Indefatigable lost suit pants plaintiff Roy C. Pearson has returned to the legal fray, arguing that the trial judge mistakenly cleared his dry cleaners of liability for “the plain meaning” of their “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign.

“The court effectively substituted a guarantee of satisfaction with 'reasonable' limits and preconditions for the unconditional and unambiguous guarantee of satisfaction the defendant-merchants chose to advertise for seven years,” Pearson says in a motion for reconsideration. “That was a fundamental legal error.”

Pearson, an administrative law judge, also seeks $425,000 in fees for his “excellent legal work under trying circumstances” -- which indicates his unbridled chutzpah since the defense has requested only $83,000 in attorney's fees.

After a two-day trial, D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff last month rejected Pearson's $54 million suit for unfair trade practices and fraud, finding that a “reasonable consumer” would not interpret “Satisfaction Guaranteed” to mean Custom Cleaners should have compensated him for his pants in any way he saw fit.

“Nothing in the law supports [the] position” that the sign is an unconditional guarantee, she said in her decision awarding judgment to the owners of Custom Cleaners, Soo and Jin Nam Chung.

But according to Pearson, the “reasonable consumer” test “is of no relevance when considering a term that is as clearly defined in the law as 'Satisfaction Guaranteed.'” If the Chungs' guarantee was conditional, he says, the sign should have said something like, "Satisfaction Guaranteed, IF we agree your dissatisfaction is legitimate and we agree to the compensation you demand."

By not including such limitations, the motion concludes,

The defendants guaranteed ... that there would be no debate on the question of their liability or plaintiff’s satisfaction – i.e., the plaintiff-customer would always be right.”

 

The case has turned Pearson into something of a legal pariah, with critics calling for him not to be reappointed to the bench or to be disbarred. “Plaintiff attempted to turn a case most appropriately brought in small claims court into a multi-million dollar nightmare,” defense counsel Christopher Manning said in his motion for attorney's fees.

All the signs are, however, that Pearson is intent on continuing his quixotic fight no matter what. He turned down a request from Manning last week that he consider giving up, for the Chungs' sake and his own.