Print Columns   |   Web Chats   |   Blog Archives   |  

The Suit Suit: A Suitable Solution?

A prominent suitmaker in South Korea has proposed a solution to the suit suit, the infamous case in which D.C. Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson has sued his neighborhood dry cleaner for $65 million over the cleaners' failure to return his suit pants in a timely fashion.

David Cho, chief executive of Cornerstone, an apparel company in Seoul that distributes Kiton suits (an Italian designer), has offered to fly Pearson to Korea for a fitting, put him up at a hotel, and give him a free, $10,000 tailor made suit, if only Pearson will drop his case against the Chung family, the owners of the Bladensburg Road NE cleaners where the judge's suit pants were lost.

"As a member of the Korean community..., I would like to offer you one great package of compensations in exchange of your dropping the case once and for all before it reaches the trial," Cho writes in a letter to Pearson. "From the articles that I have read regarding you and the lawsuit, I judge that you have great tastes for your attire.... The Kiton suit will be a superb replacement for the missing suit of yours."

Cho has not yet received a reply from Pearson. The trial is scheduled to start next week.

Meanwhile, in the final days before trial, Pearson has declined to discuss a possible settlement with the Chung family, and in his last filings with the court, Pearson has shifted the focus of his suit, talking less about his missing pants and more about the two signs that once alerted customers at Custom Cleaners to an offer of "Same Day Service" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed." Pearson has also altered the calculus of his demand, so his quest for $65 million has morphed into a far more modest effort to win $54 million. Stay tuned.

By Marc Fisher |  June 7, 2007; 11:50 AM ET
Previous: The New Nats Stadium: $300 Seats! (Or $5 Seats for the Same View) | Next: Random Friday Question: What Will Be 2007's Summer Song?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



The judge definitely wants to get rich, quickly. He's tired of earning little, tired of working, and is ready for a rich retirement, if he wins. The judge's $65M is totally absurd. What is his pants made of? Judge Pearson should take the offer offered by David Cho and BE HAPPY.

Posted by: j | June 7, 2007 12:36 PM

If Judge Roy is unsure about Kiton suits, why not send me first? I could be fitted for a demo suit of my own and the Judge could then judge the suit's quality. I can certainly sacrifice a few days if it will help end DC's long dry cleaning nightmare.

Posted by: Mike Licht | June 7, 2007 12:36 PM

oNice offer for someone who doesn't remotely deserve. But he won't take it, because he's a narcissist and a socipath. He's completely getting off on the fact that these poor immigrants are being driven into the poorhouse.

He won't take it.

Posted by: NYC | June 7, 2007 12:43 PM

Hey, if that knucklehead won't take a Kiton in exchange for dropping the suit, I'd be glad to accept the offer!

Posted by: dirrtysw | June 7, 2007 12:45 PM

The impression I am getting is that Judge Pearson wants to teach them a lesson because they are immigrants. Judge Pearson probably would not sue a non-immigrant, because they would know how to counter-sue.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2007 12:54 PM

I hope this a-hole rejects this ridiculously generous offer, so he can get laughed out of court at trial and be made into a worldwide laughingstock.

Posted by: Loudounian | June 7, 2007 12:58 PM

not only should he be laughed out of court but he should be made liable for ALL of the cleaners' attorney costs and court costs.

Posted by: rockville | June 7, 2007 1:35 PM

I am not sure what the comment two above mine is supposed to mean. I agree with everyone that this judge is a horse's ass or worse, but what does this mean?

"Judge Pearson probably would not sue a non-immigrant, because they would know how to counter-sue."

That's a pretty dumb statement. These "immigrants" hired an attorney who I am sure is knowledgable about US laws and the ability to counter sue. What you are saying above is that Pearson is picking on these immigrants because they are too dumb to defend themselves to the fullest extent of the law.

Posted by: WDC | June 7, 2007 1:39 PM

WDC: I agree. However, your comment "That's a pretty dumb statement" re "Judge Pearson probably would ..." is not diplomatic. THE "pretty dumb statement" is, Judge Pearson suing for $45M. We are voicing our comments, whether "pretty dumb" or not.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2007 3:00 PM

It would be nice if the Judge took this suitmaker up on this generous trip offer and then never returned to DC. I am flabbergasted that this Judge still has a job? Can't they be deposed for this kind of egregious behavior?

Posted by: DCer | June 7, 2007 3:03 PM

I am frightened this man is one of our judges.

He should be removed from the bench.

Posted by: Dean Jackson | June 7, 2007 3:13 PM

"Can't they be deposed for this kind of egregious behavior?"
----
Deposed like some kind of overthrown dictator? Or deposed like "required to answer questions under oath during the discovery phase?"

I suppose either one.

Posted by: g | June 7, 2007 6:17 PM

And Robert Bork is suing Yale because he cant walk, think and pass gas at the same time without tripping.

