posted by Damozel |
So the administrative law judge who sued a laundromat for $54 million over a pair of missing pants gets nothing. (The Washington Post) In fact, Judge Pearson may find himself saddled for tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs for attorney's fees and sanctions.(The Washington Post) He might also find that he's no longer an administrative law judge for the District. (The Washington Post; The Washington Post2) ("Is there anything more absurd than someone pursuing a $65 million
lawsuit over a lost pair of pants? Well, how about this same person
being in a position to adjudicate the cases of other people? Or that
there's a chance of his getting a new 10-year term as judge?" demanded a May 3 editorial in The Washington Post.) The case has become "The case has become a worldwide symbol of litigiousness in American society," says Peter Lattman at The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog.
I feel extremely sorry for the defendants, who got put through the wringer . This litigation went on for two years and cost the Korean immigrant couple thousands of dollars to defend. (MSNBC) It's really sad, though I must say I feel sorry for Judge Pearson as well. I may be alone in this, I realize. But what was he thinking? What would the world look like if everyone could recover $54 million every time they suffered minor loss? Does Judge Pearson really believe that the judicial system could survive it?
Not that I'm unsympathetic, mind you. I cried for hours when the local laundry lost my red wool vintage coat. They offered me $50, which wasn't what it had cost new, but it didn't matter; I couldn't replace it. But I didn't sue for $54 million or indeed, at all; I was just grateful they offered me anything. A lot of cleaners in my town have notices up saying that if they destroy your clothing they'll reimburse you your costs and that's the lot. Of course---and this is something people like Judge Pearson don't consider---if they didn't limit their liability, they'd just pass the costs on to their other customers, so that soon you'd have to pay $500 to get a button sewn on. When it comes to small businesses, the best revenge is to vote with your feet, as it were. Part of the reason this case has drawn so much attention---besides the obvious reason, the disproportion between the injury and the damages requested---is that while we've all been there, we didn't go there (as it were). Even without knowing anything about the law, people can see the ramifications.
Anyway, so: Judge Pearson's troubles with the Chungs started before the incident underlying this lawsuit was filed. This was not the first time the Chungs had (allegedly) lost a pair of his pants, it seems.
The bad blood between customer and store dates back to 2002, when the first pair of pants was allegedly lost by the dry cleaners.
The Chungs gave Pearson a $150 check for a new pair of pants. Three years later, Pearson said he returned to Custom Cleaners and, like some real-life "Groundhog Day" nightmare, another pair of trousers went missing.
It was May 2005 and Pearson was about to begin his new job as an administrative judge. He said in court filings he wanted to wear a nice outfit to his first day of work. (ABC News)
"Until he landed the judgeship, Pearson had been out of work. Strapped
for cash and running up close to his limit on his credit cards, he
brought his pants in one or two at a time to avoid maxing out his
credit," says today's Washington Post. Evidently his divorce had put a dent in his finances. (Findings of Fact; Washington Post5)
Initially, Judge Pearson asked the cleaners to pay him $1150 to cover the cost of the missing pants.(The Washington Post) They refused to pay, saying that they'd found his pants. But here's the kicker (sorry): the pants they found were not, according to him, his pants. (ABC News)
The laundry thought otherwise. "To the Chungs and their attorney, one of the most frustrating aspects of the case is their claim that Pearson's gray pants were found almost right away, and have been hanging in Manning's office for more than a year. Pearson claims in court documents that his pants had blue and red pinstripes. But Manning [the plaintiffs' attorney] said: "They match his inseam measurements. The ticket on the pants matches his receipt."" (The Washington Post 4) But they were also cuffed, and Judge Pearson testified in court under oath that he would never ever wear cuffed pants. """I have in my adult life, with one exception, never worn pants with cuffs.""(ABC News) After all, he admitted that there was one exception to his passionately held aversion to wearing cuffed trousers. "[N]ever, he suggested, would he have so defiled his treasured Hickey Freeman suits." (The Washington Post )
Maybe they weren't his pants or maybe he made a mistake about which pants he had taken to be altered. Apparently he'd taken several different pairs of pants to the Chungs to be altered during the same period. (Findings of Fact And why, I ask myself, would a man lie about his cuffs? Besides, a similar thing happened to a friend of mine: her laundry lost a $200 chartreuse silk blouse, size 10, and tried to foist off a sleazy pale yellow knock off (size 6) as hers, hinting broadly all the while that she'd simply "outgrown" it and was trying by denying ownership to get them to pay the cost of a new one. Could he have been right that the pants the Chungs tried to give back to him weren't the pants he'd left for alteration?
