Dry cleaner denies losing attorney's clothes

By Cara Bailey | Oct 2, 2008


Pressed For Time is located on Quarrier Street in downtown Charleston. (Photo by Chris Dickerson)

CHARLESTON - A local dry cleaning company has denied it lost clothes belonging to a local attorney, according to the response filed in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Charleston dry cleaners Pressed For Time, through attorney Ron L. Tucker, deny the charges made by Richard D. Jones.

Jones filed the suit July 25 in Kanawha Circuit Court, claiming he left his clothes at Pressed For Time, only to find out when he returned to pick them up that they had been misplaced.

Pressed For Time denied Jones' allegations, and strongly denied that they have engaged in a pattern of losing their customers' clothes.

Jones, who is representing himself, claims he was advised his clothes were lost or may have been given to another customer.

A store employee asked him to be patient to see if the clothes would reappear, but they never did, Jones states in the suit.

Jones, an attorney at Flaherty, Sensabaugh and Bonasso, claims he has contacted the store on several occasions asking for reimbursement of his clothing and has given an invoice for the cost of the clothing.

But the company has failed to reimburse his clothing or to refund him, he states in the suit.

In the suit, Jones seeks reimbursement for the full value of his clothing, plus unspecified punitive damages.

The case is similar to a now-world famous 2005 lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C.

In that case, Roy L. Pearson Jr., a former administrative law judge, filed suit against Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners, for losing a pair of his pants.

Pearson initially sought $67 million for inconvenience, mental anguish and attorney fees for representing himself. He said the Chungs did not deliver on the "satisfaction guaranteed" sign displayed in the store. He later dropped the amount sought to $54 million.

The Pearson case went to trial in 2007. A Superior Court judge ruling in favor of the Chungs. Pearson later was removed from the bench.

Last month, an appellate court agreed to hear Pearson's appeal. It is scheduled for Oct. 22.

More News

The Record Network