Pearson v. Chung, also known as the "$54 million pants" case, is a 2007 civil case decided in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in which Roy Pearson, then an administrative law judge, sued his local dry cleaning establishment for $54 million in damages after the dry cleaners allegedly lost his pants.
On May 3, 2005, Pearson delivered a pair of gray pants to a local dry cleaning establishment in Washington, D.C. called Custom Cleaners, operated by Jin, Soo, and Ki Chung.
Representing himself pro se during the proceedings, Pearson argued that the Chungs had failed to fulfill the "Same Day Service" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed" promises posted outside their business.
The Chungs made a motion to recover their legal fees, but withdrew it following the conclusion of a successful fundraising campaign.
The case drew international attention and has been held as an example of frivolous litigation and the need for tort reform in the United States.
On May 3, 2005, Pearson delivered a pair of gray pants to a dry cleaning establishment in Washington, D.C. called Custom Cleaners to be altered.
[1] Pearson requested his pants be ready for pickup two days later on May 5, which Soo Chung, who took his order, agreed to.
[5] Pearson insisted that the pants were not his, contrary to the dry cleaner's records, tags, and his receipt, and refused to accept them.
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.
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.
[9][10] Pearson also re-focused his lawsuit from the missing pants to the removal of window signs for "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service".
[25] 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.
[34][35] The 90-day deadline for seeking Supreme Court review elapsed without Pearson filing a petition for certiorari, bringing the dispute to an end.
DC Board of Professional Responsibility issued a 90-day suspension from legal practice against Pearson for engaging in frivolous litigation and thereby interfering with the administration of justice.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld the suspension in June 2020, observing that Pearson had continued his intransigent behavior even during the misconduct proceedings.
[29] 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.