WASHINGTON – The customer is always right, said a judge who testified Wednesday in his $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner who lost his pants.

Administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson argued he is acting in the interest of all city residents against poor business practices. Attorneys for the dry cleaner call his claim “outlandish.”

After closing arugments, delivered Wednesday, Judge Judith Bartnoff said she would rule by the end of next week.

Under cross-examination, Pearson said the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act, under which he is suing Custom Cleaners, should grant a customer whatever he or she wants if there is a “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign.

Pearson, 57, originally sued Custom Cleaners for about $65 million by adding up violations under the act and almost $2 million in common law claims. He is no longer seeking damages related to the pants, focusing his claims on two signs in the shop that have since been removed.

Bartnoff ruled Wednesday that the “Same Day Service” sign was no longer to be considered, leaving “Satisfaction Guaranteed” the only issue in question.

Pearson alleges that Jin Chung, Soo Chung and Ki Chung, owners of the small business, committed fraud and misled consumers because they put up the signs but did not meet the satisfaction of several customers, including him.

Defense attorney Chris Manning asked Pearson repeatedly whether, if he was a merchant, he would pay any customer who asked for compensation. Pearson kept responding with convoluted legal language, and each time Judge Judith Bartnoff instructed him to answer the question. Finally, he said, “Yes.”

Pearson said his problems with Custom Cleaners began in May 2005 when he brought in several suits for alterations. A pair of pants from a suit was missing when he requested it two days later. The Chungs said they found the pants and tried to give them to Pearson, but Pearson insists they are not his. The pants are now evidence.

Bartnoff said she was taking the issues in the case seriously.

“I do think that this is a very important statute to protect to consumers, and I also think it’s important that statutes like this are not misused,” she said.