Mr. Fancy Pants

Roy L. Pearson, an administrative law judge in Washington, D.C., is suing Jin and Soo Chung, the owners of a dry cleaning store, for $54 million because they misplaced the pants from a suit he had asked them to alter. He has rejected a $12,000 settlement offer. Yesterday in court, the Chungs' lawyer introduced into evidence the very pants that Pearson had tried to have returned. Pearson has refused to take them back, insisting they are a cheap knockoff of the fancy-schmancy Hickey Freeman trousers he left in the Chungs' care. Since the entire suit cost $1,150, how did Pearson arrive at the $54 million figure? He claims that under Washington's consumer protection law the Chungs "each owe $18,000 for each day over a nearly four-year period in which signs at their store promised 'Same Day Service' and 'Satisfaction Guaranteed.'"

Pearson, who cried while testifying about the trauma of losing his beloved pants, says he's doing it for the little people: all the consumers who might be deceived by the Chungs' false promises. D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff did not buy it. "You are not a we, you are an I," she told him on the first day of the trial. "You are seeking damages on your own behalf, and that is all."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    On it's face it seems like an outrage, but who knows, maybe these Jin and Soo Chung are real pieces of shit who run their business close to the fraud line, and they finally crossed the wrong guy. I mean, there is a change that these people deserve to have their store wiped out. I'm just saying, we don't know anything about the people we're supposed to sympathize with. If they're anything like my local dry cleaner, they will invent stains that didn't exist, then hold your laundry for ransom.

  • ||

    change = chance.

  • ||

    Ah, but the same rationale is perfectly okay when directed towards those soulless corporations, right? That'll teach these guys to enter into business in D.C.!

    Lamar,

    $54 million worth of fraud? At one dry cleaner store?

  • ||

    The very pants I was returning... now that is perfect irony!

  • ||

    Yep, Lamar, the bad guys are obviously the entrepreneurs and not the judge who is so obviously a servant of the poor put upon consumers in D.C. who are powerless to take their business elsewhere in spite of the
    "suit Nazi" Chungs' business practices.

  • ||

    If I see Judge Pearson on the street, I'm kicking him in the balls.

    And then running like hell. God knows what'll happen to me for anything done to things inside his pants.

  • ||

    If they're anything like my local dry cleaner, they will invent stains that didn't exist, then hold your laundry for ransom.

    Maybe change cleaners then? Unless you think Pearson needs a sidekick.

  • ||

    Since there was no mention of the Judge having purchased another suit, I hereby dub him:
    Judge No Pants.

  • ||

    $54 million is an invented number that'll hopefully (in Pearson's view) put them out of biz.

    Creech: I didn't say people couldn't go elsewhere after getting screwed. I'm just saying that maybe they don't deserve to stay in business after making "screwing people over" a business model. Hell, I'm even speculating as to that. I'm just surprised we know nothing of the supposed victims. As for me, I can go to another dry cleaner, but it's 15 minutes away on foot (carrying all the clothes - it isn't an option). The assholes downstairs are the only real option.

    I think of this thing this way: If a guy steals your car, you can do the right thing by calling the cops and waiting for them to hopefully find your car at some point in the future. Or you can beat the shit out of the thieves yourself and be assured of some primitive sense of satisfaction.

  • norbizness||

    The judge-plaintiff's rejoinder: "Me fail English? That's unpossible!"

  • Cosmos Kramer||

    Hey, Peterman! That's my story -- I tell it on my Reality Tour.

  • ||

    Sorry that I offended the suburban car-heros who think nothing of driving a few extra blocks to go to a competing store after being screwed over. It isn't so easy in an urban setting, nor is it easy in a rural setting. The only people who get the full benefits of dry cleaner competition are suburban soccer moms and the lightweights they call their husbands. OK, that last sentence was just for fun.

  • ||

    It's time reinstate a fine, forgotten institution: tar-and-feathering.

  • ||

    The plaintiff has a duty to minimize losses. So basically every day he could have picked up the pants but refused to is not going to be allowed. So there goes 54 million.

    Two, he's just stupid. He's going to get trounced. There's a good chance the reason he is apparently representing himself is because any non-crazy lawyer would be worried about being brought before the ethics committee for such a frivolous damages claim. I'd put even money on the judge ending up paying the Chungs legal bills for filing this silly lawsuit.