Judge Judith Bartnoff, who after all heard the evidence, thought otherwise.
The Court agrees with the plaintiff that the pants in the defendants’ possession do not appear to match the jacket to his burgundy and blue pinstriped suit. The Court also will accept that Mr. Pearson does not like cuffs on his pants. The plaintiff may well believe that he brought the pants to his burgundy and blue pinstriped suit to the defendants, but there also is strong evidence that he did not. The Court found Soo Chung to be very credible, and her explanation that she recognized the disputed pants as belonging to Mr. Pearson because of the unusual belt inserts was much more credible than his speculation that she took a pair of unclaimed pants from the back of the store and altered them to
match his measurements. Mr. Pearson only recently had received four suits back from his son, he brought in several pairs of pants over a period of less than two weeks for alterations, and it certainly is plausible that the pants on the hanger with his blue and burgundy pinstriped suit jacket were not the pants that matched the jacket, even if Mr. Pearson assumed that they were.(Findings of Fact)
But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was wrong. Let's assume for the sake of argument that they actually lost his pants. Even if so, when he asked for the cost of replacement suit, I can see why they balked. They lost the pants, not the whole suit, after all. And as I understand it, the pants weren't new. He'd had some benefit from them already, after all.
And then....the lawsuit. In Count One of his amended complaint, the plaintiff alleged, "based on the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign and on his claims regarding his pants, that each of the three defendants is liable to him for seven different violations of the [consumer law], for every day Custom Cleaners was open over a period of several years." In Count Two, he alleged common law fraud, again based on the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign. (Findings of Fact) In Count Three, he alleged conversion or negligence with respect to the pants themselves. (Findings of Fact) In Count Four, he asked for injunctive relief under the consumer law with respect to the two signs. (Findings of Fact)
His amended complaint asked for statutory, compensatory and punitive damages. He also asked for attorney’s fees, claiming that he was entitled to them as an attorney representing himself. (Findings of Fact) Specifically, he asked for attorney fees at a rate between $390 and $425 an hour (WSJ Lawblog).
After filing the lawsuit, he refused settlement offers of up to $12,000 (or a dozen replacement suits---whole suits, not just the pants). (The Washington Post4)
Because Pearson no longer wanted to use his neighborhood dry cleaner, part of his lawsuit calls for $15,000 _ the price to rent a car every weekend for 10 years to go to another business.
"He's somehow purporting that he has a constitutional right to a dry cleaner within four blocks of his apartment," Manning said.
But the bulk of the $65 million comes from Pearson's strict interpretation of D.C.'s consumer protection law, which fines violators $1,500 per violation, per day. According to court papers, Pearson added up 12 violations over 1,200 days, and then multiplied that by three defendants. (The Washington Post3)
That's a lot of pants. ABC News: "[F]or the original $67 million Pearson sought, he could buy 84,115 new pairs of pants at the $800 value he placed on the missing trousers in court documents. If you stacked those pants up, they would be taller than eight Mount Everests. If you laid them side by side, they would stretch for 48 miles." (ABC News)
He apparently saw himself as the representative of all the residents of the city who had ever been treated cavalierly by a laundry. But when he tried to expand his case into an actual class action suit by joining friends and neighbors, the original judge in the case, District of Columbia Civil Judge Neal Kravitz, heartlessly refused, and even suggested that the plaintiff might be acting in bad faith.
"The court has significant concerns that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith and with an intent to delay the proceedings.... Indeed, it is difficult to draw any other conclusion, given the plaintiff's lengthy delay in seeking to expand the scope of the case, the breathtaking magnitude of the expansion he seeks, his failure to present any evidence in support of the thousands of claims he says he wishes to add, and his misrepresentation concerning the scope of his first amended complaint." (ABC News)
I don't think so. Obviously it's just one person's opinion, but I think the plaintiff totally believed in the merits of his case. In many respects, this is a much less comfortable assumption, given the fact that he's, you know, a judge. But the alternatives are to believe that he was either mad or else, as Judge Kravitz suggested, acting in bad faith. And the facts suggest that he was taking his case very seriously indeed. After all, the tears! Which occurred, according to ABC News, while he was :"questioning himself." "A D.C. law judge broke down in tears and had to take a break from his testimony because he became too emotional while questioning himself about his experience with a missing pair of pants," it said, right in the first paragraph of a four-page article. (ABC News) After describing his confrontation with Soo Chung, he "rushed from the courtroom, tears streaming down his face." (ABC News).
