Custom Cleaners Defense Fund Archive
Circa 2007
This website was originally created to give witness to the case of Jin Nam and Soo Chung and to provide a platform where visitors could contribute to their defense fund.
The content below is from the site's 2007 archived pages and other sources.
~~~
This is such a wacky story that some creative mind should turn it into a screenplay. For Jin Nam and Soo Chung, it was undoubtedly a traumatic experience. As a small business owner in New York City, I completely understand how unsettling it can be when a customer is unhappy with your work and takes things to an extreme, even when you go out of your way to make things right. Running a service-oriented business always comes with challenges, especially when expectations don’t align with reality. No matter how professional or experienced you are, there will always be those moments when a customer is deeply dissatisfied. Fortunately, my brother and I have always managed to resolve disputes amicably, but stories like this one serve as a reminder of how quickly things can spiral out of control. In moments like these, I’m reminded of the Batman's words of wisdom - how he never lets adversity shake his resolve. “It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me.” Handling customer disputes requires that same mentality. It’s about staying calm, professional, and solution-focused, even when things get heated. In the face of controversy, keeping a level head and finding common ground is the key to maintaining both reputation and sanity.
~~~
CIRCA 2007
Welcome!
Jin Nam and Soo Chung thank you very much for your interest in their case. They are deeply touched by your kindness and support.
In response to the numerous calls and e-mails from people offering assistance, this fund has been created to help with their defense costs.
If you wish to contribute to this fund, please click on the PayPal link below. PayPal will allow you to contribute by credit card or debit card.
The funds contributed through this website will be administered on behalf of the Chungs by a regional Washington D.C. certified public accounting firm.
Soo Chung and Jin Nam Chung at Custom Cleaners
Send a message to the Chungs
Case Information
To learn more about the facts of the case, visit this page created by the Chungs' attorneys, Manning & Sossamon law firm.
Contact
For any inquiries or comments regarding Custom Cleaners, the Chungs or the case, contact their attorneys at:
Manning & Sossamon
1532 Sixteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 387-2228 (voice)
(202) 387-2229 (fax)
[email protected]
www.manning-sossamon.com
"We have used the Chung's services for many years and view this suit as a racially motivated attack on a small business run by immigrants, by an evil person using his powerful position to bully and abuse. We sell Batman t shirts, hoodies, and sweatshirts and have used the Chungs to help us when during an emergency, we had to clean an entire shipment of brand new Batman sweatshirt styles due to a leak in our building. Water had spilled onto the carton and sat there for over a week, staining the products. The Chungs went out of their way to help us and although they spent hours trying to clean the water stains, they were unsuccessful. But they refused to accept payment for their time! These are honorable people who have become victims of an unethical judge who should be impeached as a result of his nefarious efforts. We ended up donating the Batman sweatshirts to a local school. And we recommend Custom Cleaners to anyone." Jerome & Mary Fuller
CASE BACKGROUND
- 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.
- 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.
Background Story
Washington Post
Judge Sues Cleaner for $65M Over Pants
By LUBNA TAKRURI
The Associated Press
Thursday, May 3, 2007; 6:55 AM
WASHINGTON -- The Chungs, immigrants from South Korea, realized their American dream when they opened their dry-cleaning business seven years ago in the nation's capital. For the past two years, however, they've been dealing with the nightmare of litigation: a $65 million lawsuit over a pair of missing pants.
Jin Nam Chung, Ki Chung and their son, Soo Chung, are so disheartened that they're considering moving back to Seoul, said their attorney, Chris Manning, who spoke on their behalf.
"They're out a lot of money, but more importantly, incredibly disenchanted with the system," Manning said. "This has destroyed their lives."
The lawsuit was filed by a District of Columbia administrative hearings judge, Roy Pearson, who has been representing himself in the case.
Pearson did not return phone calls and e-mails Wednesday from The Associated Press requesting comment.
According to court documents, the problem began in May 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alteration to Custom Cleaners in Northeast Washington, a place he patronized regularly despite previous disagreements with the Chungs. A pair of pants from one suit was not ready when he requested it two days later, and was deemed to be missing.
Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than $1,000.
But a week later, the Chungs said the pants had been found and refused to pay. That's when Pearson decided to sue.
Manning said the cleaners made three settlement offers to Pearson. First they offered $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000. But Pearson wasn't satisfied and expanded his calculations beyond one pair of pants.
Because Pearson no longer wanted to use his neighborhood dry cleaner, part of his lawsuit calls for $15,000 _ the price to rent a car every weekend for 10 years to go to another business.
"He's somehow purporting that he has a constitutional right to a dry cleaner within four blocks of his apartment," Manning said.