  • ||

    Like we don't have enough frivolous lawsuits as it is.
    As a judge, this asshat should know better. I think the suit should be thrown out and Mr Pearson should have to pay the Chungs legal fees.
    They did, afterall, offer a $12000 settlement.

  • ||

    Todd -
    You took the words right out of my comments box. Maybe they should first tar his pants. Then the emotional trauma will just be too great.

    If I see Judge Pearson on the street, I'm kicking him in the balls.

    Bully!*

    (The "boo-yeah" meaning, not insisting you're a bully)

  • ||

    To paraphrase a Chinese dry cleaning lady from an episode of Monk: "Judge Pearson, he so crazy!"

  • ||

    toxicroach: Excellent point. One of the main reasons that we have so many lawyers is because it's a very bad idea to get all emotional about your own case. Clearly Pearson doesn't care about the money ($12,000 - wow!!) and is out for blood. Who knows, maybe the Joo's deserve it, but clearly Pearson is out for his pound of flesh and won't listen to reason along the way.

  • Dave W.||

    Geez, even Blackwater is only asking $10 million from the surviving families of those crispy operatives.

    No wonder Mr. Sullum blogged this instead of that!

  • ||

    Sorry that I offended the suburban car-heros who think nothing of driving a few extra blocks to go to a competing store after being screwed over. It isn't so easy in an urban setting, nor is it easy in a rural setting.

    What, they don't have taxis or buses where you live?

    Look Lamar, if you have a hard-on to get even with a shitty dry cleaner, I don't think anyone can fault you. Just don't whine to us how hard it is to do even the most minimal thing to remedy the situation and then keep going back for more. Heal thyself.

    My cleaner, owned by Koreans natch, does a great job on my stuff and even gives me a discount since I kept going to them after I moved a couple miles away.

  • ||

    I didn't say people couldn't go elsewhere after getting screwed. I'm just saying that maybe they don't deserve to stay in business after making "screwing people over" a business model. Hell, I'm even speculating as to that. I'm just surprised we know nothing of the supposed victims.

    We know enough that Pearson had a hard time finding disgruntled patrons and we also know they are good enough to have three stores running. In a field as crowded as dry cleaning, if you regularly rip people off, you won't stay in business. That's the way things work, not a rogue lawyer levelling retribution by abusive lawsuit.

  • ||

    I had a business lose my pants. The bartender was totally unreasonable and insisted I'd taken them off myself and thrown them into the crowd. I'm still dealing with the trauma of walking home drunk and pantsless.

  • highnumber||

    Geez, Lamar, I live in an urban suburb* and I can throw stones in three directions and hit 10 cleaners. I think you could make it to another cleaners with little hassle if it were really worth it to you.

    *Sounds stupid, but it's an accurate description of the town I live in. I'm closer to downtown than people in some parts of the city, I can walk to the el, suburbanites think it's the city, city folk think it's the burbs - I win!

  • Jennifer||

    I can go to another dry cleaner, but it's 15 minutes away on foot (carrying all the clothes - it isn't an option).

    If, as you say, your dry cleaner is a dishonest person who'll do things like charge you for stains that don't exist and later hold your laundry hostage until you pay, wouldn't you save hassle AND money by investing in a taxi ride to the next nearest dry cleaning establishment?

  • ||

    "What, they don't have taxis or buses where you live?"

    Spending $10 for $30 of dry cleaning isn't on my priority list, and the buses are so few and far between these days (see my previous rants on the MTA) that it could take an hour just to drop off dry cleaning and an hour to pick it up. Anyhow, I suggest a different, equally embarassing, method to punish local businesses that screw people over. Glue their doors shut.

  • ||

    As for me, I can go to another dry cleaner, but it's 15 minutes away on foot (carrying all the clothes - it isn't an option). The assholes downstairs are the only real option.

    No, the assholes downstairs aren't the only option. Take a $5 taxi ride, and go to the cleaners that are a 15 minute walk away. The taxi ride is probably cheaper than you getting screwed over at a cleaners.

    You can't be bothered to spend the extra 5 or 10 minutes of time it would take to go somewhere else, period. You are simply too lazy.

    I think of this thing this way: If a guy steals your car, you can do the right thing by calling the cops and waiting for them to hopefully find your car at some point in the future. Or you can beat the shit out of the thieves yourself and be assured of some primitive sense of satisfaction.