We need to round up all the lawyers in this country and put a baseball bat or sledge hammer to the skull like we do with livestock and turn these useless mammals into biofuel! No exceptions!

Biggger threat Islamic fundalmentalists/terrorists or lawyers? That is a tough one. Eliminate them both why take chances!

Posted by: vaherder | June 8, 2007 7:12 AM

I guess that's compassionate conservatism for you, eh vaherder?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 8, 2007 9:51 AM

Okay, so if "Judge" Pearson goes to Korea, can we charge him with some sort of tort abuse, so that Homeland Security won't let him back in the country from Korea?

Posted by: Joe in SS | June 8, 2007 9:54 AM

A judge that is so unjust is not fit to be a judge.

Posted by: Not fit to be a judge | June 11, 2007 1:51 PM

I think this guy deserves the death penalty for abusing the legal system. Really, is it any more disproportionate than suing for $65 million for a pair of pants.

Posted by: Bill | June 11, 2007 2:17 PM

Judge Pearson ought to A) have his case thrown out of court B) be ordered to pay the Chungs $65 million dollars C) be removed from the bench D) be flown directly to Africa after having his US passport confiscated.

Let us know how things work out for you in the Mother Continent, Judge Pearson! Buh-bye!

Posted by: Gordon Wagner | June 11, 2007 2:59 PM

Is this guy related to Mike Nifong? Only a government employee (judge) would spend (what he claims is) 1400 hours of his time chasing down a stupid pair of pants from suit he probably bought for $200 bucks 15 years ago at Men's Warehouse. Even if the place lost his pants, I think the poor Chung's offering him $10,000 makes this little Napoleon judge "whole". I wouldn't have given him $1000.

Posted by: rg019571 | June 12, 2007 4:01 PM

There should be "REASONABLE" compensation and expectations in the level of services being provided. This lawsuit is frivilous!

Everyone demands fair and equal treatment -

Shame on Judge Roy Pearson!

Posted by: VA'er | June 13, 2007 9:29 AM

This suit is such a bizarre example of getting carried away. From what I have read in various articles, it seems that the Chungs definitely are more than a bit dishonest and greedy. And what could be more infuriating than bringing in pants from a suit and being returned a pair of pants that do not remotely match the suit jacket? Are the Chungs liars and cheaters? Hmmm........Survey says: Yes! Is the judge an idiot to carry things to this extreme?? Also YES! Remember the old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me?" The judge obviously is hoping that the Chungs will be publicly judged and revealed as cheaters---but he has turned himself into a public laughingstock. Somehow, it just doesn't seem worth the price.

Posted by: DC Resident | June 13, 2007 1:11 PM

This suit is such a bizarre example of getting carried away. From what I have read in various articles, it seems that the Chungs definitely are more than a bit dishonest and greedy. And what could be more infuriating than bringing in pants from a suit and being returned a pair of pants that do not remotely match the suit jacket? Are the Chungs liars and cheaters? Hmmm........Survey says: Yes! Is the judge an idiot to carry things to this extreme?? Also YES! Remember the old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me?" The judge obviously is hoping that the Chungs will be publicly judged and revealed as cheaters---but he has turned himself into a public laughingstock. Somehow, it just doesn't seem worth the price.

Posted by: DC Resident | June 13, 2007 1:11 PM

This suit is such a bizarre example of getting carried away. From what I have read in various articles, it seems that the Chungs definitely are more than a bit dishonest and greedy. And what could be more infuriating than bringing in pants from a suit and being returned a pair of pants that do not remotely match the suit jacket? Are the Chungs liars and cheaters? Hmmm........Survey says: Yes! Is the judge an idiot to carry things to this extreme?? Also YES! Remember the old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me?" The judge obviously is hoping that the Chungs will be publicly judged and revealed as cheaters---but he has turned himself into a public laughingstock. Somehow, it just doesn't seem worth the price.

Posted by: DC Resident | June 13, 2007 1:11 PM

This suit is such a bizarre example of getting carried away. From what I have read in various articles, it seems that the Chungs definitely are more than a bit dishonest and greedy. And what could be more infuriating than bringing in pants from a suit and being returned a pair of pants that do not remotely match the suit jacket? Are the Chungs liars and cheaters? Hmmm........Survey says: Yes! Is the judge an idiot to carry things to this extreme?? Also YES! Remember the old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me?" The judge obviously is hoping that the Chungs will be publicly judged and revealed as cheaters---but he has turned himself into a public laughingstock. Somehow, it just doesn't seem worth the price.

Posted by: DC Resident | June 13, 2007 1:13 PM

DC Resident, don't you ever make a mistake. Yes the Chungs did misplace the pants. It often happens in the Dry Cleaning industy, but where do you get off calling them liars and cheaters! What survey are you reading. It is moronic people like you who judge others when you yourself are no better!

Posted by: kristine | June 14, 2007 11:24 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company