Though Judge Kravitz refused to let him add additional claims to his lawsuit, he apparently decided somewhere along the line that he was a one-man class action all by himself.
Repeatedly referring to himself as "we,'' Pearson sought to represent himself as the leader of a class of tens of thousands, if not a half million local residents he believes are at risk of falling for such insidious business practices as posting Satisfaction Guaranteed' signs and "Same Day Service."
"Mr. Pearson, you are not "we.'' You are an "I," Judge Judith Bartnoff (who subsequently took over the case) told Pearson. (ABC News)
The judge awarded court costs to the Chungs and said that she'd consider at a later date whether they would be entitled to attorney fees as well. (ABC News) "A reasonable consumer would not interpret Satisfaction Guaranteed to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customers unreasonable demands or to accede to demands that the merchant has reasonable grounds to dispute," she wrote. (Findings of Fact) The correct interpretation of such a guarantee, she said, is as follows: "[I[f there is a problem with dry cleaning, laundry or alterations, the cleaner should try to fix it, and if the problem cannot be fixed, the cleaner should make reasonable compensation to the customer for the value of the damaged item. ( Findings of Fact) And I have to say, that sounds reasonable to me.
The judge felt that the Chungs had done all that such a "guarantee' requires.
The Court does not find that the evidence presented by the plaintiff in any way establishes that the defendants had no intention of honoring that guarantee. To the contrary, the evidence presented by Mr. Pearson regarding his experience in 2002 demonstrates that they did. When a pair of his pants could not be located at that time, Custom Cleaners compensated Mr. Pearson fully for the value of the pants, based on his representations regarding value, without even requiring any further documentation. It would have been perfectly appropriate for the defendants to have insisted in 2002 that Mr. Pearson document the value of the missing pants before they paid him $150, but they determined at that time that it was not necessary for him to do so. ( Findings of Fact)
Judge Pearson's lawsuit has drawn criticism from across the legal spectrum. "Former National Labors Relations Board chief administrative law judge Melvin Welles wrote to The Washington Post to urge "any bar to which Mr. Pearson belongs to immediately disbar him and the District to remove him from his position as an administrative law judge."" (The Washington Post3) "Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association, an organization that fights what it considers abusive lawsuits against small businesses, has asked that Pearson be denied a renewal this week of his 10-year appointment. The association has also offered to buy Pearson the suit of his choice" (The Washington Post 4).
"Even fellow trial lawyers are offended," noted the ABC News---not intenting, I am sure, any special stress on "even." But no attorney I know liked this lawsuit, including any plaintiffs' attorney. ""Frivolous lawsuits like this one are an embarrassment to the profession,'' said attorney Eric Turkewitz, who writes a personal injury law blog." (ABC News) ""It's outrageous and it's shameful,'' Bill Schulz, spokesman for the American Association for Justice, the largest trial lawyer group in the nation, told ABC News. The A.A.J. filed a complaint about Pearson recently with the District of Columbia bar association." (ABC News)
Judge Pearson's two-year term as an administrative law judge expired on April 30, and in the ordinary course the Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges would consider whether he should be reappointed for a 10-year term. (Raw Fisher)
"The [commission] will have to weigh Pearson's performance on the bench against his behavior in the pants case. They will have to decide whether it's even proper to consider how Pearson pressed the pants suit, given some belief in D.C. legal circles that Pearson's decision to exercise his constitutional right to sue is none of the commission's business. On the other hand, the rules governing administrative law judges clearly say that they shall "possess judicial temperament, expertise, experience, and analytical and other skills necessary and desirable for an Administrative Law Judge," and that they must "engage in no conduct inconsistent with the duties, responsibilities, and ethical obligations of an Administrative Law Judge," and that they must "conform to all legally applicable standards of conduct." (Raw Fisher)
The Washington Post editorial mentioned in the first paragraph suggests that this question has already been answered.
