Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Does anyone know the outcome of the guy who sued his cleaner for millions for losing his pants?
Answer:
The guy's name was Roy Pearson. At the time, he had recently, and successfully applied for a job as, ironically, a court judge. He needed a suit to wear to this new job, and the one he had was a bit tight around the waist. So Pearson dropped off one pair of pants May 3 so he could wear them to his new job May 6. But on May 5, the pants weren't ready. Custom Cleaners at that time had two big signs on its walls. One said "Satisfaction Guaranteed," and the other said, "Same Day Service." Pearson relied on these signs. Deeply. And the failure on the part of Custom Cleaners to fulfill their promises was heartbreaking. So he demanded millions of dollars for the follwing:
-for the damages he suffered by not getting his pants back
-for his litigation costs
-for "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort"
-for the value of the time he has spent on the lawsuit
-for leasing a car every weekend for 10 years
-and for a replacement suit
According to court papers. Pearson demanded $65,462,500. The original alteration work on the pants cost $10.50. But why should he receive money for this laundry list of things?
The plaintiff, who says he has devoted more than 1,000 hours to represent himself in this battle, says that as a result of poor service at Custom, he must find another cleaner. And because Pearson does not own a car, he says he will have to rent one to get his clothes taken care of.
But what exactly happened? In 2002, Custom Cleaners lost a pair of pants that Pearson had put in for cleaning. One week after the error was discovered, Custom gave Pearson a cheque for $150 for new pants. A few days later, the Chungs, Korean immigrants who live in Virginia and own three D.C. cleaners, told Pearson that he was no longer welcome at their store. That dispute was eventually put aside, and Pearson continued to use the company. Because he never got his pants back, and regardless of the $150 compensation cheque, this amounts to fraud, negligence and a scam. Apparently.
A week after that routine mishap -- pants go astray all the time at cleaners -- Soo Chung, one of the proprietors of Custom Cleaners, came up with gray trousers that she said were Pearson's. But when the judge said that he had dropped off pants with red and blue pinstripes, there was no joy in Fort Lincoln.
Pearson's first letter to the Chungs sought $1,150 so he could buy a new suit. Two lawyers and many legal bills later, the Chungs offered Pearson $3,000, then $4,600 and, finally, says their attorney, Chris Manning, $12,000 to settle the case.
But Pearson pushes on. How does he get to $65 million? The District's consumer protection law provides for damages of $1,500 per violation per day. Pearson started multiplying: 12 violations over 1,200 days, times three defendants. A pant leg here, a pant leg there, and soon, you're talking $65 million.
The case, set for trial in June, is on its second judge. The Chungs have removed the signs upon which Pearson's case rests.
"This case shocks me on a daily basis," Manning says. "Pearson has a lot of time on his hands, and the Chungs have been abused in a ghastly way. It's going to cost them tens of thousands to defend this case."
A judge in the case has admonished Pearson about his take-no-prisoners tactics. When Pearson sought to broaden the case to try to prove violations of consumer protection laws on behalf of all District residents, D.C. Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz said that "the court has significant concerns that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith" because of "the breathtaking magnitude of the expansion he seeks."
Pearson has put the Chungs and their attorneys to work answering long lists of questions, such as this: "Please identify by name, full address and telephone number, all cleaners known to you on May 1, 2005 in the District of Columbia, the United States and the world that advertise 'SATISFACTION GUARANTEED.' "
In the world.
The answer: "None."
In a closet of a lawyer's office in downtown Washington, there is a pair of gray wool pants, waiting to be picked up by Roy Pearson.
"We believe the pants are his," Manning says. "The tag matches his receipt."
The cleaners won.
lawsuit was dismissed and that man will pay the legal fees of the dry cleaners.
He lost.
He lost
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
I believe he lost the case, but was hoping to appeal the decision.
he lost.
HE LOST...
Yes he lost in court.
Thankfully he lost the case and must pay a few thousand towards the legal bills of the family he sued. I hope his law license gets suspended, but it won't.
yeah, they locked him up in mental institution with a bunch of pants.
the cleaner won 80k lol the dude was sueing the poor cleaner for 80m lol talk abouth a guy who needs a girlfreind,
the last I heard was he dropped the amount he was seeking to 50 million. Gee whata pal.
He lost the case. Verdict for the defendants. I recently read that he has filed a motion to reconsider and that he is considering an appeal. Check out this link. http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/n...
Let's just say that he ended up losing at the end. The guy had to pay court fines for wasting the court's time.
The D.C. administrative law judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaners for $54 million over a pair of lost pants found out yesterday what he's going to get.
Nothing.
I'm pretty sure he lost...had to pay court expenses, too.
sounds like somebody in the justice system has a brain.
He lost even though he was judge!Hehehehehehehehe
i think the cleaners won
He lost. Evidence that our legal system is only insane, not totally %26 completely insane.
The man who sued is taking the case to the Superior Court Judge. (The first judge threw out the case--it didn't meet the standard of consumer protection act).
He lost and has to pay the legal bills of the cleaner
The court did indeed rule against him, but he just filed a motion for reconsideration (most likely to be denied since it is heard by the same judge). He may actually appeal.
Guess he just can't see what a loser this is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment