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. Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz stated that "the court has significant concerns that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith".
Over time, the Chungs presented three settlement offers in the amounts of $3000, $4600, and $12,000-all of which were rejected by Pearson. 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. The first claim was the issue of the ownership by Pearson of the presented pair of pants. The judge to whom the case was presented decided to bring it to trial on the basis of two of Pearson's claims. As a result, Pearson filed suit in the District of Columbia's Superior Court. Pearson demanded what he claimed to be the price of the pants as compensation, an amount of over $1000, which the Chungs refused.
Contrary to the dry cleaner's records, tags, and his receipt, Pearson refused to accept the pants and said they were not his. After a delay caused by the pants being mistakenly sent to another dry cleaner, they were offered back to Pearson several days after the initial pickup date of May 5, 2005. The pants could be distinguished by three belt loops on both sides of the front waistband. On May 3, 2005, Pearson delivered a pair of gray pants to a Washington, D.C. dry cleaning establishment, Custom Cleaners, for over $67 million for the loss of a pair of pants. Pearson was widely ridiculed in the press, and was given the nickname "Judge Fancy Pants". The case drew international attention when it went to trial in 2007, and has been held as an example of frivolous litigation and the need for tort reform in the United States. The Chungs made a motion to recover their legal fees, but withdrew it following the conclusion of a successful fundraising campaign. As a result of the trial, a panel recommended that Pearson not be offered the standard ten year appointment although still a member of the bar, he no longer serves as a judge. In the appeal, he argued that the presiding judge had failed to address his legal claims. Pearson lost the case and subsequent appeal. During trial, Pearson broke down in tears while detailing the frustration caused by losing his pants. The Chungs presented three settlement offers in the amounts of $3000, $4600, and $12,000, which were rejected by Pearson. Insisting that Custom Cleaners had failed to fulfil the "satisfaction guaranteed" by a sign in the store, Pearson requested $67 million for inconvenience, mental anguish, and attorney's fees. Pearson filed suit against the owners of Custom Cleaners in Washington, D.C.-Soo, Jin Nam and Ki Y. Pearson was, at the time, an administrative law judge in the District of Columbia. Chung, also known as the " $54 million pants" case, is a civil case filed in 2005 by Judge Roy L. Superior Court of the District of Columbia
2005 lawsuit about dry-cleaning pants Pearson v.
0 kommentar(er)
