| 词条 | Pearson v. Chung |
| 释义 |
|name = Pearson v. Chung |court = Superior Court of the District of Columbia |image = |date decided = {{start date|2007|6|25}} |full name = Roy L. Pearson, Jr. v.Soo Chung, et al. |citations = no. CA-4302-05 (Sup. Ct. D.C. June 25, 2007) |number of judges = 1 |judges = Judith Bartnoff |prior actions = |subsequent actions = Pearson v. Chung, et al., no. 07-CV-872 (D.C. App. Dec. 18, 2008) |opinions = }}{{Italic title|force=true}}Pearson v. Chung, better known as the "pants lawsuit,"[1] is a civil case filed in 2005 by Roy L. Pearson, Jr., at the time an administrative law judge, in the District of Columbia in the United States, following a dispute with a dry cleaning company over a lost pair of trousers. Pearson filed suit against Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung, and Ki Y. Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners in Washington, D.C., initially demanding $67 million for inconvenience, mental anguish, and attorney's fees for representing himself, as a result of their failure, in Pearson's opinion, to live up to a "satisfaction guaranteed" sign that was displayed in the store. The case drew international attention[2][3] when it went to trial in 2007, and has been held up as an example of frivolous litigation and the need for tort reform in the United States.[4] LawsuitPearson sued a D.C. dry cleaning establishment, Custom Cleaners, for over $67 million for the loss of a pair of pants. On May 3, 2005, Pearson allegedly left a pair of gray pants that could be distinguished by a unique trio of belt loops on both sides of the front waistband. After a delay due to the pants being mistakenly sent to another dry cleaners, the pants were offered back completed several days after May 5, 2005, the initial pickup date. Pearson refused to accept the pants, claiming they were not his, despite confirmation by the cleaners' records, tags, and Pearson's receipt. Pearson demanded what he claimed to be the price of the pants as compensation, an amount of over $1000, which the Chungs refused. As a result, Pearson filed suit in the District of Columbia's Superior Court. The judge to whom the case was presented decided to bring it to trial on the basis of two of Pearson's claims. The first claim was the issue of the ownership by Pearson of the presented pair of pants. The second claim was on the issue of signs posted outside the business, advertising "Same Day Service" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed," which Pearson claimed to be misleading.[5] Over time, the Chungs presented three settlement offers in the amounts of $3000, $4600, and $12,000—all of which were rejected by Pearson. D.C. Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz stated that "the court has significant concerns that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith." The judge resolved some of the issues in the Chungs' favor in response to their motion for summary judgment (which was filed at the close of discovery), but could not dismiss the case because some facts were in dispute. The owners of the business, South Korean immigrants Jin Nam Chung, Soo Chung, and their son, Ki Chung, were reportedly considering moving back to South Korea.[6] After an outpouring of support for the Chungs from members of the public, a website was set up to accept donations for the Chungs' legal defense.[7] On May 30, 2007, Pearson reduced his demands to $54 million in damages rather than $67 million. Among his requests were $500,000 in attorney's fees, $2 million for "discomfort, inconvenience, and mental distress," and $15,000, which he claimed would be the cost to rent a car every weekend to drive to another dry cleaning service. The remaining $51.5 million would be used to help similarly dissatisfied D.C. consumers sue businesses.[8][9] Pearson also re-focused his lawsuit from the missing pants to the removal of window signs for "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service." Pearson claimed the signs represented fraud on the part of the Chungs. The Chungs' lawyer, Christopher Manning, alleged that the signs could only be considered fraud if a reasonable person would be misled by them, and that a reasonable person would not see the signs as an unconditional promise. The Chungs' lawyer portrayed Pearson as a bitter, financially insolvent man; under questioning, Pearson admitted that, at the start of the court case, he had only $1000–2000 in the bank due to divorce proceedings, and was collecting unemployment benefits. TrialOn June 12, 2007, the trial began. Pearson broke down in tears during an explanation about his frustration after losing his pants,[10] and a short recess had to be declared.