Manning & Sossamon

TRIAL UPDATE: Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled resoundingly in favor of the Chungs and Custom Cleaners on June 25, 2007 with a full defense verdict and an award of court costs to the Chungs. The Chungs are very pleased with Judge Bartnoff's decision.

Importantly, there is a distinction between an award of court costs versus an award of attorney's fees. Court costs relate only to the hard costs of the litigation, such as filing fees and transcript charges, and not attorney's fees.

Through her verdict, Judge Bartnoff has spoken loudly in suggesting that, while consumers should be protected, abusive lawsuits like this will not be tolerated. Judge Bartnoff has chosen common sense and reasonableness over irrationality and unbridled venom. Simply put, Judge Bartnoff got it right.

Unfortunately, however, this emotionally and financially burdensome ordeal is likely not over for the Chungs-we fully expect Mr. Pearson to file a Notice of Appeal.

DONATE TO THE CHUNGS: The Chungs have created a fund to help ease the financial burden caused by Mr Pearson’s pursuit of this case. To donate, please visit www.customcleanersdefensefund.com.

CASE BACKGROUND:

Pearson v. Chung is a District of Columbia civil lawsuit brought by Roy L. Pearson that names three defendants: Jin Chung, Soo Chung and their son, Ki Chung. Mr. Pearson, an attorney and DC Administrative Law Judge, represents himself. The Chungs are represented by Christopher Manning of Manning & Sossamon law firm.
The Chungs immigrated to the United States from South Korea in 1992. In 2000, they purchased Custom Cleaners, a dry cleaning and alterations service located in Washington, DC.
Mr. Pearson alleges that on May 3, 2005 he left a pair of pants with the Chungs to be altered by May 5, 2005. The pants he submitted were grey in color and were unique in that they had a succession of three belt loops very close together on each side of the front waistband of the pants.
The Chungs offered the altered grey pants to Mr. Pearson a few days after the May 5, 2005 deadline.
Mr. Pearson refused to accept the pants the Chungs offered even though (1) the pants had the same unique belt loop configuration as the pants he originally submitted; (2) the pants' measurements were identical to measurements he requested for the alteration; and, (3) the tag number on the pants matched his receipt.
When the Chungs would not meet his initial demand of over $1,000 as compensation for his pants, Mr. Pearson filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia Superior Court.
Mr. Pearson alleges a variety of claims in this lawsuit, including: (1) that the Chungs misled him, in that they lost his pants but tried to return to him a pair of pants that did not belong to him; and, (2) that certain signs in Custom Cleaners reading "Satisfaction Guaranteed", "Same Day Service" and "All Work Done on Premises" were misleading.
The Chungs assert that the pants they offered to Mr. Pearson belong to him. Furthermore, the Chungs deny that their signs were misleading to a reasonable person.
The Chungs requested that this matter be dismissed. However, the judge decided that this case should go to trial because, among other things, there are two factual issues in dispute: (1) whether the grey pants offered to Mr. Pearson do, in fact, belong to him; and, (2) whether the signage that hung in Custom Cleaners was misleading.
In the March 2007 formal Pretrial Statement, Mr. Pearson claimed $67,292,000 in damages. Just prior to trial, Mr. Pearson reduced his claim to over $54,000,000.
The Chungs assert that they owe Mr. Pearson the grey pants they still have available for him and nothing else.
The Chungs made three settlement offers-$3,000, $4,600 and $12,000. Importantly, these settlement offers were strategically made in a way so that, if Mr. Pearson does not recover more than these amounts at trial, then he will have to pay the Chungs' costs for this case.