    If the plaintiff punched the dry cleaner in the face, maybe I would have a little sympathy. But, unlike your bad analogy, the judge didn't do any action that would have involved any personal risk or was the product of a momentary emotional outburst. Instead he decided to harrass people out of buisness, knowing he is a Washington DC judge and that he can pull strings to win the case.

  • ||

    I can't envision any circumstance in which a single case of lost pants, and that is 100% of what is being charged here, should ever be a cause to employ the legal system to destroy a business.

    If you can prove a pattern, then prove it. If not, take your frikkin pants back and STFU.

  • Keith||

    Sorry that I offended the suburban car-heros who think nothing of driving a few extra blocks to go to a competing store after being screwed over. It isn't so easy in an urban setting, nor is it easy in a rural setting.

    Yes, true. In my urban setting of New York City, it is practically impossible to find more than one dry cleaner per block. It is outrageous to think that I would be able to just up and go to a different when so few are around and getting to them is so far.

  • Jennifer||

    Anyhow, I suggest a different, equally embarassing, method to punish local businesses that screw people over. Glue their doors shut.

    That is deservedly illegal, and if you pull a stunt like that you'll be the one facing charges and damage costs.

  • ||

    I can't believe what I'm seeing here. I thought choice was the reason you were supposed to choose urban or new urban living? I have 10 cleaners within 15 minutes of me here in suburbia.

  • VM||

    EXCEPT THE HIGHNUMBER NEGLECTS TO GIVE THE MOST IMPORTANT BIT OF INFORMATION. 630.

    [keed keed]

    hier is Lamar's rap. It's pretty cool! You can see from his cool threads that the correct cleaner is very important to him!

  • Jennifer||

    I thought choice was the reason you were supposed to choose urban or new urban living? I have 10 cleaners within 15 minutes of me here in suburbia.

    No, it's "choice within super-easy walking distance, sans reliance on a taxi or bus."

  • ||

    Lamar, I live right in Dallas (over by White Rock Lake). I couldn't even count the number of dry cleaners that are equally convenient to me.

  • VM||

    Maybe there are some fashions (hier) that need the special cleaner that isn't down the street across the block and with a backpack that's got jets!

    (photo credit: from URKOBOLD's and Mr. Steven Crane most recent holiday snaps)

    "could be. could be taken on a holiday."

  • Jennifer||

    Incidentally, Lamar, if this corrupt dry cleaner of yours went out of business, wouldn't you be forced to go to the next-nearest one anyway?

  • PapayaSF||

    When I first told this story to my girlfriend, who spent many years in the legal field, she asked: "Is he an administrative law judge?" And he is! She says that being the lowest order of judges, they often suffer from short man/Napoleon complexes.

  • highnumber||

    Actually, VM, we're old school: 708
    630 is way out there. DuPage. Gawd, that's far.

    How's the lake today?
    Did you hear that ProGLib is threatening that the South shall rise again, and drain the lake?

  • ||

    Yes, but we will also return Chicago to the 312-708 dichotomy that is your God-given right.

    Friggin' 708ers--bleah.

  • ||

    What a douche

  • VM||

    "Long distance information
    ring me 608
    laughter on the other end"

    ProGLib is sadly mistaken. For vee have already drained zee lake. und filld it up again.

    [bohahahahahahahaha]

    Und zee lake is rather lovely today. Ja ja. but it iz hazy outschide, zo, not az beautiful az ozer daze.

    *brays happily. ambles off

  • Judge Dreaded||

    Pearson is not a moron. He is truly an evil person. He is smart enough to go to law school and practice law. He knows the cleaner does not have that kind of money. That means what he really wants to do is to put the cleaner through hardship and possibly ruin them altogether. If he gets some money out of it in the process, great. If not, no harm done since he represented himself and did not spend any money on lawyers.

    Even if the cleaner lost his pants or treated him poorly as a customer, they didn't ruin Pearson's livelihood. That's what Pearson's doing to the family that owns the business. Pearson is a human garbage.

  • ||

    Another reason we need the government to provide dry cleaning and laundry for all American

  • Dave W.||

    I used to get my dry cleaning done by White Rock Lake. I didn't even live near there. They do have a lot of dry cleaners.