[11] DecisionOn June 25, 2007, the trial ended with District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruling in favor of the dry cleaners, and awarding them court costs pursuant to a motion which the Chungs later withdrew.[12] The court took judicial notice of Pearson's divorce proceedings, where he was sanctioned $12,000 by the trial court for "creating unnecessary litigation and threatening both his wife, Rhonda VanLowe, and her lawyer with disbarment."[13][14] Post-trial motions and appealPearson made a motion on July 11, 2007, to reconsider in the trial court, stating that he felt the judge had "committed a fundamental legal error," and had failed to address his legal claims.[15] Pearson stated he believed the court had imposed its own conditional interpretation of "satisfaction guaranteed," rather than what Pearson believes is an offer of unconditional and unambiguous satisfaction. The court denied the motion.[16] It was revealed on August 2, 2007 that a panel recommended Pearson not be given a ten-year term as an administrative law judge after his initial two-year term expired mid-2007, in part because his suit against Mr. Chung demonstrated a lack of "judicial temperament." Pearson was appointed in 2005 and stood to lose his $100,512 salary if a hearing upheld that decision.[17] On October 22, a D.C. commission voted against reappointing Pearson to the bench of the Office of Administrative Hearings.[18] On November 14, it was confirmed that Pearson had lost his job by not being affirmed for an extension.[19] Roy Pearson filed suit against Washington, D.C. on May 2, 2008, claiming that he had been wrongfully dismissed for exposing corruption within the Office of Administrative Hearings. Pearson sought $1 million in compensation for lost wages and punitive damages as well as his job back.[20] On July 23, 2009, federal district judge Ellen Segal Huvelle dismissed Pearson's May 2008 lawsuit, ruling the District of Columbia had not broken the law by declining to reappoint him as an administrative law judge. Pearson had maintained in the suit that the failure to reappoint him to the ten-year term was in part intended as retaliation for his suit against the dry cleaners.[21] Pearson lost his appeal when the D.C. Circuit ruled against him on May 27, 2010.[22] The Chungs moved to recover $83,000 in attorneys' fees and to impose sanctions, but withdrew the motion after recovering their costs through fund-raising. The Chungs stated that they did so in the hopes of persuading Pearson to stop litigating,[23] but on August 14, 2007, Pearson filed a notice of appeal.[23] On September 10, 2008, Pearson filed an appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, where oral argument was held on October 22, 2008 before a three-judge panel consisting of judges Phyllis Thompson, Noel Anketell Kramer and Michael W. Farrell.[24][25] Manning represented the Chungs on the appeal pro bono,[26] and Pearson represented himself pro se.[25] On December 18, 2008, the panel that heard Pearson's appeal announced that they were rejecting it. According to the Washington Post, "Pearson has two remaining avenues of appeal left: He could ask the entire nine-judge appellate court to review the case, or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in."[24] On January 6, 2009, Pearson filed a petition with the D.C. Court of Appeals, requesting the case be reheard en banc by the full nine-judge court.[27][28] On March 2, 2009, the appeals court denied the petition.[28] Pearson's final option was to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.[29][28] The 90-day deadline for seeking Supreme Court review elapsed without Pearson filing a petition for certiorari, bringing the dispute to an end. Cultural impactThe unusual circumstances of this case led the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and dozens of bloggers to refer to it as "The Great American Pants Suit,"[30][31] and to Pearson as "Judge Fancy Pants."[32][33] The case has garnered considerable international attention. BBC News quoted Chris Manning, attorney for the Chung family, as saying that the experience for the Chungs has become the "American nightmare"—an ironic reference to the American Dream.[34] Fortune magazine listed the case at #37 in its "101 Dumbest Moments in Business" of 2007.