excited or passionate either. I said “Try to stay calm here.” because it is pretty clear that you are about ready to jump off the deep end about what amounts to a trivial, nonsensical case here. We both agree that Pearson is a yutz. So who are you yelling at and why are you using a strawman argument to prove your logical mettle?

    ‘Or are we just not supposed to talk about ideals in public?’
    Umm. What? Case. In. Point. Never said it. Never implied it.
    Are you an attorney? Really? They didn’t teach you to seperate logical arguments from strawman arguments?

    “That whole attitude disgusts me, because clearly what this country needs is more anomie and apathy.”

    Good point. It has nothing to do with what I said, but a good point. Your sarcasm is not lost on this asshole.

    “Yes. And “everybody’s doing it” is an EXCELLENT reason not to crack down on people abusing the justice system. Fine principle of law you’ve got there.”

    And you claim to be an attorney.
    I say that this case is not like the Nifong case, where disbarment was clearly a reasonable outcome, and you present a part of it as a strawman argument.
    Hey, I bet you are great at being an attorney. Not so great at posting at the consumerist, but likley a good attorney.
    Odd, though, since you seem to have skipped the logic classes.
    I never said what you seem to have believed me to say.
    Go back, re-read it, maybe dump out the coffee and switch to decaf, and relax. I too am passionate about law. I just don’t scream and stomp around calling others asshole for no reason.

  60. bpark says:


    I can’t believe it took so long for the thread winner to show up.

  61. nequam says:

    I don’t think there are grounds for disbarment here. The grounds for disbarment typically involve harm to an attorney’s client, either by stealing funds or affirmatively causing harm to a client’s case. If Pearson committed a wrong, it would be abuse of process. Courts usually punish abuse of process by imposing monetary sanctions on the offending attorney. It is difficult for me to see why those aren’t sufficient here. A professional admonishment may be appropriate, but disbarment seems extreme in this case (as far as I can tell). I’m not in a position to know, but I don’t see a pattern of abuse here that might warrant a stronger response by the court.

    @Eyebrows McGee: “There is hardly a canon of legal ethics he has left unbroken” That’s a strong statement, especially when it’s based on information about the case gleaned entirely from news reports. I’m curious to hear the specifics of your charge.

  62. nachas101 says:

    “That’s a strong statement, especially when it’s based on information about the case gleaned entirely from news reports. I’m curious to hear the specifics of your charge. “

    My dad, an attorney for 30+ years, always says:
    Read half of what you believe in the papers, and when it’s about the law, don’t believe a word.
    Early in his legal career, he worked for the states attorneys office. Reporters were always looking for quotes. After having what he said be misquoted half a dozen times, he stopped giving them.
    Simply put – you can’t build a case for the ‘canon of legal ethics’ being broken from any of this.
    He abused the system. He should know better. He’s likely to lose his appointment as an administrative law judge. He’s going to have a VERY difficult time getting clients to trust him for a long time.
    That’s likely enough, for now.

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

    In the immortal words of Nelson Muntz:

    HA HA!

  64. CoffeeAddict says:

    I can’t believe that some people even think they can sue for that kind of money, for something as trivial as pants.

  65. lestat730 says:

    Did they remove this man’s position as a judge yet? Sounds to me like he has some serious psychological problems. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be before this guy in court. What sane person cries when recalling the moment when the cleaners produced the wrong pair of pants (and then thinks his ‘anguish’ is worth 54 million.) I’d be very interested to see if the state does the right thing and takes any action against him. At the very least he should get temporary suspension pending a mental health test. No matter what happens though he still made himself look like a complete fool in front of the entire world. How is it that people like this end up with positions of power in our legal system?

  66. superbmtsub says:

    Yea. He’s been disbarred.

    And thanks @ bpark. There was no suit involved at all. Jus pants. :D

  67. nequam says:

    @superbmtsub: wtf are you talking about? He hasn’t been disbarred.

  68. lestat730 says:

    @superbmtsub: really? Well that’s good to know. I haven’t yet been able to find an article about the disbarment. I’d love it if you’d share your source

  69. OldGreyTroll says:

    Based on another WaPo Article:

    A panel of four D.C. officials is considering the reappointment of administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson Jr. in light of devastating publicity about a court case he brought.

    Moreover, this is not the first case involving Mr. Pearson that has raised such questions. The Virginia Court of Appeals, in a 2005 review of Mr. Pearson’s divorce proceedings, upheld findings that he created “unnecessary litigation” in a relatively simple case and was responsible for “excessive driving up” of legal costs.

  70. Omniboy says:

    There was no other way this could have turned out. The precedent an opposite ruling would have set would most surely sink our economy, then who would we sue for that boondoggle?

  71. Thrust says:

    Bong Hits for Buddha

  72. justarep says:

    Perhaps next he’ll sue his relatives for childhood trauma, because he obviously has been abused if not being able to wear his own pants makes him cry in court, at his age.

    America, I have hope for you yet. Don’t stop now.

  73. nachas101 says:

    Not disbarred.
    No mention of it at all in any news source on the web.
    While he deserves to lose his position as an administrative law judge, disbarring him is silly and pointless.

  74. superbmtsub says:

    My bad guys.


    I read that article in a hurry. Hopefully disbarred and let someone a bit less insane to take over his position.

  75. bnissan97 says:

    I was really just wishing that after all this the cleaners were forced to just pay for a new suit or pants or whatever it was and their legal expenses.

    The main suit was ridiculous but letting them off scot-free just sends a message to cleaners of the sort, which have a reputation for being difficult that it is ok to be mean to consumers.

  76. CumaeanSibyl says:

    @bnissan97: Yes, but they already offered to pay him up to $12K for the pants, and he rejected their multiple settlement offers. His fault for not keeping it in small-claims court, and for acting like a lunatic.

    Also, what do you mean by “cleaners of the sort”?

    I think the crux of the matter is that, despite all his wrangling and yelling, he never even managed to prove that the pants they returned to him were not the pants he gave them. The judge had no choice but to conclude that, if he wasn’t satisfied, there was nothing on earth the Chungs could have done to make him satisfied.