    I wonder whether the $12,000 settlement offer was made strategically to get or avoid attorney fee shifting.

  • ||

    I was using the "glue the doors shut" as an analogy to Pearson's irrational behavior. Listen folks, my life may suck, but I have to leave work early whenever I have to pick up dry cleaning. There are no dry cleaners close to me because the buildings surrounding mine are all luxury highrises with their own private laundries. Those of you who say, "walk an extra 5 minutes" don't know what you're talking about, and there are no $5 taxis anymore. I don't want my dry cleaner to go out of biz for the very reason that Jennifer noted, I'd have to walk farther. What I want to do is make it expensive for them to act use market power to act like pieces of crap. The sad truth is that I can't afford NYC and all the shenanigans the local businesses pull off. And no, I wasn't serious about self-help.

    Hell, I don't even know if the Soo's acted poorly. Maybe Pearson's got a Gatorade bottle up his ass.

  • ||

    Friggin' 708ers--bleah.

    Piss off ProL!!

    708-ers fucking rule!!!

    I was a 630er for my HS years and then got the fuck outta dodge. God I hate 630

    As for this case, I think a fair outcome would be to grant this guy the 1150 for the suit and make him pay the legal fees of the Chungsin light of the very very generous 12K offer and he refused.

  • ||

    Lamar! Throw off the shackles of the Chinese mob and buy a can of starch! Free-DOM!

    Actually, I tried that for a while. Not worth the trouble.

    There is no area code but 312, if one simply must live in Chicago.

  • VM||

    ProGLib - as a non west loop residing 312'er, I'd just like to say that your attitude is rather 609. Maybe mixed with a little 314 and 703. Also there's definitely some 50128 in there.

    You really need to get into a 215 mode to grasp fully the implications of 808.

  • ||

    All of these area codes have diluted our identity as a people.

  • highnumber||

    ProGLib - as a non west loop residing 312'er

    Translation: "I'm rich, bitch!"

    We can all be happy that we're not 815ers.

  • ||

    VM: Great video link. Now that I'm moving from my inconvenient urban home, I can finally say, screw you 212!

  • VM||

    URKOBOLD has newly-expanded laundry drop off service (hier), where you're guaranteed never to see your pants again.

    And if you're lucky, only your taint will get whithered.

  • Stephen the Goldberger||

    In a civil suit, when in doubt assume both sides are assholes. You will be right more often than not.

    Lamar, whether or not he thinks they deserve to be put out of business is irrelevent, the purpose of the legal system is to settle disputes, not to enable one party to destroy another because "they deserve it." If they were fraudulant then he deserves to be compensated for his damages.

    But there is no way in hell they approach 54 million dollars. He's abusing the legal system to try and destroy another party because he's angry they lost his pants. If that doesn't upset you then you're a douchebag.

  • ||

    Lamar -- Let me see if I understand your POV here. You feel you've been screwed over by a particular dry cleaner. You feel it's too inconvenient to drive a few blocks further to a different dry cleaner with more accepable business practices. So you propose using lawyers to force the offending dry cleaners out of business -- in which case you will have eliminated the option of patronizing the conveniently located dry cleaner -- forcing yourself to drive a few blocks further to a different dry cleaner.

    WTF?

  • ||

    To those that suggest that it is easy to choose another laundry - not always. My nearest dry cleaner is 3o minutes away by pickup and the next is about 1 hour and fifteen minutes away. I solved the problem by: not having anything to dry clean; owning a washer and dryer; not worrying about 'alterations'.

    On the other hand, on the chance of a $12,000 payoff, I might want to send a pair of 'my favorite' jeans through once a week or so.

    Maybe I'll start looking for a lawyer with a 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' sign, too.

  • cgee||

    Jesus Christ, Lamar, where in NYC do you live? I've lived in NYC my whole life, and never had a problem finding dry cleaners. Throw a rock and you'll hit 3 or 4 of them. And heck, the subway and buses are still only $2 (or $1.60 with the 20% MetroCard discount). I am seriously curious now -- what strange niche of NYC do you live in?

  • ||

    As for me, I can go to another dry cleaner, but it's 15 minutes away on foot (carrying all the clothes - it isn't an option). The assholes downstairs are the only real option.

