Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC644010    Hearing Date: December 10, 2019    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED.

Factual Background

This is a cause of action concerning corporate governance. The Complaint alleges as follows.

In October 2008, the directors of plaintiff 3.1 Women’s Association in U.S.A. (“3.1”) voted to adopt new bylaws. (Complaint ¶ 14.) In May 2009, 3.1 held an inauguration ceremony to announce changes to the organization, such as the adoption of a new banner and include of men and children into the organization. (Id. ¶ 15.) The bylaws were amended in March 2010, and in December 2010, 3.1 held an end-of-year party an inauguration of new leadership including non-party Dr. Koo Oh. (Ibid.) All defendants are alleged to have been present at these events.

On December 27, 2010, 3.1 held a director’s meeting, during with defendants were present, and defendant Myung Hee Lee (“Lee”) complained that there were not enough directors present to conduct any business. The election was postponed for ten days under January 7, 2011. (Complaint ¶ 16.)

The Complaint alleges that on January 5, 2011, Lee invited several people to her home to “develop a plan to form a rival organization.” (Complaint ¶ 17.)

At the January 7, 2011 meeting, the 3.1 directors elected non-party Carolyn Kwon and Kyung Ja Kim as new co-Presidents. (Complaint ¶ 18.) Lee and defendant Sanghee Jun (“Jun”), however, stated that they wanted to be Presidents and stated their intention to establish their own organization using the same name. (Ibid.) On March 7 and 8, 2011, defendants sent letter purportedly from Seoul, Korea, stating that the Korean organization would only recognize defendants as official members. (Complaint ¶ 19, Ex. E.)

On March 12, 2011, 3.1 affirmed the decision to use the following official names: “3.1 Society,” “3.1 Women’s Association in USA,” and “3.1 Youth’s Society.” (Complaint ¶ 20.) On March 15, 2011, defendant Eun Sook Park (“Park”) sent an email to third parties and 3.1’s leaders from defendant’s new organization “LA 3.1 Women’s Association” (“LA 3.1”), attempting to have the recipients join LA 3.1 (Id. ¶ 21.)

In July 2011, 3.1 terminated defendants Park, Pearl Chungbin Kim, Sanghee Jun, Youn Joo Lee, and Keum Neung Yu’s membership in 3.1 in an effort to resolve the turmoil. (Complaint ¶ 25.) It also sent a cease and desist letter to Park asking her to stop using the 3.1 name. (Ibid.)

The Complaint alleges that defendants have continued to use the 3.1 name, as well as opening bank accounts under the 3.1 name, incurred obligation under the 3.1 name, filing a false statement of information with the California Secretary of State, filing false trademark applications under the 3.1 name, filing an “abandonment of use of fictitious business name” with the Korea Times of Los Angeles, filing false police reports about theft of 3.1 property, sending emails to members inviting them to join a “rival organization,” calling unauthorized meetings, and converting the funds of 3.1. (Complaint ¶ 27.)

As a result, a lawsuit entitled 3.1 Women’s Association in U.S.A. v. Park, et al. Case Number BC 476035 was filed on December 28, 2011 against Defendants, Eun Sook Park; Pearl Chungbin Kim; Sanghee Jun; Youn Joo Lee aka Elizabeth Lee; and Keum Neung Yu. (Complaint ¶ 28.) Attorney David S. Kim & Associates was counsel for the same 3.1 plaintiffs in this prior lawsuit. (Ibid.)

On February 25, 2013, some defendants and other third parties agreed to informally resolve their differences and work out a plan of resolution. (Complaint ¶ 29.) However, this plan was never carried out, and defendants published a book and articles in November 2015 defaming individual plaintiffs by stating that they were “false officers,” and that plaintiff “P. Kim”[1] had her title revoked on January 29, 2014. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs allege they did not discover that these statements were made until April of 2016. (Ibid.)

