Pearson v. Soo Chung

Citations: 961 A.2d 1067; 2008 D.C. App. LEXIS 486; 2008 WL 5244561Docket: 07-CV-872

Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals; December 18, 2008; District Of Columbia; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Roy L. Pearson, Jr., an attorney, filed a lawsuit against Soo Chung and her family, owners of Custom Cleaners, claiming common law fraud and violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA). The basis of his claims was the store’s signage indicating "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service." Pearson alleged that the Chungs lost a pair of his pants he brought for alterations in May 2005 and attempted to substitute them with another pair. The Chungs denied these allegations, asserting that the pants they returned were indeed the ones Pearson had brought in. 

Pearson argued that the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign constituted an unconditional warranty obligating the Chungs to honor any customer claims without limitations. He contended that the Chungs' failure to do so represented an unfair trade practice under the CPPA, leading him to claim multiple violations for every day the store operated, potentially amounting to $67 million in damages. During the trial, it was revealed that Pearson had been a customer since October 1999 and that a compensation agreement for lost pants in July 2002 was reached for $150 after initial negotiations. 

The trial court, presided over by Judge Judith Bartnoff, ruled in favor of the Chungs, finding no merit in Pearson's claims. Pearson appealed, arguing misapplication of the law and wrongful denial of a jury trial, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.

Pearson testified that about a week after receiving a $150 payment, he was informed by Soo Chung that Custom Cleaners would no longer accept his business. He argued that this refusal violated the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" policy, particularly since it followed a resolved customer complaint. Pearson stated that such a guarantee should not be subject to post-transaction conditions. Subsequently, he sent a letter to Custom Cleaners claiming their actions constituted an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) and requested reconsideration of their decision.

Later, Amanda Chun contacted Pearson, questioning why he didn’t seek another cleaner if dissatisfied and suggesting he should take his business elsewhere. Nonetheless, when Pearson returned to Custom Cleaners the following week, Soo Chung accepted his order without issue, and he continued to use their services without problems until 2005.

In April 2005, preparing for a new job requiring suits, Pearson began dropping off pants for alterations one at a time due to financial constraints. He provided evidence of two claim tickets dated April 30 and May 3, 2005, for pants to be altered, both to be ready by May 5. The second pair was from an expensive Hickey Freeman suit. When he pointed out the need for the pants by Thursday, Soo Chung changed the pickup date accordingly.

On May 5, 2005, when Pearson went to collect the pants, Soo Chung initially claimed she hadn't altered them. After requesting the unaltered pants, she later stated they were mistakenly sent to another store but assured him they would be ready by the next morning. However, upon his return, the pants were still missing, although the charcoal grey pants were available. Pearson expressed that replacing the Hickey Freeman suit would cost him at least $1,000, which prompted Soo Chung to take measurements of the grey pants. Ultimately, Pearson was unable to pay for the grey pants, leaving them at the cleaners.

Soo Chung requested assistance from Pearson to locate his missing suit pants, and on May 14, 2005, she presented him with a pair of grey pants she claimed were his. Pearson disputed this, noting the pants had cuffs, which he had never worn. He concluded that Soo Chung would not replace his pants, prompting him to seek material for new pants from Hickey Freeman, but he found it unavailable. Pearson's attempts to resolve the issue dated back to 2002; feeling deceived by the Chungs regarding a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" promise, he decided to pursue relief under the District's Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA). He believed Soo Chung had taken measurements from his pants to ensure the grey pants would fit him. Pearson then drafted a demand letter citing CPPA provisions for triple damages, sending it to Soo Chung and her family.

Pearson's son, Jumoke Tyehimba, testified about borrowing his father's suits while working at the Park Hyatt Hotel, indicating his preference for pants with cuffs but confirming none of his father's suits had such features. Additionally, Samuel Adinew, a Nordstrom salesman, confirmed that the fabric for Pearson's suit was no longer available. Pearson also presented four witnesses who had negative experiences with Custom Cleaners, including damaged or lost clothing. However, in two cases, the Chungs disputed the claims, and some customers lacked proper documentation for their complaints.