    So suing someone like that for $64 million and putting them out of business would be a case of cutting your nose off to spite your face, wouldn't it. Oh, wait; Judge Pearson probably could drive somewhere else to get his dry cleaning done. He just drives people out of business for the fun of it.

  • ||

    Aw, my only point is that we don't know what these people did to set off ol' crank Pearson. $54 million, as any lawyer knows, is just a made up number, as I said above. The fact that he rejected a $12,000 settlement shows that he is not rational. I'm always interested in what sets these people off. These people probably don't deserve to have their livelihood taken away, agreed.

    But to lose somebody's property and intentionally try to pass off a fake as the real article deserves some serious punishment. Plus, they didn't even respond when he demanded that they replace the suit. Pearson is irrational and should have taken the $12,000. Deep down I hope the shop owners take a serious, serious financial hit.

  • ||

    954, reprazent! (Ft. Lauderdale, FL)

    All the wrangling aside, Judge Dreaded is right:

    This Pearson character is a Class A douchebag.

    If he doesn't possess the judgment not to use the courts for his own personal vendettas (at our expense, may I remind you), than how can we trust him to render just decisions on the bench?

  • ed||

    I wash my own clothes, but I do like Korean food.

  • ||

    Oh, $54 million is actually a calculated number, based on a certain amount of damages for each day the dry cleaners kept their fraud going. My bad.

  • ||

    And what with this problem of "carrying all the clothes" on a 15-minute walk? Do you save up a month's worth of dry cleaning at a time? Or wear nothing but dry-clean only clothes? When I was in college (living without a car), I think the nearest dry cleaner's was at least 15 minutes away, but I don't recall that the walk ever killed me.

  • Keith||

    Dry Clean-er?

  • XaabaZu||

    (former 773, beeyotches! Bucktown!)

    So, I was working at a clothing store in the Belmont Clark area, and crazy Carlos was in the store looking at shirts. "Oh, yeah, this one looks nice", he said while holding the shirt at arm's length. Then he looked at the tag: "Dry Clean Only. Might as well say: 'Put it back on the rack'". Which he promptly did.

  • ||

    Aw, my only point is that we don't know what these people did to set off ol' crank Pearson.

    Well, Pearson had the opportunity to tell us (and the *real* judge) what they did when he testified at trial, and unless the press is suppressing it, he didn't tell us anything other than what we've been reading in these stories.

  • lunchstealer||

    Dave W. | June 14, 2007, 1:13pm | #
    Geez, even Blackwater is only asking $10 million from the surviving families of those crispy operatives.

    No wonder Mr. Sullum blogged this instead of that!


    You stupid fucking troll.

  • stephen the goldberger||

    did you even read the article?

    "Later, while recounting the day he says the cleaners tried to pass off a cheaper pair of pants as his, Judge Pearson began to cry, asking for a break and dabbing tears as he left the courtroom. "

    This man's actions are indefensible. What an asshole.

  • Keith||

    What I understand from the Howard Stern news a few weeks ago is that they misplaced and then found his pants. End of story. I don't know if any other shenanigans took place, but even so. Even if they shot a Bukakke starring a girl wearing just bunny ears and his pants, $54 mill sounds a touch excessive.

    This judge can go suck a dick.

  • ||

    Seamus: I wear a suit to work everyday, it gets sweaty in the subway. I get it done every two weeks (because I have to leave work early).

    What we read in the stories was that a dry cleaner was yanking Pearson's chain. Turns out, Pearson's a powder keg. He won't get $54 million, but I wonder what the $12,000 settlement offer was all about. It suggests that the dry cleaners were screwing people over on purpose.

    By the way, he's an ALJ, not a real judge. Yes, he's an asshole. And I still hope the dry cleaner is hobbled with lawyer's fees.

    Query: What do you do when you lose somebody's pants?
    (a) apologize and offer to buy new pants.
    (b) stall, hoping to find the pants soon.
    (c) pass off your son's Wranglers as suit pants, then refuse to speak to the person you tried so hard to screw over.

  • ||

    At last. Lo these many years, I've searched for a web handle I could love. It just goes to show that one should never give up hope...

  • thoreau||

    I'd be willing to suffer the trauma of lost pants for a mere $27 million. That's half off!

  • ||

    thoreau,

    And if you act NOW, we'll throw in a FREE Judicial-System-Abusing Asshole.

