Reply
Tue 12 Jun, 2007 09:50 pm
WASHINGTON ?- The case of the $54 million pants suit began Tuesday as standing room only in the circus that was Judge Judith Bartnoff's courtroom 415 at D.C. Superior Court ?- a room filled mostly with media and Korean supporters of defendants Jin and Soo Chung and their son, Ki.
The plaintiff, Judge Roy Pearson dropped his original claim of $67 million because he chose to withdraw the claim of the actual loss of the pants, which were eventually found in the Chung's dry cleaning store, and focus on what he says are fraudulent signs in the store that read "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service."
The first 45 minutes of the trial were strangely devoted to Judge Bartnoff seeking clarification of Judge Pearson's withdrawal of the lost pants claims and determining what exactly the case was really about ?- the false advertising citied under D.C.'s Consumer Protection Act.
Once that ended and opening statements began, defense attorney Chris Manning said this was "a simple case about people."
Manning suggested that because of Pearson's unpleasant divorce in 2003, his financial hardships and his attempt to seek revenge on the Chungs for losing his pants, this case had become a "perfect legal storm."
Manning summed up the opening statement with this quote: "This is a terrible example of American litigiousness." Manning also noted that this case comes down now to what a "reasonable person" would interpret "satisfaction guaranteed" to mean.
Pearson, who represented himself, proceeded to call some eight witnesses that included his 38-year-old son and some members of the community who had had bad experiences with Custom Dry Cleaners, including an 89-year-old woman in a wheelchair who drifted at times into her service in the Kennedy-Johnson administration.
This witness, Dr. Grace Hewell, was certainly entertaining when she noted that she was "chased" out of the store by Mr. Chung, which she then slid into comparing to "surviving the Nazis" while she was stationed in Germany in World War II.
It's worth noting, though, that in the cross-examination of most of the witnesses, they were willing to admit that they "would have been satisfied" if they had gotten simple compensation from the Chungs for the loss or ruined pieces of clothing.
Pearson also called his salesman at Nordstrom's to testify about the value of his Hickey Freeman suits as well as a member of his own Office of Administrative Hearings, who testified that Pearson "had no social life" and worked on his case on the weekends rather than going camping in West Virginia with the witness.
When Pearson testified as himself ?- a narrative that lasted for more than an hour ?- he broke down and cried and asked for a recess. The breakdown occurred right after he described being told that the Chungs "did not have his pants" that he so desperately needed to start his new job as a judge in 2005.
After his long-winded testimony, Pearson attempted to admit evidence ?- much of which was not permitted. This exercise took another hour.
The trial ended without a cross-examination of Pearson by Manning. That activity opens Wednesday's session and will be followed by the defense's calling of witnesses.
This reporter's sense is that Judge Bartnoff is becoming increasingly impatient with Pearson's lack of evidence and illegitimate claims to personal injury. Not many in the audience appeared to have much sympathy for Pearson's teary-eyed moment.
After the trial ended, I rode the elevator down with the Chungs and I asked Mr. Chung how he was doing. He told me quietly, "I'm doing fine." Manning said they were "confident" that after the second day of testimony, the Chungs will prevail.
My attempt to speak with Judge Pearson, cameras in tow and me in my floral Lily Pulitzer pants, was greeted with a simple statement: "You're being rude!"
As I wrapped up the day's events on air with The Big Story's John Gibson, a freak thunderstorm befell the city, and I noted the thunder, rain and lighting by saying, "I don't know, John, but judging from the act of God in the background, perhaps even He is upset with this frivolous lawsuit."
Some other color to note ?- a man in a seersucker suit from the American Tort Reform Association handed out green buttons with a picture of pants on them that read: "$65 Million Pantsuit Perverts D.C.'s Consumer Protection Law."
The case starts up again Wednesday morning and I'll be there to find out what the defense has to say.
I find it hard to believe this case has not been thrown out.
