Washington - The infamous multi-million dollar pants lawsuit was back in a D.C. court.

The customer, a former D.C. administrative judge, lost the case the first time around, but he's appealing.

Plaintiff Roy Pearson is resurrecting his $54 million lawsuit against the now-defunct Custom Cleaners and its owners, the Chung family, who allegedly lost a pair of Pearson's pants three years ago, prompting him to sue them for $67 million.
Pearson lost the case, and soon afterwords, his job. 

In court Wednesday, he rattled off a list of case law and FTC regulations and took aim at a sign that hung in the Chung's store that read satisfaction guaranteed.

D.C. appeals court judges questioned Pearson about whether he thought the sign offered an unconditional guarantee to whatever damages he believed were appropriate.

They also asked whether the South Korean immigrants who owned the business made a good faith effort to accommodate Pearson. Christopher Manning, the Chung's lawyer, argued, "Does it mean what means to a reasonable person? Which is: if there's a problem, we'll try to fix it and if we can't fix it we'll give the value of the garment. Or, does it mean what Mr Pearson thinks it, which is an conditional unlimited guarantee of satisfaction." 

Manning added: "My clients feel confident we will prevail in this appeal. And my clients feel confident this nightmarish ordeal that's been going on for three years is finally over."

Pearson maintained that his lawsuit has merit under consumer protection laws.

Most people, save perhaps only the plaintiff himself, see the case as the epitome of frivolous litigation. For the Chungs, who have had to sell one of their two dry cleaning stores, Pearson's frivolity has substantially affected their livelihood. "No one wins, everyone loses," said Manning.

Pearson has hardly profited from the case either: he is currently filing suit in federal court to get his job back, alleging that he was improperly dismissed. In that suit, however, he is only asking for $1 million in damages.

One commenter noted, "It's just puzzling to see a person go to that extent and then to see the system back it up. It's a lot of nonsense." And another adds, "It's a waste of something. It's a waste of good sense, for one thing."

Under D.C. law Pearson was entitled to this first appeal and an opinion could take months. After which he could request to be heard by the full appellate court. But that action is rare.