[35] Cracked.com listed the case as "Exhibit 1" in its 2008 article "9 Insane Cases that Prove the US Legal System Is Screwed."[36] On July 24, 2007, the American Tort Reform Association and the Institute for Legal Reform of the United States Chamber of Commerce hosted a fundraiser for the Chungs to help pay their attorneys fees that reported having raised up to $64,000.[37] The Chungs say they have received close to $100,000 from supporters to cover their attorneys' fees and lost business.[23] On September 19, 2007, citing a loss of revenue and emotional strain from the lawsuit, the Chungs announced they had closed and sold the dry cleaning shop involved in the dispute. The Chungs still owned one additional dry cleaning shop and said they would be focusing their attention and resources on their remaining shop.[38] The incident and lawsuit served as a basis for "Bottomless," an 18th-season episode of Law & Order, which aired originally on 16 January 2008.[39] See also
References1. ^Paul Courson {{cite news|first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=Judge in pants lawsuit sues to get job back |url=http://articles.cnn.com/2008-05-02/us/pants.lawsuit_1_compensatory-damages-dry-cleaning-business-judge?_s=PM:US |publisher=CNN |date=2008-05-02 |accessdate=2011-04-12 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110824180414/http://articles.cnn.com/2008-05-02/us/pants.lawsuit_1_compensatory-damages-dry-cleaning-business-judge?_s=PM%3AUS |archivedate=August 24, 2011 |df= }} 2. ^Lubna Takruri, "Judge Who Lost $54M Suit Not Giving Up Pants Fight", Associated Press, 2007-07-09 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930183526/http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1183712794216&rss=newswire |date=September 30, 2007 }} 3. ^{{cite news | last = | first = | publisher = World News Australia | title = Drycleaners win 'pants' suit | url = http://www.worldnewsaustralia.com.au/region.php?id=137947®ion=4 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070730202302/http://www.worldnewsaustralia.com.au/region.php?id=137947®ion=4 | dead-url = yes | archive-date = 2007-07-30 | accessdate = 2007-07-22}} 4. ^American Tort Reform Association, press release, 2007-06-25 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070706072427/http://www.atra.org/newsroom/releases.php?id=8132 |date=July 6, 2007 }} 5. ^{{cite news|last=Manning |first=Christopher |publisher=Manning Sossamon |title=The Facts of Pearson V. Chung |url=http://manning-sossamon.com/pantfacts/ |accessdate=2009-04-16 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090515122156/http://manning-sossamon.com/pantfacts/ |archivedate=May 15, 2009 }} 6. ^{{cite news |last=Associated Press |title=54 million dollars lawsuit against South Korean dry cleaner over pair of trousers is in full swing |url=http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/21-06-2007/93815-lawsuit-0/ |accessdate=June 30, 2016 |newspaper=pravda.ru |date=21 June 2007}} 7. ^{{cite web|title=Custom Cleaners Defense Fund |url=http://www.customcleanersdefensefund.com/ |accessdate=2007-06-06 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070605221200/http://www.customcleanersdefensefund.com/ |archivedate=June 5, 2007 }} 8. ^{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/13/AR2007061302033.html |title=Wearing Down the Judicial System with a Pair of Pants |date=June 14, 2007 |accessdate=June 30, 2016 |publisher=The Washington Post |first=Marc |last=Fisher}} 9. ^{{cite news|url=http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/06/pants_extra_inside_the_courtro.html |title=Pants Extra: Inside the Courtroom |date=June 14, 2007 |accessdate=2007-06-14 |publisher=The Washington Post |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080511221852/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/06/pants_extra_inside_the_courtro.html |archivedate=May 11, 2008 }} 10. ^{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/06/14/DI2007061401447.html |title=Pants Lawsuit |date=June 15, 2007 |accessdate=June 30, 2016 |publisher=The Washington Post |first=Emil |last=Steiner}} 11. ^{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/12/AR2007061201667.html?hpid=moreheadlines |title=Judge Who Seeks Millions for Lost Pants Has His (Emotional) Day in Court |date=June 13, 2007 |accessdate=June 30, 2016 |quote=Before trial began yesterday in the case of the D.C. judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaners after they lost his pants, the most extraordinary fact was Roy Pearson's demand for $65 million in damages. That was before Pearson, an administrative