Hey! If he didn't have the pants he needed to be a judge then he couldn't go to court and criminals would be set free! Murder and mayhem would ensue! The criminals would take over the state as anarchy reigns! Foriegn nations would see our weaknesses and take advantage thus causing a major world war and pissibe annihilation of the human race! This is indeed a worthwhile case!
He should be derobed as well as depantsed. Whatever bench it is that he sits on, I hope they're doing their best to disbar him. The man hasn't the remotest conception of justice. Or sense of proportion.
edgarblythe
This takes the cake. I would have thrown this lawsuit out of court, penalize Pearson for filing a frivolous lawsuit and awarded the Chungs money payable from Pearson. If I were the Chungs I would have counter-sued at the least but I don't know if that can be done in that state.
The plaintif is so unstable, emotionally, he began crying in the courtroom yesterday. Thank goodness there was no jacket to match the pants, or it could have really gotten pricey.
Even worse, he may have been faking those tears to make a point of the distress he's been under over losing his precious pants. What a piece of work, huh?
They found the pants, in good condition. They offered him 12,000 dollars. They went much farther trying to settle this than I would have.
The Judge stated that he was representing the Community in his lawsuit against the Koreans. Apparently, other members of the Community feel that they've been unjustly treated by the Korean shop keepers.
The issue isn't pants!
The issue is really race-relations and in this case,
the relations between Blacks and Asian-Americans who live in the same community, and apparently share the services of this Korean-owned business.
$12,000 would have more than met the "satisfaction guaranteed" requirement. At least for me. I hope that company sues and takes the guy to the cleaners! And I hope he loses more than just his pants!
I haven't seen any reports that make this a race issue. If that entered the courtroom, there would be even better grounds for dismissal.
WASHINGTON ?- Day two of the case of the $54 million pants opened much in the same fashion as the trial had begun, with plaintiff Roy Pearson needling specific statutes and interpretations of them, prompting more wasted hours of clarification-seeking from Judge Judy Bartnoff.
On the second day, I wore an equally outrageous pair of Lily Pulitzer pants as on Tuesday's court date, and I had a better seat ?-- in the jury box, just feet away from the action.
When Judge Bartnoff came in the courtroom, she caught a glimpse of my pants and smiled. But soon after, Pearson began going back to issues from day one, namely his divorce case, and Judge Bartnoff took charge, dismissing Pearson's effort to re-try his divorce settlement.
Pearson's remaining issues over evidence and "settlement demands" prompted Judge Bartnoff at one point to say, "I don't know what we're doing at this point ... I thought we were talking about evidence?"
After a short break, the cross-examination of Pearson by defense attorney Chris Manning began. Manning proceeded to force Pearson to address his bitter divorce, his financial woes and his first encounter with the Chungs in 2002 which resulted in a compensation check of $150, which Pearson had demanded
Manning asked Pearson if it made him mad when the dry cleaners lost his pants and Pearson said, "No," adding, "My temperament, generally, is I don't get angry."
That shocked most everyone in the room considering the guy is seeking $54 million in retribution in this case.
The real crux of the cross-examination came when Manning began trying to illicit Pearson's definition of what is a "reasonable" interpretation of a sign that reads: "Satisfaction Guaranteed"
Manning asked directly, "Is it reasonable to sue someone for upwards of $67 million?" And after several attempts at waffling, Pearson finally answered, "Yes."
A window into Pearson's aggressive pursuit of the pants in 2005 came when Manning confirmed with the witness that Pearson had sent a letter to the Chungs demanding $1,150 compensation (despite the Chungs producing the pants that matched the receipt) or else he would "sue them for not less that $50,000."
Nonetheless, Pearson maintained throughout the cross that he was entitled to "unconditional satisfaction" under the Washington, D.C.'s Consumer Protection Act.
After the cross, the plaintiff rested at which point Manning immediately requested a ruling asking for a "move for judgment as a matter of law on all claims."
