A Washington, D.C., dry cleaners says its their business a long-time
customer is taking to the cleaners. A $10 dry cleaning bill for a pair
of lost trousers has ballooned into a $67 million civil lawsuit.

Plaintiff Roy Pearson — himself a local judge in Washington D.C –
says in court papers that he’s been through the ringer over a lost pair
of prized pants he wanted to wear on his first day on the bench. He
says in court papers that he has endured "mental suffering,
inconvenience and discomfort.”

He says he was unable to wear that favorite suit of his first day of work.

He’s suing for ten years of weekend car rentals so he can transport his dry cleaning to another store.

The lawsuit is based in large part on Pearson’s seemingly pained
admission that he was taken in by the oldest and most insidious
marketing tool in the dry cleaning industry arsenal.

"Satisfaction Guaranteed."

Pearson did not return numerous calls from ABC News for comment.

It’s the kind of lawsuit that makes liability reform advocates’ temples throb.

"People in America are now scared of each other,” legal expert
Philip Howard told ABC News’ Law & Justice Unit. "That’s why
teachers won’t put an arm around a crying child, and doctors order
unnecessary tests, and ministers won’t meet with parishioners. It’s a
distrust of justice and it’s changing our culture.

The civil trial, set for June, has the scope of a John Grisham
courtroom thriller and the societal importance of a traffic ticket.
Pearson plans to call 63 witnesses. Defending themselves against the
suit — for two years running — are Korean immigrants Jin and Soo
Chung and their son, who own Custom Cleaners and two other dry cleaning
shops in the Fort Lincoln section of Washington D.C.

The ABC News Law & Justice Unit has calculated that for $67
million dollars Pearson 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.

…………………..

First, Pearson demanded $1,150 for a new suit. Lawyers were hired,
legal wrangling ensued and eventually the Chungs offered Pearson $3,000
in compensation.

No dice.

Then they offered him $4,600.

No dice.

Finally, they offered $12,000 for the missing gray trousers with the red and blue stripes.

Pearson said no.

With neither satisfaction nor his prized gray pants, Pearson upped the ante considerably.

The judge went to the lawbooks. Citing the District of
Columbia’s consumer protection laws, he claims he is entitled to $1,500
per violation.

Per day.

What follows is the beginning of thousands of pages of legal
documents and correspondence that, two years later, have led to a
massive civil lawsuit in the amount of $67 million.

According to court papers, here’s how Pearson calculates the damages and legal fees:

He believes he is entitled to $1,500 for each violation, each
day during which the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign and another sign
promising "Same Day Service" was up in the store — more than 1,200
days.

And he’s multiplying each violation by three because he’s suing Jin and Soo Chung and their son.

He also wants $500,000 in emotional damages and $542, 500 in legal fees, even though he is representing himself in court.

He wants $15,000 for 10 years’ worth of weekend car rentals as well.

After enlisting neighbors and fellow customers, he sought to
expand the case into a class action suit, but was denied, angrily, by
District of Columbia Civil Judge Neal Kravitz.

 

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3119381&page=1