The Complaint alleges that Soon Ok Hong has conspired with the other individual defendants by falsifying records, opening bank accounts in the name of 3.1, converting assets of 3.1, and publishing defamatory articles and books. (Complaint ¶ 30.)

procedural history

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on October 5, 2015, alleging twelve causes of action:

1. FRAUD AND DECEIT

2. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

3. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

4. CONVERSION

5. UNJUST ENRICHMENT

6. DECLARATORY RELIEF

7. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

8. NUISANCE

9. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

10. INTENTIONAL INTERFEREN WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS

11. CONSPIRACY

12. LIBEL AND SLANDER

Defendants Myung Hee Lee, Sanghee Jun, Youn Joo Lee, Oh Ock Kim, Grace Song, Soon Ok Hong, Peal Chungbin Kim, Boon Ja Yoo, and Eun Sook Park filed their Demurrer on March 9, 2017, along with a proper meet and confer declaration. 3.1 and individual plaintiffs filed their Opposition on May 17, 2017. Defendants filed their Reply on May 19, 2017.

On June 21, 2017, this Court sustained Defendants’ Demurrer without leave to amend as to the eighth and ninth causes of action.

On June 28, 2017, this court denied Defendant Soon Ok Hong’s Motion to Disqualify David S. Kim & Associates as Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

On July 24, 2017, Defendants filed a Cross-Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

On April 25, 2018, Defendants/Cross-Complainants filed various Roe Amendments to the Cross-Complaint.

On September 18, 2019 and October 4, 2019, Defendants filed three Motions in Limine. Plaintiff filed Oppositions to all three on November 21, 2019.

On October 4, 2019, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Bifurcate. Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition.

Discussion

1. MOTION TO BIFURCATE

“When the answer pleads that the action is barred by the statute of limitations, or by a prior judgment, or that another action is pending upon the same cause of action, or sets up any other defense not involving the merits of the plaintiff's cause of action but constituting a bar or ground of abatement to the prosecution thereof, the court may, either upon its own motion or upon the motion of any party, proceed to the trial of the special defense or defenses before the trial of any other issue in the case, and if the decision of the court, or the verdict of the jury, upon any special defense so tried (other than the defense of another action pending) is in favor of the defendant pleading the same, judgment for the defendant shall thereupon be entered and no trial of other issues in the action shall be had unless that judgment shall be reversed on appeal or otherwise set aside or vacated[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 597.)

“It is within the discretion of the court to bifurcate issues or order separate trials of actions, such as for breach of contract and bad faith, and to determine the order in which those issues are to be decided.” (Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., Inc. v. Ranger Ins. Co. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 193, 205.) “The major objective of bifurcated trials is to expedite and simplify the presentation of evidence.” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 888.)

“The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action . . . or of any separate issue . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (b).) Additionally, “[t]he court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order . . . that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.)

Defendants, here, request bifurcation of the issue of which “which faction represents 3.1 WA as its directors and/or officers because Plaintiff contends that they are the true officers, directors, and members, while Defendants contend that they are. (Motion at pp. 4-5.) Defendants argue that if the Court determines in favor of Defendants, then there is no need for trial on the other claims. (Motion at p. 5.) Defendants further argue that the Court should adjudicate their affirmative defense of res judicata/collateral estoppel before a full trial to “avoid the waste of judicial resource as well as the parties’ money and time.” (Motion at pp. 5-6.)

The Court finds that efficiency militates against bifurcation.  Specifically, bifurcation for the purposes of both issues would require that if the jury returns a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs, the jury would be required to hear additional testimony, a second round of closing arguments, additional jury instructions, and a second round of jury deliberations.  The parties’ arguments as to bifurcation will thus be weighed against the probability of these necessary costs.

Defendants argue that a full jury trial on twelve causes of action, most witnesses requiring Korean-English interpretation services, and all exhibits and documents in Korean, will be very expensive and time consuming. (Motion at p. 5.) However, Defendants do not address the additional costs that bifurcation may cause, by potentially adding extra time. Defendants further do not argue any specific reason for bifurcation beyond the fact that it might make trial shorter. Further, Defendants have not provided sufficient evidence, beyond their own contentions, that there will be no further need for trial if the Court finds in favor of Defendants on the Declaratory Relief cause of action.

Accordingly, Motion to Bifurcate is  DENIED. 

DATED: December 10, 2019

________________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court