    Call within the next 20 minutes.

  • Ellie||

    I wonder what the $12,000 settlement offer was all about. It suggests that the dry cleaners were screwing people over on purpose.

    Or that they'd lose more than that on lawyer fees and time away from their business to attend the trial and the endless, endless appeals that will no doubt come from a man who sheds actual tears over a piece of clothing.

    Anyway, if you're so dead set against having to travel to your dry-cleaners, why do you think putting your current ones out of business will be the answer? There's no guarantee that a new dry-cleaners will open in the same place and not, like, a Hardee's or pawn shop instead.

    Take a taxi, hoof it, get a friend to do it, or buy fewer dry-clean-only clothes. Sometimes things are not convenient. It's called being an adult. Nut up already.

  • ||

    "why do you think putting your current ones out of business will be the answer"

    I never suggesting putting my dry cleaners out of biz.

    As for being an adult, hell, being an adult means you can lose somebody's property then try to pass off a fake as the real thing and expect no consequences. And I guess adults deal with getting caught in an obvious fraud by refusing to speak to the person defrauded. Seriously, other than a lawsuit, what recourse do we have when businesses take advantage of us? Let's not forget: the Soo's probably didn't know that Pearson was an ALJ. They just thought he was another sucker come to line their pockets.

  • stephen the goldberger||

    The only way to settle this is for Pearson to have to try on the pants in court to see if they are actually his.

  • ||

    If the pants don't fit, then you must acquit!

  • ||

    Lamar, as any practicing lawyer would tell you, what you need to do is get married. The main purpose of a spouse is to pick up one's dry cleaning. (And look good at firm functions.)

  • ||

    More like:

    If the pants have no bulge in them,
    give him the $54 million!

  • ||

    He rejected a more than reasonable settlement, no matter what the facts are in this instance. The case should be dismissed, and Pearson should be forced to pay all court costs, all of the plaintiff's legal fees, and pay THEM for all the time he has wasted.

    Someone being a jerk to you does not imply that you have the right to be an infinitely bigger jerk to them, at public expense.

  • Jackie Chiles||

    The only way to settle this is for Pearson to have to try on the pants in court to see if they are actually his.

    Just make sure he doesn't try them on over his clothes. Or rubber underpants.

  • ||

    jp: I tried that. My last craigslist ad in the discrete encounters section said, "SWM ISO goth fetish queen to pick up laundry"

  • VM||

    jp-

    can't be a civil union, tho, cuz there's the famous "opt out" clause for dry cleaners!

  • Ellie||

    VM -

    I know that's why I went gay!

  • Dave W.||

    but I wonder what the $12,000 settlement offer was all about. It suggests that the dry cleaners were screwing people over on purpose.

    It may suggest that. It also suggests to me that the dry cleaner wanted to invoke a fee shifting statute, if DC has one, so that the dry cleaner could get back its legal cost if/when less than $12,000 is awarded.

    Even in the context of a tendered settlement offer, $12,000 seems high. Either they had a lot of confidence in the plaintiff's irrationality and/or they are worried about punitives based on intentional lies.

  • grylliade||

    No wonder Mr. Sullum blogged this instead of that!



    I know! He'd probably get fired if he blogged the other one!

  • ||

    jp: I tried that. My last craigslist ad in the discrete encounters section said, "SWM ISO goth fetish queen to pick up laundry"

    Well that's your problem right there, you see. The dry-cleaning kind of woman doesn't read Craigslist. You need to go to The Right Stuff. (And when they say "stuff," they do mean "stuff.")

  • Dave W.||

    I know! He'd probably get fired if he blogged the other one!

    Or sued for libel by Blackwater's Starr attorney!

  • ||

    jp: I checked it out the Right Stuff dating site, and they don't allow nipples or erection photos either. What's a man gotta do to get his laundry picked up?!

  • VM||

    See, Ellie! You need to post hier more often!

    Gay dry cleaners are much better, btw - they are the absolute tops at cleaning sequins!

    :)

  • ||

    Dude, the guy cried about pants. I'm really not trusting his story about them trying to pass off an inferior copy; I mean, check the damn tags. They may have tried it, I don't know. Even if they did it, this is beyond stupid. Even if the Chungs are lil' hitler conmen, the most be could reasonably expect a bit of punitive damages.

