Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
Judge: Missing pants suit has no legs
A man loses his lawsuit seeking $54-million from a dry cleaner.
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published June 26, 2007
WASHINGTON - A judge ruled Monday that no pair of pants is worth $54-million, rejecting a lawsuit that took a dry cleaner's promise of "Satisfaction Guaranteed" to its most litigious extreme. Roy Pearson became a worldwide symbol of legal abuse by seeking jackpot justice from a simple complaint - that a neighborhood dry cleaners lost the pants from a new suit and tried to give him a pair that were not his. His claim, reduced from $67-million, was based on a strict interpretation of the city's consumer protection law - which imposes fines of $1, 500 per violation, per day - as well as damages. But Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store window. "A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands, " the judge wrote. Bartnoff wrote that Pearson also failed to prove that the pants the dry cleaner tried to return were not the pants he took in. Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay clerical court costs of about $1, 000 to defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung. A motion to recover the Chungs' attorney fees will be considered later. The Chungs said they held no hard feelings toward Pearson. "If he wants to continue using our services, then, yes, he is welcome, " Soo Chung said. Pearson did not respond to requests for comment. His two-year tenure as an administrative law judge expired in April, and officials have not yet decided whether to reappoint him. While waiting, he continues to receive a $100, 512 salary.
[Last modified June 26, 2007, 00:32:41]
Share your thoughts on this story
Comments on this article
|
by Vickie
|
08/15/07 01:29 AM
|
|
...(continued from my other text comment)it's no wonder the American judicial system has become its own victim. Jeez!
|
|
by Vickie
|
08/15/07 01:27 AM
|
|
08/14/2007: and that's not all, folks! I read on Yahoo News that this guy is appealing Judge Bartnoff's ruling! He still isn't taking "no" for an answer! What a waste of taxpayer time and money this guy is! With judges like Pearson on the bench..
|
|
by Dat
|
06/27/07 03:41 AM
|
|
He should be disbarred and fired immediatley. Blanant abuse of the judicial system.
|
|
by jack s
|
06/26/07 04:17 PM
|
|
Pearson should be ordered to repay his salary and be terminated immediatley. He tried to ruin the Chungs business and lives because of his arrogance and misuse of his power. he is everything a judge should not be. throw the bum out!
|
|
by Robert
|
06/26/07 12:57 PM
|
|
How refreshing to see a judge using common sense. The plaintiff, who is an administrative law judge, is up for re-appointment. Let us hope the appointing committee uses common sense and shows him the door.
|
|
by jg
|
06/26/07 12:30 PM
|
|
The untold story here is that he has just recently gone through a divorce, so that money that he is making is properly going towards child and spousal support. He was looking to free-up some spending cash with this ridiculous lawsuit.
|
|
by Cecil
|
06/26/07 09:41 AM
|
|
If there were any REAL justice, the $100,512 salary would be given to the Chung family not this USELESS excuse for humanity.
|
|
by Pat
|
06/26/07 09:39 AM
|
|
FINALLY a REAL Judge makes a sensible ruling. How dare Pearson prey on hard-working people. If the "officials" do reappoint him, they should ALL be fired AT ONCE.
|
|
by Alan
|
06/26/07 09:36 AM
|
|
I wonder when Jesse Jackson et.al are going to jump in (oops, REV. Jesse Jackson). Of course we all know that this greedy "judge" has to be given his job back or its discrimination. This is America, after all. He will be eligible for wellfare also.
|
|
by Chris
|
06/26/07 08:26 AM
|
|
The most ridiculous part of this story is the last paragraph. Who of us here in the real world would not jump at a job where you continue to receive your salary while your boss ponders over whether or not to make you work for it???
|
|