WASHINGTON ( CNN ) -- A court Thursday rejected an appeal filed by a former administrative law judge who sued a dry cleaners for $ 54 million over a missing pair of pants . An unidentified man talks on a cell phone in front of the Chung family 's shop , Custom Cleaners . The District of Columbia Court of Appeals `` ruled resoundingly in favor of the Chung family and denied Mr. Roy Pearson 's appeal of the case completely , '' said Christopher Manning , an attorney for the Chung family , who own Custom Cleaners . `` The D.C. Court of Appeals held that the trial court correctly ruled that Mr. Pearson 's claims had no merit whatsoever , '' he added . The Chungs have `` some level of relief , '' Manning told CNN , `` but they wo n't count Mr. Pearson out for at least trying to torment them further '' with future appeals . `` We are very happy with the result and thank everyone for supporting us , '' Jin Chung said in a statement issued by Manning . `` The past three years have been very difficult , but we hope this nightmare is finally over . '' Pearson initially sought $ 67 million from the Chungs , calculating the amount by estimating years of legal violations , adding nearly $ 2 million in common law claims for fraud . The saga began in May 2005 , when Pearson took several pairs of pants to Custom Cleaners for alteration as he prepared to start his new job as an administrative law judge . He alleged that among them was a pair of pants from a blue and maroon suit . When he came to collect his clothing , he said , the Chungs tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants that were not his . During a two-day trial , Pearson , who represented himself , said that when he took the pants to the cleaners , his financial situation was precarious : He had just been ordered to pay $ 12,000 in attorney 's fees to his ex-wife , and his credit cards were at their limit . He claimed millions of dollars in attorney fees and millions more in punitive damages for what he called fraudulent advertising under the law . He also claimed that a sign in the store 's window promising `` satisfaction guaranteed '' was an unconditional warranty that required the defendants to honor any claim by any customer without limitation . The Chungs ' attorney argued that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to mean an unconditional promise of satisfaction . District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff agreed , ruling that Custom Cleaners did not violate the city 's Consumer Protection Act . Manning , whose law firm handled the appeal on a pro bono basis for the Chungs , said the Chungs hope the `` vague and often unfair '' act will be changed `` so that others do not suffer like they did . '' In August 2007 , the Chungs dropped their bid to recover legal costs in the hopes that Pearson would drop his appeal . Pearson may request that the appeal be heard again by the entire panel of D.C. Court of Appeals judges , Manning said . He also could petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for an appeal . `` It is the Chungs ' hope that Mr. Pearson will not attempt to appeal any further and will end his frivolous and baseless attacks on the Chung family , '' Manning wrote in the statement . `` The 3½ years this case has been pending and appealed have been very difficult for the Chungs , '' he said . `` They lost two of their dry cleaning stores and their realization of the American dream . '' He said the family wants to `` quietly return to their one remaining small dry-cleaning store ... to rebuild their lives . '' Pearson was taken off the bench in May 2007 while the lawsuit was pending and was not reappointed as an administrative law judge when his term expired . He filed a federal lawsuit in May 2008 to get his government job back , accusing city government and others of an `` unlawful demotion and subsequent termination . '' That suit remains pending . CNN 's Paul Courson contributed to this story .
Appeals court rejects appeal of failed $ 54 million lawsuit over missing pants . Dry cleaner say they are n't kick plaintiff out . Ex - administrative judge who hears case could appeal it to Supreme Court .