Judge Suing Dry Cleaner Cries Over Pants

Court Alerts

[##_1L|1070564468.jpg|width="101" height="102" alt=""|_##]A judge had to leave the courtroom with tears running down his face Tuesday after recalling the lost pair of trousers that led to his $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner. Administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson had argued earlier in his opening statement that he is acting in the interest of all city residents against poor business practices. Defense attorneys called his claim "outlandish." He originally sued Custom Cleaners for about $65 million under the District of Columbia consumer protection act and almost $2 million in common law claims. He is no longer seeking damages related to the pants, instead focusing his claims on two signs in the shop that have since been removed.

He alleges that Jin Chung, Soo Chung and Ki Chung, owners of the mom-and-pop business, committed fraud and misled consumers with signs that claimed "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service."

Pearson, representing himself, said in opening that he wanted to examine the culture that allowed "a group of defendants to engage in bad business practices for five years."

An attorney for the Chungs portrayed Pearson as a bitter man with financial troubles stemming from a recent divorce who is taking out his anger on a hardworking family.

"This case is very simple. It's about one sign and the plaintiff's outlandish interpretation," attorney Chris Manning said.

The Chungs were to present their case Wednesday. Manning asked D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff to award them reimbursement for their legal costs if they win.

Pearson called several witnesses Tuesday who testified that they stopped going to Custom Cleaners after problems with misplaced clothes.

Pearson also called himself as a witness, saying his problems began in May 2005 when he brought in several suits for alterations. A pair of pants from a blue and maroon suit was missing when he requested it two days later. He said Soo Chung tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants.

As Pearson explained that those weren't the pants for the suit, he choked up and left the courtroom crying after asking Bartnoff for a break.

Pearson originally asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit, which was more than $1,000. But because the Chungs insisted the pants had been found, they refused to pay.

Manning has said the cleaners made three settlement offers to Pearson, but the judge was not satisfied and increased his demands — including asking for money to rent a car so he could drive to another business.

Related listings

  • Wal-Mart workers' suits spur mixed court rulings

    Wal-Mart workers' suits spur mixed court rulings

    Court Alerts 06/13/2007

    [##_1L|1229598667.jpg|width="130" height="90" alt=""|_##]Wal-Mart Stores Inc., facing more than 70 labor-practice lawsuits, won one case in New York and lost two in other states after judges differed on whether employees could sue as a group over cla...

  • Bank of America Calls Dutch Court Action "Shocking"

    Bank of America Calls Dutch Court Action "Shocking"

    Court Alerts 06/08/2007

    In its fight for LaSalle Bank, Bank of America [ticker: BAC] said in an appeal filing that it was “shocking” that the Dutch court would disregard fundamental European Union law.The Charlotte, N.C.-based bank has accused a Dutch court of unlawful acti...

  • Michael Scott Murder Conviction Overturned

    Michael Scott Murder Conviction Overturned

    Court Alerts 06/07/2007

    [##_1L|1022852143.jpg|width="130" height="90" alt=""|_##]Austin's most notorious killings, the Yogurt Shop murders, remain essentially unsolved. The Court of Criminal Appeals Wednesday morning overturned the conviction of Michael Scott, the only man ...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

New York & New Jersey Family Law Matters We represent our clients in all types of proceedings that include termination of parental rights. >> read