But the bulk of the $65 million comes from Pearson's strict interpretation of D.C.'s consumer protection law, which fines violators $1,500 per violation, per day. According to court papers, Pearson added up 12 violations over 1,200 days, and then multiplied that by three defendants.
Much of Pearson's case rests on two signs that Custom Cleaners once had on its walls: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service."
Based on Pearson's dissatisfaction and the delay in getting back the pants, he claims the signs amount to fraud.
Pearson has appointed himself to represent all customers affected by such signs, though D.C. Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz, who will hear the June 11 trial, has said that this is a case about one plaintiff, and one pair of pants.
Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Association, has written a letter to the group of men who will decide this week whether to renew Pearson's 10-year appointment. Joyce is asking them to reconsider.
Chief Administrative Judge Tyrone Butler had no comment regarding Pearson's reappointment.
The association, which tries to police the kind of abusive lawsuits that hurt small businesses, also has offered to buy Pearson the suit of his choice.
And former National Labors Relations Board chief administrative law judge Melvin Welles wrote to The Washington Post to urge "any bar to which Mr. Pearson belongs to immediately disbar him and the District to remove him from his position as an administrative law judge."
"There has been a significant groundswell of support for the Chungs," said Manning, adding that plans for a defense fund Web site are in the works.
To the Chungs and their attorney, one of the most frustrating aspects of the case is their claim that Pearson's gray pants were found a week after Pearson dropped them off in 2005. They've been hanging in Manning's office for more than a year.
Pearson claims in court documents that his pants had blue and red pinstripes.
"They match his inseam measurements. The ticket on the pants match his receipt," Manning said.
++++
Dry Cleaner Wins Missing Pants Case
By LUBNA TAKRURI
The Associated Press
Monday, June 25, 2007; 11:00 PM
WASHINGTON -- No pair of pants is worth $54 million. A judge rejected a lawsuit Monday that sought that amount by taking a dry cleaner's promise of "Satisfaction Guaranteed" to its most litigious extreme.
Roy L. Pearson became a worldwide symbol of legal abuse by seeking jackpot justice from a simple complaint that a neighborhood dry cleaners lost the pants from a suit and tried to give him a pair that were not his.
His claim, reduced from $67 million, was based on a strict interpretation of the city's consumer protection law _ which imposes fines of $1,500 per violation _ as well as damages for inconvenience, mental anguish and attorney's fees for representing himself.
But District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store.
"A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands," the judge wrote.
Bartnoff wrote that Pearson, an administrative law judge, also failed to prove that the pants the dry cleaner tried to return were not the pants he took in.
Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay clerical court costs of about $1,000 to defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung. A motion to recover the Chungs' tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be considered later.
"Judge Bartnoff has spoken loudly in suggesting that, while consumers should be protected, abusive lawsuits like this will not be tolerated," the Chungs' attorney, Chris Manning, said in a statement. "Judge Bartnoff has chosen common sense and reasonableness over irrationality and unbridled venom."
Speaking to reporters outside their dry cleaners, the Chungs said they held no hard feelings toward Pearson. "If he wants to continue using our services, then, yes, he is welcome," Soo Chung, a Korean immigrant, said through a translator.
Pearson, who came to court during the two-day trial earlier this month carrying the jacket he said went with the missing pants, did not respond to a call and an e-mail seeking comment.
The case began in 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alterations to Custom Cleaners in Washington. A pair of pants from one suit was missing when he requested it two days later.
Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than $1,000.
But a week later, the Chungs said the pants had been found and refused to pay. Pearson said those were not his pants and decided to sue.
Over the course of the litigation, the Chungs said they made three settlement offers _ $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000 _ all rejected.
The case garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform.
"This case was giving American justice a black eye around the world, and it was all the more upsetting because it was a judge and lawyer who was bringing the suit," said Paul Rothstein, a Georgetown University law professor.
Rothstein said Monday's ruling "restores one's confidence in the legal system."
Calls have come from around the world for Pearson to lose his position on the bench and be disbarred. The city's chief administrative law judge is still considering Pearson's 10-year reappointment.
+++
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Roy L. PEARSON, Jr., Appellant, v. Soo CHUNG, et al., Appellees.
No. 07-CV-872.
Decided: December 18, 2008
Appellant, Roy Pearson, who is an attorney, sued the Chungs, the owners of a dry cleaner called Custom Cleaners, alleging common law fraud and violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”). His lawsuit was based upon signs that the Chungs displayed in their store stating “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and “Same Day Service.” At the conclusion of a bench trial, Judge Judith Bartnoff, in a well-reasoned opinion, found for the Chungs on all claims. Pearson argues that the trial court misapplied the law and erred in denying his motion for a jury trial. We affirm the trial court's decision.