law judge, broke down while testifying about the emotional pain of having the cleaners give him the wrong pants. It was before an 89-year-old woman in a wheelchair told of being chased out of the cleaners by an angry owner. And it was before she compared the owners of Custom Cleaners in open court to Nazis. |publisher=The Washington Post |first=Marc |last=Fisher}} 12. ^{{cite news|title=Administrative Law Judge Loses $54 Million Pants Lawsuit |quote=A D.C. Superior Court judge has sided with the defendants in a $54 million lawsuit over a pair of pants. According to the judge's decision, the plaintiff, administrative law Judge Roy Pearson Jr., will take nothing from Soo Chung and Jim Nam Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners. |publisher=NBC |url=http://www.nbc4.com/news/13561404/detail.html?treets=dc&tml=dc_break&ts=T&tmi=dc_break_1_09230306252007 |work=NBC4 |accessdate=2007-06-25 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070629235540/http://www.nbc4.com/news/13561404/detail.html?treets=dc&tml=dc_break&ts=T&tmi=dc_break_1_09230306252007 |archivedate=June 29, 2007 }} 13. ^Law.com - Ethics Complaint Filed Against Judge Over His $65M Suit Against Dry Cleaners {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930210106/http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1179260861714 |date=September 30, 2007 }} 14. ^{{cite web |title=MEMORANDUM OPINION∗ BY CHIEF JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK |url=http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0561044.pdf |date=March 8, 2005 |publisher=COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA |accessdate=June 30, 2016}} 15. ^{{cite news |publisher=CBC.CA | title=Customer pursues $54M lawsuit against dry cleaners |url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/customer-pursues-54m-lawsuit-against-dry-cleaners-1.677215 |date=2007-07-12 |accessdate=June 30, 2016 |work=CBC News}} 16. ^WUSA9.com | Washington, DC | Judge Refuses To Reconsider Ruling In Pants Case {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927203608/http://www.wusa9.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=60842 |date=September 27, 2007 }} 17. ^{{cite news|url=http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/08/first_pants_man_loses_case_nex.html |title=First, Pants Man Loses Case. Next, His Job. |first=Marc |last=Fisher |publisher=Washington Post |accessdate=2007-08-03 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110523081918/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/08/first_pants_man_loses_case_nex.html |archivedate=May 23, 2011 }} 18. ^{{cite news |title=Judge Set to Lose Job, Sources Say |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/22/AR2007102202170.html?hpid=moreheadlines |publisher=Washington Post |date=October 23, 2007 |first=Keith L. |last=Alexander |accessdate=June 30, 2016}} 19. ^{{cite news |title=Judge loses more than pants in lawsuit |url=https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071114/ap_on_fe_st/odd_67_million_pants;_ylt=AsBCsFWuBp0r5ONmYww_dogsQE4F |publisher=Associated Press |date=November 14, 2007}}{{dead link |date=June 2016}} 20. ^{{cite news|publisher=The Washington Post |author=Emil Steiner |title=Roy Pearson's Latest Lawsuit |url=http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2008/05/roy_pearson_suing_district_to.html |date=2008-05-06 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080706044629/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2008/05/roy_pearson_suing_district_to.html |archivedate=July 6, 2008 }} 21. ^{{cite news |first=Del Quentin |last=Wilber |title=Ex-Judge's Lawsuit Thrown Out |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/07/28/ST2009072801193.html |publisher=Washington Post |date=July 29, 2009 |accessdate=June 30, 2016}} 22. ^{{cite news |first=Nathan |last=Koppel |title="Pants Judge" Roy Pearson Strikes Out in Court |url=https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/05/27/pants-judge-roy-pearson-strikes-out-in-court/ |publisher=Wall Street Journal Law Blog |date=May 27, 2010 |accessdate=June 30, 2016}} 23. ^1 2 {{cite news |title=Judge Who Filed Suit Plans to Appeal Defeat |author=Henri E. Cauvin |date=2007-08-15 |publisher=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401080.html |accessdate=June 30, 2016}} 24. ^1 {{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/18/AR2008121801345.html |title=Appeals Court Rejects Request for New Trial in Pants Case |publisher=Washington Post |date=December 18, 2008 |first=Keith L. |last=Alexander |accessdate=August 30, 2016}} 25. ^1 Pearson v. Chung, et al {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140116094839/http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/07-CV-872.PDF |date=2014-01-16 }}, no. 07-CV-872 (D.C. App. Dec. 18, 2008) 26. ^{{cite news|last1=O'Brien|first1=John|title=Former judge not giving up on $54 mil missing pants case|url=http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510520368-former-judge-not-giving-up-on-54-mil-missing-pants-case|accessdate=August 30, 2016|work=Legal NewsLine|date=January 6, 2009}} 27. ^{{cite news |title=Another hearing sought in missing pants case |url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2009-01-06-missing-pants_N.htm |accessdate=August 30, 2016 |work=USA Today |agency=Associated Press |date=January 6, 2009}} 28. ^1 2 {{cite news |last1=Urda |first1=Anne |title=$54M Missing Pants Judge Running Out Of Options |url=http://www.law360.com/articles/89725/54m-missing-pants-judge-running-out-of-options |accessdate=August 30, 2016 |work=Law360 |date=March 3, 2009}} 29. ^{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/02/AR2009030202782.html |title=Pants Hearing Rejected |work=The Washington Post |date=March 3, 2009 |accessdate=June 30, 2016}} 30. ^{{cite news|url=http://blog.washingtonpost.com/editorialist/2007/06/todays_hot_topics_the_courts_r.html |title=Today's Hot Topics |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=2007-06-26 |author=Rob Anderson |accessdate=2011-06-25 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110523101555/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/editorialist/2007/06/todays_hot_topics_the_courts_r.html |archivedate=May 23, 2011 }} 31. ^{{cite news |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118282035117847903?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep |title=$67 million pants |publisher=The Wall Street Journal |date=2007-06-26 |accessdate=2011-06-25 |subscription=true}} 32. ^{{cite news|url=http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=29&art_id=nw20070626085830203C566506&set_id=1 |title='Fancy pants' loses wacky lawsuit |work=IOL News (iol.co.za) |publisher=Independent News & Media |author=Lubna Takruri (Associated Press) |date=2007-06-27 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070628202113/http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=29&art_id=nw20070626085830203C566506 |archivedate=June 28, 2007 }} 33. ^{{cite news |url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20070626/ai_n19324359 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071118152313/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20070626/ai_n19324359 |dead-url=yes |archive-date=2007-11-18 |title=Judge sides with cleaner in pants suit |publisher=Deseret News |author=Lubna Takruri (Associated Press) |date=2007-06-26}} 34. ^{{cite news |title=US man loses $54m trousers claim |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6238364.stm |publisher=BBC News |date=June 25, 2007 |accessdate=June 30, 2016}} 35. ^{{cite news |url=http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fortune/0712/gallery.101_dumbest.fortune/37.html |publisher=Fortune |title=101 Dumbest Moments in Business |date=December 19, 2007 |accessdate=June 30, 2016}} 36. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.cracked.com/article_16358_9-insane-cases-that-prove-us-legal-system-screwed.html?wa_user1=5&wa_user2=History&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=yesincite|title=9 Insane Cases that Prove the US Legal System Is Screwed |publisher=Cracked.com website |author=Luke McKinney |date=2008-06-12 |accessdate=June 30, 2016}} 37. ^Support the Chungs {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070705124926/http://www.chungfundraiser.com/ |date=July 5, 2007 }} 38. ^{{cite news | url=http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_world&id=5665422 | title= Dry Cleaner in Pants Suit Closes (Associated Press) | date= September 19, 2007 | accessdate= 2011-06-25 | work= Action News 6abc.com | publisher= WPVI-TV Philadelphia, PA }} 39. ^{{cite web |title=Law & Order: Bottomless |url=https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1031376/?ref_=ttep_ep4 |date=January 16, 2008 |publisher=Internet Movie Database |accessdate=June 30, 2016}} External links
5 : United States tort case law|Clothing controversies|2007 in United States case law|Abuse of the legal system|Legal history of the District of Columbia |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。