$54 million pants suit does not have legs

WASHINGTON - The man who sued for $54 million over a lost pair of suit pants got taken to the cleaners by a judge yesterday.

Roy L. Pearson Jr., an administrative law judge in the District of Columbia, lost his pants and now his lawsuit against a Korean mom-and-pop dry-cleaning establishment that had offered $12,000 to settle the case.

In awarding court costs to the Chung family, Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff said Pearson did not sufficiently prove that the pants the Chungs tried to return to him were not the pants he brought in for alterations.

In other words, if the pants looked like a fit, she must acquit.

Moreover, Bartnoff said "nothing in the law supports" Pearson's contention that a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign posted at Custom Cleaners is "an unconditional and unlimited warranty of satisfaction . . . as determined solely by the customer, without regard to the facts or to any notion of reasonableness."

Defense attorney Christopher Manning said the Chungs were elated. "Through her verdict, Judge Bartnoff has spoken loudly in suggesting that, while consumers should be protected, abusive lawsuits like this will not be tolerated," he said.

Pearson could not be reached for comment.

The decision ended a two-year ordeal for Soo Chung and her husband, Jin Nam Chung, and their son, Ki Chung, who emigrated in 1992 from Seoul, South Korea, to Washington, where they now own three cleaning establishments.

Pearson's testimony in the two-day trial ended in his leaving the courtroom with tears streaming down his face.

The case alternately riveted and repulsed denizens of the nation's capital, where haberdashery is taken seriously by lobbyists and members of the bar.

During the ordeal, business mostly went on as usual at Custom Dry Cleaners, a modest shop in a strip mall in the northeast section of the city. Customers seemed undaunted by the bad publicity.

"I think it's ridiculous," said Lois Ikard, an accounts-payable manager at a construction company who is a longtime customer. "If they offered him a settlement worth 10 times the pants, I'd take that, and an apology, even if I might not give them any more business."

Customer Geraldine Mekonnen said Pearson "is free to do what he wants," but she had not experienced any problems. "You have to do what you have to do," she said off the cuff.

This piece of dry-cleaning history began in May 2005, when Pearson, who was starting a new job as an administrative law judge, brought in five suits for alteration because he had gained 20 pounds.

When he returned several days later, four suits came back fine, but the fifth was missing its pants. Pearson alleged that one of the owners tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants.

"These are not my pants," Pearson recalled telling Soo Chung when she handed him the cuffed trousers. "I have in my adult life, with one exception, never worn pants with cuffs."

Chung insisted the pants were his.

The dispute over a $10.50 alteration escalated. Pearson alleged that the Chungs had committed fraud by failing to live up to signs in the shop: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service."

Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit, about $1,150, but the Chungs claimed the pants had been found and refused to pay.

Pearson originally sued for about $65 million under the District of Columbia consumer protection act and almost $2 million in common-law claims. He later reduced his claim to $54 million, declaring that he was taking on the "awesome responsibility" of defending the interests of all city residents against poor business practices.

How did Pearson compute his claim? He multiplied several alleged violations by three defendants on damages of $1,500 a day (under D.C. consumer law) for 1,200 days.

Pearson wanted to be awarded attorney's fees, which he set at $542,000, even though he represented himself.

The defendants made three settlement offers, the last for $12,000, but each was declined by Pearson. The Chungs will now ask that he pay their legal fees, too.

Read the court's ruling at http://go.philly.com/Pearson EndText