In defense, the Chungs contested Pearson's allegations. Soo Chung testified through an interpreter about her background in the dry cleaning business, having learned from her brother in South Korea. The Chungs opened two pickup stores upon arriving in the U.S. and later established Custom Cleaners with on-site cleaning equipment.

Soo Chung, an employee at Custom Cleaners, described her role, which includes staffing the counter, managing alterations, and bagging cleaned clothes. She noted that a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign had been removed prior to trial to prevent litigation, and explained that the sign indicated the cleaners would attempt to resolve customer issues, whether through alterations or re-cleaning. If the issue could not be resolved, they would compensate the customer for the clothing's value. Soo Chung stated that Pearson was the only customer to complain about the sign's potential misleading nature.

On May 3, 2005, Pearson brought in two pairs of pants for alterations, one of which had unusual elastic waist inserts. Soo Chung recognized the pants during the trial based on these features and confirmed that the claim ticket numbers matched. However, after completing the alterations, the pants were mistakenly delivered to another store. Chung advised Pearson to return on May 7, 2005, to allow time for locating the pants. Upon his return, Pearson denied the pants were his, despite Chung's assurances. She suggested he bring in the matching jacket for comparison, and with the help of her fluent English-speaking friend, they sought to resolve the issue. Chung ultimately identified the pants as belonging to Pearson based on measurements and her involvement in the alterations.

Community members testified in support of the Chungs' service quality, affirming their understanding of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" policy as a commitment to rectify mistakes or compensate for damaged items. Pearson, however, claimed the trial court erred in rejecting his assertion that the sign constituted common law fraud and violated the Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA). To succeed in a common law fraud claim, a plaintiff must prove five elements: a false representation regarding a material fact, knowledge of its falsity, intent to deceive, reliance on the representation, and resulting action.

Violations of the Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) require clear and convincing evidence, applicable to claims of intentional misrepresentation as established in Lumpkins v. CSL Locksmith and Caulfield v. Stark. Pearson contends that the Chungs' "Satisfaction Guaranteed" promise constitutes common law fraud and violates the CPPA because it was not fulfilled. He interprets the guarantee as an unconditional warranty based solely on customer discretion, which he argues was wrongfully dismissed by the trial court. Pearson asserts that this guarantee obligates the merchant to meet any customer demands for compensation, regardless of the validity of the claims. However, contrary testimonies from other Custom Cleaners customers indicate that reimbursement should only reflect the actual value of lost or damaged items. The trial court concluded that the reasonable interpretation of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign suggests that the cleaner should attempt to rectify issues and provide reasonable compensation if problems occur. The court found no evidence that the defendants intended to disregard the guarantee, noting that Custom Cleaners previously compensated Pearson for lost items. The court emphasized a reasonable consumer's perspective in evaluating unfair trade practices, supported by precedent cases that clarify consumer expectations regarding guarantees and representations.

In Alicke v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., the court rejected a customer's fraud claim against MCI for billing long-distance calls in full-minute increments, determining that no reasonable customer would believe each call ended precisely at a full minute, thus MCI's billing practices were not misleading. In Uebelacker v. Paula Allen Holdings, Inc., the court ruled that the phrase "quality satisfaction guaranteed" constituted commercial puffery, which reasonable individuals would not rely upon, citing Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc. Pearson's interpretation of "Satisfaction Guaranteed" was unsupported by law, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's conclusion that it did not constitute fraud or violate the Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA). The court noted that Custom Cleaners reimbursed Pearson for a lost pair of pants in 2002 and found the testimony of Soo Chung credible regarding a separate pair of pants allegedly lost in 2005. The trial court concluded that Pearson failed to prove his fraud claims or CPPA violations by clear and convincing evidence, affirming the judgment in favor of the Chungs. The court acknowledged the difficulty in aligning the pants with Pearson's suit and found Chung's explanation regarding the pants' identification more credible than Pearson's claims. Additionally, Pearson's claims regarding a "Same Day Service" sign violated several provisions of the CPPA, as outlined in D.C. Code 28-3904.