Judge Bartnoff made a partial ruling denying Pearson's claims with regard to the one sign that read "Same Day Service." Bartnoff cited a lack of evidence and told Pearson the sign simply meant same day service was an available service at the cleaners ?- not a guaranteed service every time ?- particularly when not requested, as in Pearson's case.
Judge Bartnoff ended her ruling by telling Pearson, "you're simply reading things into it that just aren't there."
But in the matter of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign and the dispute over whether the pants produced were or were not Pearson's, no closure was reached and the room broke for lunch.
After the break, Manning began his defense calling just three witnesses: a community activist who testified favorably on the contributions of the Chungs to the community; a customer of the cleaners who believed that the Chungs provided "very good service" and said his interpretation of "Satisfaction Guaranteed" meant if the Chungs couldn't resolve a problem then they should compensate the customer for the cost of the clothing item "and nothing more." The final witness was the co-owner of Custom Dry Cleaners, Soo Chung.
Mrs. Chung became very emotional and broke down sobbing during her testimony when Manning began to ask about the toll that the case has taken on her business and her life. Judge Bartnoff called for another break, and when the testimony began again, Soo Chung once again began crying, though she was able to answer that she had suffered "economically, emotionally and healthwise too."
It's worth noting that the drama was heightened some by the mere fact that the testimony was done through a Korean translator as Mrs. Chung does not speak fluent English. But in the end, Pearson at least had the good sense not to cross examine her.
Closing arguments got a bit heated between Judge Bartnoff and Pearson when things delved into an argument over what Pearson was entitled to in terms of statutory and punitive damages. I'm no lawyer, but I was a little surprised that rather than making a sort of coherent and impassioned plea for his case, Pearson continued citing statutes and cases that proved his claims under the Consumer Protection Act.
Manning's closing argument was quite different. He painted Pearson as "one man who ruthlessly abused the legal system" and caused enormous harm to his clients. He cited Pearson's divorce, financial status, history of litigiousness and a "wrath against the Chungs" since 2002. He ended his closing argument saying it is time to "support the idea of common sense... and wake up from the American nightmare created by Roy Pearson."
When it was over, Judge Bartnoff chose not to issue a ruling from the bench but said a ruling can be expected by the end of the week. The decision didn't exactly surprise me since Pearson has proved that he is a stickler for technical details, or perhaps Judge Bartnoff just wanted plenty of time to ensure the accuracy of her ruling.
At the press conference with the Chungs immediately following, Manning said he was "extraordinarily happy with how the trial went" in what he described as an "incredibly frivolous lawsuit."
Pearson again chose to ignore the media.
the article edgar cited wrote:I'm no lawyer, but I was a little surprised that rather than making a sort of coherent and impassioned plea for his case, Pearson continued citing statutes and cases that proved his claims under the Consumer Protection Act.
The plaintiff is looking to protect the record for appeal, and introduce in all sorts of junk so as to drag this thing along for even longer. He expects to lose. I agree with Miller, actually, I think this is racially motivated as the upshot of it seems to be the desire to run the Chungs outta town on a rail.
One might infer the intent is racially motivated, but nobody involved has suggested anything of the kind.
I can't believe he's saying the signs are fraudulent. They are no such thing.
The first sign said "Satisfaction Guaranteed." One of the definitions of satisfaction is: payment of what is due. So they guarantee that if they lose someone's pants, they'll pay for them. But I have a feeling that his pants aren't worth $54 million dollars.
The other sign said "Same Day Service." This is in no way a promise. It doesn't guarantee same day service. It advertises one of the things they offer. And, in most cases, it's true. Just because every once in a while the service takes more than one day doesn't mean that the sign is untrue. In most cases they do offer same day service.
The defendants (owners of the dry cleaning business) won today. The court ruled that they did not violate the consumer protection statute. The plaintiff was ordered to pay their court costs.
Debra Law
Thanks for posts. I am glad for the Chungs.
I saw no mention of appeal. I hope that ends it. I also still don't see this so much as a case of racism, as a guy totally out of whack with reality.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace