3 posts tagged “custom cleaners”
[Cross-posted] Our long, international nightmare is (nearly) over. The US justice system works. Judge Judith Bartnoff found today that Roy L. Pearson is not entitled to any of the damages he sought against a hard-working Korean family operating Custom Cleaners, a small dry-cleaning outfit in Washington, DC.
Essentially, Judge Bartnoff, even applying a lower evidentiary standard, could not find that Judge Pearson had discharged the burden of proof and that consumer law, as I noted, is to be interpreted in the eyes of the reasonable consumer.
She has not yet worked out the defendants’ claim about Pearson’s mala fides and vexatious litigation, but the Chungs were awarded judgement and costs.
The Washington Post has a copy of the PDF judgement here. I don’t think you need to be a lawyer or law student to read this judgement: it’s clear-cut and the case is, despite Judge Pearson’s claims, really simple. It also outlines all the facts, including what the media rightly had to miss in order to make the story easier to follow.
Consumer law classes will be interesting next semester.
But, more importantly, Judge Bartnoff has shown the world that the American stereotype of the litigious society does not really work in real life, something that Judge Pearson appears disconnected from. She may well have discouraged similar cases and has done the right thing not just as an officer of the court, but as an American.
The Washington Post knows a good blogging story when it sees one. Marc Fisher has updated his blog after the second day of the crazy judge and the missing pants saga.
I’m sure it has crossed more than a few minds: a future where all news articles come via blogs. Scary. Though at least there are some professional journos making a good job of it.
But it sounds like Christopher Manning, representing Custom Cleaners, is on the right track. As Mr Fisher reports:
Pearson told the defense lawyer that if the tables were turned and he were in the place of the Chung family, the owners of the Northeast Washington cleaners who purportedly lost Pearson's pants, he would have immediately written a check for $1,150—the replacement value of the Hickey Freeman suit to which the pants belonged—to provide the satisfaction that the store's “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign promised.
It took more than 10 minutes and numerous attempts by both Manning and Judge Judith Bartnoff to get Pearson to answer a question about whether anyone has the right to walk into any cleaners and claim $1,150 simply by saying that their suit had been lost. Finally, Pearson said that the law requires that “The merchant would have an obligation to honor their demand.“
“So your answer is Yes?” Manning asked.
“Yes,” Pearson said.
The courtroom, in which it's hard to discern any support for Pearson except from his mother and her friend, broke up in laughter. Derisive laughter.
Manning pushed ahead: Does Pearson believe that people should interpret signs “in a reasonable way?”
“Depends on the circumstances,” Pearson said.
Asked to answer yes or no, Pearson said, “No.”
I have to agree with Mr Fisher’s thoughts about the presiding judge: ‘This is known as giving someone all the rope they need to hang themselves.’
Got this in the feedback form from my main site last night, from the law firm representing a Mom-and-Pop dry-cleaning outfit. If you recall, a Korean family was being sued for $65 million by an American judge because they lost his favourite pants. It looks like they are about to have their day in court, with an amended claim from the judge after outcries. Still, he wants $54 million—that’s some amendment.
I’ll post more if Manning & Sossamon inform me of developments. My best wishes go to Jin Nam Chung and Ki Chung. No prizes for guessing what I want to happen, especially to Judge Pearson. I think I share most people’s feelings, especially those Americans who feel Judge Pearson is giving their entire nation a bad name.
Update: $67 Million Dry Cleaning Case
On May 31, 2007, D.C. Administrative Law Judge, Roy L. Pearson, filed a Pre-Trial Brief in the Pearson v. Chung dry cleaner case. In the brief, Pearson shifts the focus of his claims from his allegedly lost pants to claims related to signage in the Chungs’ store. One sign reads “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and another reads “Same Day Service.” Pearson claims the signs are somehow misleading and apparently continues to seek over $54,000,000 in damages from the Chungs. Pearson had previously sought $67,000,000 in compensation from the Chungs.
Christopher Manning, of the law firm Manning & Sossamon in Washington D.C., represents the Chungs and made the following statement in response to Pearson's recent actions:
"Although it is always encouraging to see claims withdrawn, it is simply baffling that Mr. Pearson continues to assert that he is entitled to tens of millions of dollars as a result of two completely harmless, completely straight-forward signs. Mr. Pearson's claims are not founded in common sense and are extraordinarily abusive towards the Chungs. As a result, the Chungs' terrible ordeal continues. The Chungs' decision to move to and build a business in America began with the classic American dream. Mr. Pearson has turned that dream into an American nightmare."
Mr. Pearson's lawsuit has cost the Chungs tens of thousands of dollars in defense costs. Donations to a defense fund set up by the Chungs may be made at www.customcleanersdefensefund.com.
This case will be tried in courtroom 415 of the District of Columbia Superior Courthouse on June 11th and 12th beginning at 9:30am each day.
All questions regarding the matter should be directed to the office of Manning & Sossamon at:
Manning & Sossamon PLLC
1532 Sixteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 387-2228 (voice)
(202) 387-2229 (fax)
chungdefense@manning-sossamon.com
My Groups
-
Pub! Updated: A moment ago
-
Collections & Hobbies Updated: 13 minutes ago
-
Media and Culture Updated: 13 minutes ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