More Background On CustomCleanersDefenseFund.com
CustomCleanersDefenseFund.com emerged in 2007 as a grassroots online movement that rallied nationwide sympathy for two Korean-American dry cleaners, Jin Nam and Soo Chung, who became the targets of one of the most notorious and absurd lawsuits in U.S. history. What began as a local customer dispute over a missing pair of pants spiraled into an international media spectacle and a flashpoint for conversations about tort reform, small business vulnerability, and judicial ethics.
The website—created to gather support and raise funds for the Chungs’ defense—served not only as a fundraising hub but also as a symbolic digital battleground where ordinary citizens and legal experts alike united against a clear abuse of the legal system. This online defense fund turned a small Washington, D.C. dry-cleaning shop into a cause célèbre, showing how digital activism can challenge institutional injustice and amplify the voices of small business owners against the powerful.
Ownership and Purpose of the Website
CustomCleanersDefenseFund.com was established and maintained by supporters of Jin Nam and Soo Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners, a family-run dry-cleaning business located in northeast Washington, D.C. The website’s central goal was to help offset the enormous legal costs the couple faced after being sued by Roy L. Pearson Jr., a District of Columbia administrative law judge, who claimed that the Chungs had lost his pair of gray pants and subsequently sought damages totaling $67 million, later reduced to $54 million.
The defense fund site was transparent in its administration. Donations collected through PayPal were managed by a certified public accounting firm in Washington, D.C., ensuring financial accountability. The site invited visitors to contribute to the Chungs’ legal expenses and to send messages of moral support. It also published updates on the trial, court rulings, and public reactions, keeping readers informed in real-time as the story developed.
The Lawsuit That Sparked Outrage
The core dispute began in May 2005, when Pearson brought several suits for alteration to Custom Cleaners. When one pair of pants allegedly went missing, Pearson claimed the Chungs offered him a different pair, though evidence later showed the pants had the same tag number, belt loop pattern, and measurements as the original. The Chungs insisted they had returned his own trousers.
Despite repeated settlement offers from the Chungs—first $3,000, then $4,600, and finally $12,000—Pearson refused to drop his case. Representing himself, he filed suit in D.C. Superior Court, arguing that the signs displayed in the shop—“Satisfaction Guaranteed,” “Same Day Service,” and “All Work Done on Premises”—constituted fraud under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA).
Pearson’s claim was an extraordinary interpretation of consumer protection law. By multiplying $1,500 statutory damages by alleged “violations per day per defendant,” he arrived at a total exceeding $54 million. His filings also demanded compensation for “mental anguish,” “inconvenience,” and even the “cost of renting a car every weekend for ten years” so that he could visit another dry cleaner outside his neighborhood.
Trial and Judicial Outcome
The trial, presided over by Judge Judith Bartnoff, began on June 11, 2007 and immediately drew massive media attention. Reporters from the Associated Press, Washington Post, and networks from across the world covered what was quickly dubbed the “$54 Million Pants Lawsuit.”
On June 25, 2007, Judge Bartnoff delivered her decision: a complete defense verdict for the Chungs. In her 23-page ruling, Bartnoff rejected Pearson’s claims, famously writing that “A reasonable consumer would not interpret ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’ to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer’s unreasonable demands.” She ordered Pearson to pay the Chungs approximately $1,000 in court costs, though the couple’s attorney fees and emotional distress far exceeded that amount.
Following the ruling, Pearson appealed the case to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel unanimously upheld the lower court’s decision in December 2008. The appellate opinion reinforced Bartnoff’s finding that Pearson had failed to establish fraud or CPPA violations and that his interpretation of “Satisfaction Guaranteed” was “objectively unreasonable.”
Media Coverage and Public Reaction
The case became a lightning rod for criticism of frivolous litigation. Editorial boards, columnists, and talk shows lambasted Pearson for what they viewed as a personal vendetta gone awry. The Washington Post, Associated Press, CNN, and NBC News all covered the story, often framing it as emblematic of a broader legal problem: the weaponization of consumer protection laws against small businesses.
Legal commentators, including Paul Rothstein, a Georgetown University law professor, noted that Bartnoff’s ruling “restores one’s confidence in the legal system.” The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) even offered to buy Pearson a new suit, emphasizing how his claim had damaged the credibility of legitimate consumer complaints.
The website CustomCleanersDefenseFund.com became a focal point for public engagement. Visitors left hundreds of comments expressing solidarity with the Chungs, often describing similar experiences as small business owners. Letters of support poured in from across the U.S. and abroad—from dry cleaners, small retailers, and even attorneys who recognized the danger of allowing such a precedent to stand.
