district of columbia superior court civil division...

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION

ROY L. PEARSON, JR. ) ) Civil No. 4302-05 Plaintiff ) ) Judge Judith Bartnoff v. ) Next Event: None

) ) SOO CHUNG, et al. ) ____________________________________)

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Defendants by and through their undersigned attorney, Christopher C. S.

Manning, hereby move this Court, pursuant to Supr. Ct. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and pursuant to

the Court’s June 25, 2007 Judgment in this matter, for an Order compelling Plaintiff to

pay Defendants’ attorneys’ fees expended in defending this lawsuit.

Simply put, there could be no more perfect of an example of bad faith than that

which Plaintiff has demonstrated throughout this litigation.

Since the filing of his frivolous Original Complaint, Plaintiff has consistently

sought to harass and intimidate Defendants and unnecessarily drive up Defendants’

litigation costs in what should have been a very simple small claims court matter. From

his outrageous demands for compensation (initially over $50,000 to then over $100,000

to then over $67,000,000 to finally over $54,000,000) to his amazingly voluminous

discovery and motions practice to his unconscionable continual disregard for the Court’s

Orders, Plaintiff’s motives have been clear – quite simply, to harass Defendants and to

attempt to utterly destroy their lives.1

1 Plaintiff will attempt to characterize his motive as championing the interests of all consumers against the corporate behemoth. However, as the Court saw at trial, this was clearly not Plaintiff’s motive—especially when this lawsuit was initially filed. Plaintiff’s bizarre legal theories and baffling damages demands were,

Plaintiff, an administrative law judge and attorney, should have known better.

Simply put, Defendants ask the Court to compensate the parties who have truly

suffered throughout this bizarre odyssey – the Chungs. Although the Court’s complete

defense verdict vindicates the Chungs legally, it certainly does not erase the emotional

and financial toll this litigation has taken on them.

Accordingly, Defendants request that the Court order Plaintiff to pay Defendants’

attorneys’ fees expended in this litigation as follows:

• Attorneys’ Fees $82,907.50

In support of their Motion, Defendants file a Memorandum of Points &

Authorities herewith.

Respectfully submitted,

____/s/ Christopher Manning__________ Christopher C. S. Manning Manning & Sossamon PLLC 1532 Sixteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 387-2228 (202) 387-2229 (fax) [email protected]

at all times, completely meritless and devised with the motives of creating misery for Defendants and bilking them for enormous amounts of money. Also, importantly, only Plaintiff (and not any of the people he supposedly sought to protect) would have received any compensation had he prevailed at trial.

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I, Christopher Manning, certify that on July 5, 2007 I served a copy of this Motion and supporting documents on Roy L. Pearson via email through appropriate CaseFileXpress procedures to Roy L. Pearson at [email protected].

____/s/ Christopher Manning__________ Christopher Manning

RULE 12-I CERTIFICATION

Defendants’ counsel certifies that he sought Plaintiff’s consent to this Motion pursuant to Rule 12-I but was not granted such consent.





) ) SOO CHUNG, et al. ) ____________________________________)

ORDER Upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and any

Opposition thereto, it is this _______ day of ______, 2007

ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion is hereby GRANTED and Plaintiff

shall pay Defendants the following amount:


______________________________ Judge Judith Bartnoff Cc: Roy L. Pearson 3012 Pineview Court, NE Washington, DC 20018 Christopher C. S. Manning 1532 Sixteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20036



) ) SOO CHUNG, et al. ) ____________________________________)

DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

In support of their Motion, Defendants state as follows:

BACKGROUND

Since its inception over two years ago, this lawsuit has been frivolous, vexatious,

harassing and ultimately pursued in bad faith.

The Plaintiff is a learned lawyer, and, no less, an administrative law judge for the

District of Columbia. Instead of honoring our judicial system, the Plaintiff decided to use

his intimate knowledge (and unreasonable interpretations) of District of Columbia laws to

harass and exploit hard working South Korean immigrants who work in excess of seventy

hours per week to live the American dream.

From Plaintiff’s incredibly burdensome discovery approach (which included

literally hundreds of discovery requests propounded on Defendants) to Plaintiff’s

excessively aggressive Motions practice to Plaintiff’s continual disregard for the Orders

of this Court, Plaintiff attempted to turn a case most appropriately brought in small

claims court into a multi-million dollar nightmare.

BAD FAITH CONDUCT AND ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES

I. Legal Authority for Award of Bad Faith Attorneys’ Fees

In the District of Columbia, the payment of bad faith attorneys’ fees may be

levied against a party for the filing of a frivolous claim or for the manner in which a

properly filed claim was subsequently litigated. Breezevale, Ltd v. Dickinson, 879 A.2d

957, 968 (D.C. 2005), citing, Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. Bernstein, 517 A.2d 28, 38-39

(D.C. 1986). In Synanon, the Court held that the conduct which would justify an award

of bad faith attorneys fees may be found either in the filing of a frivolous claim or in the

manner in which a properly filed claim is subsequently litigated. According to the

Synanon Court, the measure of the bad faith fee award differs depending on which is the

case – where a suit has been filed in bad faith, the court has discretion to award the entire

legal expenses incurred by the defendant. Conversely, in an action not in itself brought in

bad faith, an award of attorneys' fees should be limited to those expenses reasonably

incurred to meet the other party's groundless, bad faith procedural moves. Id. at 38-39.