Pearson failed to provide evidence that Custom Cleaners did not offer same-day service, relying instead on a presumption that the "Same Day Service" sign was misleading. The court found this reasoning illogical, noting that same-day service would not be expected if items were dropped off just before closing. Although Pearson claimed that a claims ticket set a pickup date for three days later, he acknowledged that an earlier date could be requested, and he did not demonstrate that Custom Cleaners was unavailable for same-day service. Therefore, the court affirmed Judge Bartnoff's decision to deny Pearson's claim.

Regarding Pearson's late-filed motion for a jury trial, the Chungs argued that Pearson improperly appealed the trial court's denial of his motions by not referencing those orders in his notice of appeal. However, Pearson's appeal of the June 25, 2007 order was deemed appropriate, as it called into question all prior non-final rulings. While Super. Ct. Civ. R. 38 requires a jury demand to be made within ten days after the last pleading, Pearson admitted he did not comply. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 39(b) allows a court to grant a jury trial at its discretion, considering factors like potential prejudice and trial delays. Pearson accused the trial court of abusing its discretion by not considering certain factors, but the ruling clarified that the court is not obligated to consider specific factors and can use its discretion to rule based on all pertinent aspects of the case. Pearson's citation of case law suggesting a jury trial should be granted in the absence of compelling reasons was noted, but the court maintained it had the authority to decide appropriately.

BCCI Holdings (Lux.) S.A. v. Khalil overruled the Hiotis interpretation of Rule 39(b), stating that a defaulting party who waived the right to a jury trial under Rule 38(d) lacks a viable claim unless there is an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Trial courts have significant discretion to evaluate late jury trial demands, but cannot deny them without valid reasons. Pearson's Rule 39(b) motion for a jury trial was based on his belief that Judge Kravitz had prejudged the case during a scheduling conference. However, the transcript of that conference contradicted Pearson's claims, demonstrating that both parties agreed to expedite the case and that Judge Kravitz had not expressed a negative view of the merits. Judge Kravitz denied Pearson's motion, finding his allegations of judicial misconduct baseless and recognizing his discretion to grant such motions liberally. Pearson's renewed motion was also denied, with the court noting that the reasons provided were supported by the record and law. The court affirmed that there was no abuse of discretion in denying the motions, as Pearson could not demonstrate prejudice since the trial was ultimately overseen by a different judge. Consequently, the judgment for the Chungs regarding fraud and CPPA claims was upheld, and Pearson's additional claims for conversion and negligence were not part of the appeal.

Pearson highlighted that customers at Custom Cleaners receive a claim ticket with preprinted service conditions, which Soo Chung stated were not drafted or enforced by Custom Cleaners. The court limited Pearson's witness list to four out of twenty-six due to duplicative testimony. One witness initially claimed $198 for a suit but later sought $500 for inconvenience. Pearson contended that the cleaners operated differently and cited sworn interrogatory answers indicating the imposition of pre-conditions on their satisfaction guarantee; however, these answers merely confirmed adherence to industry standards without evidence of inconsistency. The Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) outlines various deceptive practices, but the court rejected Pearson's claim that prior case law was overruled by the 2000 CPPA Amendments, which emphasized liberal interpretation. Pearson acknowledged potential limitations on the satisfaction guarantee but maintained his interpretation. He referenced a federal regulation requiring refunds for advertised products, which was deemed inapplicable since the service was not a product sale. The standard of "clear and convincing evidence" was referenced, noting Pearson did not meet this burden. Pearson had never requested same-day service, and the issue of his standing was not addressed. He testified that Soo Chung denied a request for same-day service after hours.