Go to contents

$54 Million Lawsuit for Missing Pants Begins

Posted June. 14, 2007 07:26,   

한국어

The court was filled with journalists, civil groups against abusive lawsuits, and members of the Korean laundry Union.

Administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson is plaintiff, councilor and witness for his own case, arguing that he is acting for consumers’ rights against poor business practices.

He called eight witnesses and examined them.

An old black woman, 89, who was in wheelchair, compared herself to the victims of the Nazis, saying, “They kicked me out of the laundry because I was complaining about my clothes, which seemed to me shrunk.”

However, on cross examination by defense attorneys, the witnesses said that they got a good impression on the couple, being professional and smiling, before the lawsuit.

Christopher Manning, defense attorney for the drycleaners, rebutted, “The plaintiff is having financial problems because of his current divorce and the trousers that he argued are missing are in the laundry.”

Manning said, “The plaintiff is abusing his judicial knowledge and the legal system to exploit the Jeongs, who are the real victims, working 70 hours per week to make their American dream with poor English skills.”

After cross examining the witnesses, Pearson spent almost two hours explaining the reason why he brought this case to the court and he seemed infuriated when he said, “The drycleaners lost my pants from a fine suit and gave me cheap ones instead. I have never worn a pair of pants with unfolded bottoms and they insisted that they were mine.” Pearson choked up and cried at that point, walking out of the courtroom.

He said he wanted to turn in a statement to the judge after he came back to the court but the judge rejected his request. A statement and examination of the Jeongs will take place on June 13 (local time).

Right after the trial, a survey was conduced by MSNBC on the Internet: whether Pearson’s argument is persuasive when it comes to consumer rights even though the money he has requested is excessive, or if his argument is too absurd. 97 percent of people (56,000 people) voted for the latter.



sechepa@donga.com