II. Bad Faith Conduct

The record in this case demonstrates that Plaintiff unquestionably filed and

pursued this case in bad faith. Therefore, Defendants seek all attorneys’ fees expended

since the inception of this lawsuit.

The evidence at trial showed that, at the time Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, he was

bitter from previous interactions with Defendants, was recently divorced, was

experiencing serious financial difficulties, was historically excessively litigious and was

looking to take his frustrations out on someone and make a quick buck. Unfortunately

for the Chungs, they became Plaintiff’s prey.

Although the Court suggested in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that

the pants Defendants offered to Plaintiff very well could have been the same pants

Plaintiff had submitted to Defendants for alteration, the only possibly legitimate claim

Plaintiff could have filed against Defendants was one requesting the return of his

allegedly lost pants.

However, instead of filing his claim for allegedly lost pants in small claims court

where it most appropriately belonged (considering the amount at controversy was, at

most, $1,150 - $1,600), Plaintiff decided to trump us vast and unfounded claims of

unconditional guarantees of satisfaction and DC Consumer Protection Act violations

totaling originally over $50,000. $50,000 for one pair of pants.

Throughout this protracted litigation which lasted more than two years, Plaintiff

propounded excessively voluminous discovery requests and maintained an intensely

active and largely unsuccessful motions practice. Plaintiff also completely disregarded

Court Orders (most notably Judge Kravitz’s denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend or

Supplement Amended Complaint), attempted to baselessly broaden the scope of this

litigation to include claims not included in his Amended Complaint and attempted to

include damages having no grounding in reality or legal justification. In fact, Plaintiff’s

damages claims increased over the course of this litigation, bafflingly, from over $50,000

to over $100,000 to, immediately before the Pretrial Conference, over $67,000,000.

All relating to one allegedly misplaced pair of pants.

All with the unquestionable motives of intimidating, harassing and generally

making life absolutely miserable for Defendants.

An examination of this outrageous case history, which it is often hard to believe

actually occurred, leads to the undeniable conclusion that Plaintiff, an attorney and

administrative law judge, initiated and pursued this case completely in bad faith. As a

result, fairness and equity dictate that Plaintiff must bear the burden of paying

Defendants’ attorneys’ fees.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Defendants assert that the following conduct, among other things, undertaken by

Plaintiff in bad faith should compel the Court to require Plaintiff to pay Defendants’

attorneys’ fees from the inception of this action pursuant to Supr. Ct. R. Civ. P. 54(d),

Breezevale, supra and Synanon, supra:

• Plaintiff vexatiously filing a completely frivolous Complaint and Amended

Complaint relating to one, single pair of pants that was briefly misplaced but later

found and relating to signage in Defendants’ store that was clearly not misleading

to a reasonable person yet initially demanding well in excess of $50,000 in

compensation—to include compensation for “emotional suffering” relating to his

allegedly lost pants and inconvenience. Amazingly, over time, Plaintiff’s

damages requests grew to over $100,000 and then to tens of millions of dollars.

• Plaintiff’s incredibly burdensome discovery approach and overly aggressive and

largely unsuccessful motions practice which has unnecessarily cost Defendants

literally tens of thousands of dollars to defend.

• Plaintiff making a mockery of the Court’s court-ordered mediation program by

never taking it at all seriously.

• Plaintiff simply ignoring three very good-faith nuisance value Offers of

Judgment for $3,000, $4,600 and $12,000.

• Plaintiff completely ignoring the scope of his own Amended Complaint and the

mandates of Judge Kravitz’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend or

Supplement Complaint and attempting to add tens of millions of dollars of claims

to the Pretrial Statement with the sole purpose of harassing, annoying and

ultimately intimidating Defendants.

• Plaintiff signing a legally unreasonable Joint Pretrial Statement and Trial Brief

which purported to add tens of millions of dollars worth of completely baseless

claims which had no foundation in fact, in law or even in Plaintiff’s own

Amended Complaint.

• Plaintiff apparently withdrawing all claims relating to the pants in his Trial Brief

and then, on the morning of Trial, attempting to reassert those claims. This

misleading and fraudulent conduct caused Defendants’ counsel to have to shift

trial strategy and preparation literally minutes before the trial of this matter

began.

REQUESTS FOR FEES

Defendants ask the Court to require Plaintiff to pay Defendants all amounts they

have expended in attorneys’ fees related to this litigation as follows:


CERTIFICATION

I hereby verify that the foregoing, which has been prepared after a review of all

existing documents relevant to this matter, is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge, information and belief. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing

is true and correct.

____/s/ Christopher Manning__________ Christopher C. S. Manning



district of columbia superior court civil division...

Documents