Roy L Pearson v Soo Chung et al
25 June 2007
It would otherwise be a sad case but for the fact that (or especially because?) the plaintiff was a US administrative law judge.
The plaintiff brought legal proceedings against the defendants who are owners of a dry cleaning store for damages amounting to USD54 million (revised down from the initial USD67million) over a lost fair of trousers (the cause of action was framed in statutory breach in relation to a "satisfaction guaranteed" sign displayed at the defendantsf store at the material time).
The "actual damages" of the plaintiff (according to "joint pre-trial statement ")i nclude "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort (USD500,000), time expended in litigation (USD465,390) (the plaintiff represented himself), leasing automobile for 10 years (USD15,000 because the plaintiff would need to drive to another cleaner), replacement suit (USD1,450)".
At one point (in late October 2006), the plaintiff sought to amend his claim to assert a claim as "private attorney general" on behalf of potentially thousands of other (dissatisfied/defrauded) victim customers. The motion was dismissed and the judge commented noted that the case had been delayed unnecessarily by the plaintiff "disproportionate approach to the discovery process and by the plaintifffs active but largely unsuccessful motion practice". The trial judge was reported t elling the plaintiff during the trial that "Mr. Pearson, you are not a 'we'. You are an 'I'".
The plaintiff and the defendants had a previous incident in 2002 over the loss of another pair of trousers which the defendants compensate the plaintiff to his full satisfaction (USD150) and without asking for any proof of the worth of the trousers. The plaintiff was then told that the defendants would not continue to accept the plaintifffs business and pleaded with the defendants to change their mind (including sending the defendants a letter advising the same that it would be unlawful for them to refuse his business).
The trial judge also ruled that the plaintiff had not met his burden of proving that the trousers the defendants attempted to return to him were not the trousers he brought in and that, at best, the evidence on the subject is eequipoisef (gthe plaintiff may well believe that he brought the pants to his burgundy and blue pinstriped suit to the defendants, but there also strong evidence that he did noth).
As a footnote, the plaintifffs term as administrative law judge was not renewed according to a report in the Washington Post on 23 October 2007