    And, as a recent law school graduate, I can attest to the fact you don't have to be that smart to get through. Not that he is actually stupid in the low IQ sense. He's that special kind of stupid that only smart people can really pull off.

  • miche||

    Lamar! Throw off the shackles of the Chinese mob and buy a can of starch! Free-DOM!

    Actually, I tried that for a while. Not worth the trouble.



    After I quit my job, I started looking at little ways to save $ and make it appear that I do a whole lot more than I do around the house. I took on the husband's shirts. He laughed at me and gave it a week. It took me 30 minutes per shirt to make them look as nice as Bibbentuckers. It lasted about a month and now the shirts are picked up/delivered to my house again every Tues/Fri.

  • ||

    And as to a pattern of misbehavior by the Chungs--- the judge is the only defendant. He doesn't get damages for crap pulled on other people. That's what class actions are for; he can only sue for the damages caused to him alone.

    This whole suit just demonstrates how much damage people can do legal system when they know how to use the system. Honestly I wouldn't be suprised if this suit ends up ruining that judge. It was implied in the article that he might get fired, and I know I wouldn't like to go in front of a judge who is frankly an obsessive crank. Who knows if you got a fair trial or you lost because he thought you resembled his dry cleaner.

  • ||

    the buses are so few and far between these days

    Have mercy, been waitin' for the bus all day.

  • SugarFree||

    VM,

    That's NOT FUNNY! My uncle died of taint whithering and I won't have his memory sullied!

    By the way, I sidestep this whole issue by not buying clothes that require dry cleaning. That and I like looking rumpled. It gives me an air of mystery and danger in my profession.

  • ||

    "He won't get $54 million, but I wonder what the $12,000 settlement offer was all about. It suggests that the dry cleaners were screwing people over on purpose."

    Having worked in a customer service setting for 10 years (ended a year ago thankfully), I can attest that a settlement offer seldom has to do with actual wrongdoing on the part of the business and more with making a "problem" customer go away. I can't tell you how much money (refunds and compensation) my company paid out to unstable folks who did not deserve one cent. Unfortunately, guys like this tend to be the type who will stop by every day during your busiest time and yell at you in an attempt to alienate your customer base. Paying them off is usually cheaper than losing all your other customers and being right.

  • VM||

    But... Sugar!

    Why did your uncle dare cross the URKOBOLD?

    (I agree with the no-dry-clean policy. This is why I only wear rubber. It just wipes away.)

  • SugarFree||

    This is why I only wear rubber.

    That is so hot.

    Anyway, this is all I know of my uncle's sin:

    Yes, truly did the URKOBOLD smite him and he found himself smoten, and so did the mystery of his smotenning vex his people from the very day of his smotenment.

    -The Books of Random Judgment: Chapter 84, Verse 2

  • Kurt||

    Lamar,

    might I suggest one of these. When I lived in the city I got a cheap one at a local store for about ten bucks.

  • ||

    Kurt,

    Thanks, I got one of those. This is for dry cleaning, not laundry, though I guess I should admit that I still bring my regular laundry to the same dirt-bag cleaners I claim to hate so much.

  • Lamar\'s Local Dry Cleaner||

    Lamar! You are busted like cheap slut on well-lit street! No cleaning for you--ten thousand years!

  • ||

    Fine, you jerks. Just give me my pants and I'll be outta here!!

  • Lamar\'s Local Dry Cleaner||

    Lamar! You hole of an ass! We did not have ancient Chinese secret! We used Calgon!

  • 최상||

    당신을 위한 바지 없음!

  • Best||

    For you the pants nil!

  • VM||

    ah, yes. BoRJ. Between that and the Writ of the Arbitrary Banter, URKOBOLD certainly does work in URKOBOLDIAN ways!

    *ambles off

  • M||

    DNA sample the pants he denies are his? Wasn't that the procedure used last time dry-cleaned testimony was disputed in Washington?

  • ||

    There's losing your pants and then there LOSING your pants in court.

    This DC judge's judgment has become one more turn of the screw saying that DC is incapable of governing itself. Commissioner Barry just gave it one more of his twists when he stopped at a green light, went on red, and got away with it.

    Forming a citi-state for DC is out of the quesition. Give the private portion of the city back to Maryland if they will take it.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement