September 19, 2007
Chung Family Closes Custom Cleaners
The Chung family, owners of the dry cleaners at the center of the infamous $54 million pants lawsuit, has been forced to close their business. Northeast's Custom Cleaners was shuttered by the family as a result of revenue losses and the emotional toll exacted during the grueling 2-plus year lawsuit the family has endured at the hands of administrative law judge Roy Pearson.
Chris Manning, the Chung's attorney, said in an emailed statement that the family have had to close two of their three dry cleaning stores since Pearson filed his suit.
"This is truly a tragic example of how devastating frivolous litigation can be to the American people and to small business. This family has poured its heart and soul into their dry cleaning stores only to have their dreams crushed by Roy Pearson's lawsuit."
While Pearson continues to pursue his appeal in court and awaits the final word that he's indeed been fired from his job, the irony involved in the closing of Custom Cleaners is not lost. Part of Pearson's original claim involved the cost of renting a car to take his clothes to another dry cleaning establishment, since Custom was the only one close to his house. Pearson also reportedly still used Custom Cleaners even after he filed his lawsuit due to its location.
The Chungs still have one dry cleaning store left, at 7th and M Streets in Northwest, which they will continue to operate.
|
I can't wait until this asshole is kicked to the curb. What a disgusting story.
They should be able to sue to recoup losses.
OMG OMG OMG...this is just too weird and completley true. i used that dry cleaner once at 7th & M and never again - they lost my brand new pants. i am NOT kidding.
They specifically refused to sue because their legal team is anti-frivolous lawsuits. The Chungs are taking the high road.
anyone see sunday's curb your enthusiasm?
They would need to wait for the appellate decision before trying to sue for malicious prosecution. The store closings may have nothing to do with the Pearson lawsuit, or could even be intended to bolster damages in a future malicious prosecution suit.
Look, Pearson is a loony, but that doesn't mean the Chungs, now familiar with the legal system, don't plan on using it to get payback.
Although I would not represent them on contingency in any proceedings to collect a judgment against Pearson. . .
guest 4
At which point would go from frivolous to non-frivolous? I think that having their business/livelihood ruined over the past two years quite counts as the latter.
guest 3
OMG ROFLMAO BBQ LOLZ!
U shud totaly ~SOO~ THEM FOR $$$ lol
ROFLMAOTSETSUNG!11
That's so sad. I wish them well.
wait, he still used Custom Cleaners? how is that even possible?
what about pearson's bar status? does anyone know whether he is facing sanctions and/or disbarment? if not--why not??
It's the unwritten law of dry cleaning. Sometimes you lose things of yours and sometimes you gain something that wasn't yours. Senator Boxer is working on legislation overturning this, though.
Guess they are rethinking that call on not taking the legal fees they were awarded now they are broke. Didn't make the looney drop his appeal so more legal costs on the way. Hope he gets axed.
Pretty, Pretty, Pretty Good, TW! I am always on the losing end of the drycleaning law and will be viciously lobbying against it!
Oh guest 5, I thought of that immediately too.
I wonder where he got the idea...
Given that they seem to be refusing to recover their losses, which hardly anyone would find frivolous, I don't have a lot of sympathy.
#4 and #16, unfortunately today in the US by "taking the high road", you usually get burned.
Now everyone in that neighborhood has to drive a little further to get their drycleaning done. They should sue Pearson.
Sue that MF Pearson and hand it back to that litigious SOB...
Very little sympathy for the dry cleaners. They lost his pants, refused to accept responsibility and in the end paid dearly for it. Imagine the outcome had they actually admitted their mistake in the beginning, satisfied the customer by reimbursing for the pants, and...the unthinkable...apologized. They'd probably still have 3 stores and a happy customer.
Also...Pearson went overboard with his lawsuit, yes, no doubt about that. But just because you try to initiate a lawsuit doesn't mean the court has to hear it...where's the criticism for the judge that wasted time and money listening to an obviously frivilous lawsuit?