The case raises serious questions about his judgment and temperament. Moreover, this is not the first case involving Mr. Pearson that has raised such questions. The Virginia Court of Appeals, in a 2005 review of Mr. Pearson's divorce proceedings, upheld findings that he created "unnecessary litigation" in a relatively simple case and was responsible for "excessive driving up" of legal costs.
As the four-member judicial tenure commission considers another term for Mr. Pearson, it should think back to why the Office of Administrative Hearings was created in the first place: to increase public confidence in the system of administrative justice. (The Washington Post2)
So now I feel really sorry for him, while still wondering what in the hell he was thinking---though of course I feel even sorrier for the Chungs. (This is how I am; I always end up feeling sorry for people who self-destruct). The poor Chungs went through hell, as the judge acknowledged, and are now considering moving back to Korea.(MSNBC) "They're out a lot of money, but more importantly, incredibly disenchanted with the system," [their lawyer] said. "This has destroyed their lives." (MSNBC)
Well, not destroyed them, I hope. They're getting plenty of public support and it looks as if they have a lawsuit of their own if they wish to pursue it. But you can see why they'd perhaps be too sick of it all to care about that for now. And I'm afraid that if Judge Pearson loses his job, they will have a hard time recovering their losses. It's really a tragedy---that a hard-working small business owner's pursuit of the American dream could be torn apart by a groundless lawsuit. I hope that they can recover and go back to their lives here. You can see their press conference here.
Evidently the DC consumer law needs some clarification if this case could survive for two years. Furthermore, the case is probably a good argument on setting a limit on the total amount of damages that can be awarded in a case of this sort---or perhaps in other cases as well. Florida (my home state) has such a statute, I believe.
Anyway, what do you think about this? If anyone has any comments--or legal insights---I'd be really interested.
-D-
LINKED, QUOTED, OR CITED
CURRENT
- Henri E. Cauvin and Joe Holley, Plaintiff Gets Nothing in $54 Million Case of Missing Pants (The Washington Post)
- Pants Lawsuit: Chung Family Holds Press Conference (The Washington Post, video)
- Judge Rules in Favor of Dry Cleaners in $54M Lawsuit (ABC News)
- Pearson v. Soo Chung. Docket No. 05 CA 4302 B (Findings of Fact)
- Pearson v. Soo Chung, Docket No. 05 CA 4302 B (Judgment)
- Lattman, The Great American Pants Suit: Judge Rules for Cleaners (WSJ Lawblog)
BACK STORY
- Tearful Testimony in $54 Million Pants Lawsuit (ABC News) (June 2007)
- Marc Fisher, Judge Who Seeks Millions for his Lost Pants Has his (Emotional) Day in Court (Washington Post5) (June 2007)
- Peter Lattman, Judge Who Sued Dry Cleaner For Millions Cries in Court (WSJ Lawblog) (June 2007)
- Kick in the Pants (editorial) (The Washington Post2) (May 2007)
- Marc Fisher, Pants Update: Whither Judge Pearson (Raw Fisher) (The Washington Post)
- Judge: Cleaner Owes Me $65M for Pants: 2 years of litigation x 1 pair of trousers = headaches for family business (MSNBC) (May 2007)
- Lubna Takruri, Judge Sues Cleaner for $65M Over Pants (The Washington Post3)(May 2007)
- Lubna Takruri, Customer Sues for $65 Million Over Pants (The Washington Post4)(May 2007)
OTHER
He's a very angry man. Not as angry as Colin Ferguson tho.
Posted by: Bob | June 26, 2007 at 08:24 AM
As you are undoubtedly aware, a $54 million lawsuit was recently brought in DC District Court against a small neighborhood drycleaners over a pair of alleged lost trousers. While the Court found resoundingly in favor of the business owners, Jin and Soo Chung, their ordeal is not yet over—they have drained their saving accounts contesting this frivolous lawsuit, and they have racked up over $100,000 in legal expenses.
In order to help the Chungs defray their legal bills, ILR and the American Tort Reform Association are co-hosting a fundraiser on Tuesday evening, July 24 at 6 p.m. at the US Chamber Building in Washington, DC. Unfortunately, businesses large and small across America must deal every day with similar extortionist tactics from some plaintiffs’ lawyers. The collective outcome is not justice, but lost jobs, ruined businesses and billions of dollars in lost economic opportunity. Additional details, sponsorship opportunities and easy online registration are available at www.chungfundraiser.com.
Posted by: uschamber | July 02, 2007 at 11:02 AM