The plaintiff in a $54 million lawsuit filed against a dry cleaner over a lost pair of pants struck out.
The customer, and plaintiff, was District of Columbia administrative law judge Roy Pearson. He was demanding up to $54 million, citing the city’s consumer law to bolster his case for taking literally a promise of superior service.
A sign that hung for years at the countertop of Custom Cleaners in the nation’s capital said “satisfaction guaranteed,” and Pearson maintained that the promise was unconditional. The defendant’s attorney said Pearson’s lawsuit was about revenge, financial desperation, and distress over the customer’s unrelated divorce.
The shop’s owners say that the pants were found long ago, and that the customer has refused to accept the clothing as his. “Economically, emotionally and healthwise as well, it has been extremely hard for us,” Soo Chung, a Korean woman who started the business with her husband, Jin Chung, testified through an interpreter. She described how Pearson, preparing for his lawsuit, “would just come by the store at any time, taking pictures.” Pearson accepted $150 from the dry cleaner, but continued to assert that the pants found were not his.
District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the dry cleaner did not violate the city’s Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to the plaintiff’s expectations for the “satisfaction guaranteed” claim. The judge frequently chided Pearson for a presentation that at times was rambling, repetitive, and inaccurate when it came to case law.
“I’m very concerned about it,” the judge said. “You’re standing here as a lawyer, making an argument, and you have an obligation to the court about what the cases are about.”
When making his arguments, the administrative law judge used a 6-inch-thick binder of laws and court decisions that he said supported his case. An enlarged snapshot that Pearson took of the “satisfaction guaranteed” sign became a centerpiece of the trial. The gray, cuffed pants, carefully bagged and on a hanger—dry-cleaning tag attached—arrived with the dry cleaner in the courtroom and hung from the judge’s bench throughout the day.
In closing arguments, the lawyer for the dry cleaner said the reasonable interpretation of the sign is not what Mr. Pearson says it is. “Does the sign read: ‘If you are not satisfied with our service, you, the customer, can ask for whatever you want, including $67 million, and you will receive it?’” he asked. “It is not an unconditional guarantee of satisfaction. That would be ludicrous,” Manning said. “He is entitled only, at most, the value of the garment.”
Although he was representing himself, Pearson sought millions of dollars in attorney fees and millions more in punitive damages for what he alleged is fraudulent advertising under the law. He said he would donate some of any judgment to a consumer education fund.
Pearson reduced his original demand for $67 million to $54 million last month. He said the figure reflects fines that have accrued for the four years allowed under a statute of limitations, and it reflects other costs, such as $15,000 to rent a car he used to drive to another dry cleaning shop.
Significance: We’ve all had our dry cleaning debacles, but it’s amazing this one actually went to trial. Although the judge ruled in favor of the dry cleaner, this shows that advertisers are well-advised to clearly and conspicuously disclose any conditions of their “Satisfaction Guaranteed” claims. As this case demonstrates, some people are never satisfied