The fund also received endorsements from community organizations, advocacy groups, and private citizens, many of whom viewed the Chungs’ ordeal as symbolic of a broken legal system.
Human and Cultural Dimensions
Beyond the courtroom drama, the story struck a cultural chord. Jin Nam and Soo Chung, who immigrated from South Korea in 1992, represented the archetypal American Dream—hardworking immigrants who built a modest business from the ground up through perseverance and dedication. Their dry-cleaning shop in D.C.’s Fort Lincoln neighborhood was a small, family-run operation that served the community for years with personal care and reliability.
To many observers, Pearson’s lawsuit felt like a betrayal of that dream. The image of an administrative law judge wielding his legal authority to harass immigrant small business owners resonated deeply with both immigrant communities and advocates for small enterprises nationwide.
The racial and social subtext of the case—an African American judge suing a Korean-American family—added a further layer of complexity to the public conversation. While few commentators framed the dispute explicitly in racial terms, some supporters of the Chungs argued that cultural misunderstandings and linguistic barriers may have contributed to the conflict’s escalation.
The Website’s Role in Digital Advocacy
At a time when crowdfunding platforms like GoFundMe did not yet exist, CustomCleanersDefenseFund.com was an early example of online grassroots legal defense organizing. The site allowed individuals to directly support the Chungs through digital payment systems and created a forum where ordinary citizens could take part in a national conversation about justice and fairness.
The design of the website was simple but effective. It featured personal messages from the Chungs thanking supporters, legal updates from their attorneys at Manning & Sossamon, and clear donation instructions. The tone was heartfelt and transparent—communicating both the family’s gratitude and their distress.
By archiving news reports, trial summaries, and letters of support, the site also became an informational archive documenting how public sentiment shifted during the case. Even after the trial concluded, archived versions of the website have been preserved by digital historians as an important record of early online civic mobilization.
Broader Impact and Legal Significance
The Pearson v. Chung case, though legally straightforward, became a cultural phenomenon that influenced discussions around tort reform and judicial accountability. Lawmakers and advocacy groups cited the lawsuit as a key example in campaigns to curb frivolous lawsuits and protect small businesses from predatory litigation.
In Washington, D.C., the case also sparked questions about Pearson’s fitness to serve as a judge. Ultimately, his reappointment to the administrative law bench was denied. The public backlash, coupled with the appellate court’s firm rejection of his claims, effectively ended Pearson’s judicial career.
From a legal perspective, the ruling reaffirmed the principle that consumer protection laws must be interpreted through the lens of reasonableness, ensuring that claims of deception must meet an objective standard rather than reflect an individual’s subjective dissatisfaction.
Public Testimonials and Community Support
The website featured numerous testimonials from longtime customers who vouched for the Chungs’ integrity. One letter from Jerome and Mary Fuller, regular clients, described them as “honorable people who became victims of an unethical judge,” recalling how the Chungs once spent hours trying to clean a damaged shipment of Batman sweatshirts for free. Such personal anecdotes underscored the couple’s reputation for fairness and compassion within their community.
These testimonials humanized the story, transforming the Chungs from anonymous defendants into relatable figures representing thousands of small business owners across America. For supporters, contributing to the fund was more than charity—it was a stand for decency and justice.
Legacy and Continued Relevance
Though the defense fund website is no longer active, its archived pages continue to circulate online, reminding new generations of internet users about the case’s enduring lessons. The saga of Custom Cleaners has been discussed in law school curricula, media ethics courses, and even screenwriting workshops, as an example of how real-life absurdity can rival fiction.
The story’s moral resonance endures because it transcends law—it’s about empathy, proportionality, and the fragility of trust between customer and merchant. It also highlights the importance of digital solidarity, demonstrating how public awareness and online mobilization can check abuses of power and defend the vulnerable.
In retrospect, CustomCleanersDefenseFund.com was ahead of its time. It prefigured the social media-driven activism of the 2010s and 2020s, using the web not merely as a source of information but as a tool for collective action and moral persuasion.
The rise and fall of CustomCleanersDefenseFund.com encapsulates a rare moment when a small local business, backed by public empathy and online community power, triumphed against institutional arrogance. It remains a case study in how digital advocacy, grassroots justice, and common sense can prevail even in the face of absurdity.
Today, the Chungs’ story stands as a reminder that behind every viral headline lies the lived experience of ordinary people—immigrants, parents, and small business owners—whose courage, humility, and perseverance illuminate the values that bind communities together.