Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/08/2019 at 21:21:29 (UTC).

CHUN IL CHO ET AL VS HUN SUNG PARK ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/18/2015 CHUN IL CHO filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against HUN SUNG PARK. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MICHELLE R. ROSENBLATT and TERESA SANCHEZ-GORDON. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2128

  • Filing Date:

    05/18/2015

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MICHELLE R. ROSENBLATT

TERESA SANCHEZ-GORDON

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

CHO CHUN IL

KIM SANG DEOK

KOREAN AMERICAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

KWON DAVID

Defendants and Respondents

AHN IN HWA

JUNG JONG YOON

KIM CHANG SIK

KIM CHUN KYUNG

KIM KELLY

KIM KYOUNG AE

KIM NAHM EUL

LEE OON YOUNG

LEE SAMUEL

LEE SANG CHAE

LEE SEUNG WOOK

OH YOUNG CHONG

PARK HUN SUNG

YI KYU BO

YI PHILLIP

Not Classified By Court

TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION

6 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

AHN ROBERT LEE

ROBERT LEE AHN LAW OFFICES OF

KRING & CHUNG LLP

KIM PETER A. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

MCKAY DE LORMIER & ACAIN

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL

5/8/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL

Minute Order

9/22/2015: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING ON DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; ETC

12/29/2015: NOTICE OF RULING ON DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; ETC

DECLARATION OF PAUL A. DE LORIMIER RE: MEET AND CONFER ETC.

3/10/2016: DECLARATION OF PAUL A. DE LORIMIER RE: MEET AND CONFER ETC.

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

3/11/2016: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

6/7/2016: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

9/22/2016: OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

ORDER RE: EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MICHAEL SCHULZE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

10/17/2016: ORDER RE: EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MICHAEL SCHULZE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Minute Order

10/17/2016: Minute Order

Minute Order

10/27/2016: Minute Order

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF SANG DEOK KIM

11/21/2016: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF SANG DEOK KIM

Minute Order

2/23/2017: Minute Order

PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF LODGING DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS

3/3/2017: PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF LODGING DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS

PLAINTIFF'S STIRREPLY BRIEF TO DEFENDANT'S REPLY AND OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS? SUPPLEMENTAL TRIAL BRIEF AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CODE CIV. PROC. 473]

3/6/2017: PLAINTIFF'S STIRREPLY BRIEF TO DEFENDANT'S REPLY AND OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS? SUPPLEMENTAL TRIAL BRIEF AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CODE CIV. PROC. 473]

Minute Order

3/13/2017: Minute Order

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF LODGING REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

3/30/2017: DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF LODGING REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

DECLARATION OF PAUL A. DE LORIMIER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ENTITLEMENT TO AND AWARD FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES

9/1/2017: DECLARATION OF PAUL A. DE LORIMIER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ENTITLEMENT TO AND AWARD FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER FOR AWARD OF COSTS

10/17/2017: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER FOR AWARD OF COSTS

147 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/30/2018
  • Appeal Record Delivered; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2018
  • Appeal - Notice Court Reporter to Correct/Augment Transcript (AMENDED; RE AUG OF 8/16/18); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2018
  • Ntc to Reptr/Mon to Prep Transcrpt; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2018
  • NOTICE TO REPORTER TO PREPARE TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2018
  • NOTICE OF DEFAULT (UNLIMITED CIVIL APPEALS)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2018
  • NOTICE DESIGNATING TRIAL EXHIBITS FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE APPELLATE COURT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2018
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Korean American Presbyterian Church (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2018
  • NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF KOREAN AMERICAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Denied) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-07-11 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
331 More Docket Entries
  • 06/26/2015
  • DEFENDANTS HUN SUNG PARK, NAUM EUL MM, SAMUEL LEE AKA SANG CHAE LEE, PHILIP K. YL AKA KYU BO YI, CHANG SIX KIM, CHUN KYUNG KIM, OON YOUNG LEE, JONG YOON JUNG, YOUNG CHONG OH, SEUNG WOOK LEE, KELLY KIM AKA KYOUNG AE KIM, SO YUN AHN AND IN HWA AHN'S NOTICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2015
  • NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2015
  • Demurrer; Filed by In Hwa Ahn (Defendant); Jong Yoon Jung (Defendant); Chang Sik Kim (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2015
  • Motion to Strike; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2015
  • DEFENDANTS HUN SUNG PARK NAHM EUL KIM, SAMUEL LEE AKA SANG CHAE LEE, PHILIP K. YI AKA KYU BO YI, CHANG SIK KIM, CHUN KYUNG KIM, OON YOUNG LEE, JONG YOON JUNG, YOUNG CHONG OH, SEUNG WOOK LEE, KELLY KIM AKA KYOUNG AE KIM, SO YUN AHN AND IN HWA AHNS DEMURRER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Robert Lee Ahn, Law Offices of (Attorney); Chun Il Cho (Plaintiff); Sang Deok(DISM) Kim (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. DECLARATORY RELIEF; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Chun Il Cho (Plaintiff); Sang Deok(DISM) Kim (Plaintiff); Korean American Presbyterian Church (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC582128    Hearing Date: March 11, 2021    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Hun Sung Park

OPPOSITION: Plaintiff Korean American Presbyterian Church

The gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint is that defendants seized control of International Reformed University and Seminary (“IRUS”) away from Plaintiff Korean American Presbyterian Church (“KAPC”). Defendant Hun Sung Park (“Park”) is one of the current/former directors of IRUS.

On October 9, 2020, KAPC filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) against Park alleging causes of action for: Enforcement of Constructive Trust, Accounting, Declaratory Relief, and Fraud.

On November 13, 2019, the Court of Appeal reversed this Court’s judgment because the Court did not grant Plaintiff KAPC leave to amend its complaint to state a breach of trust cause of action under Corporations Code §9142. Otherwise, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal by way of summary judgment, of KAPC’s remaining trademark-based claims, on ground that the 2014 settlement agreement, barred the claims.

Judicial Notice

The Court, of course, takes judicial notice of the pleadings per Evidence Code section 452(d), official court records.

The Question

After KAPC’s amendment as ordered by the Court of Appeal, Park asks again, whether the broad language of KAPC’s settlement agreement makes clear that all KAPC’s claims in the TAC, now, under Corporations Code §9142, have been released?

Analysis

Settlement Agreement: Park argues that KAPC’s claims are barred by a 2014 Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) between the parties. The Agreement in relevant part states:

“Settling Parties, on behalf of themselves, their executors, successors or predecessors in interest, and assigns hereby covenant not to sue and fully and generally release each other, and each of their agents, attorneys, employees, executors, directors, officers, managers, representatives, successors, assigns, partners, corporations, corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliated companies, and divisions from all claims, demands, causes of action, obligations, demands and liabilities, whether or not now known, suspected or claims, arising out of or based up on the facts and circumstances giving rise to the Action, and any and all transactions or interactions between the Parties prior to the date of this Agreement.”

(May 1, Def.’s RJN, Ex. 2A, § 4.)

The Agreement contains an exemption (the “Whang exemption”) which states:

“This Settlement Agreement shall not be construed as releasing any claims or otherwise affecting the matter of [Whang/BC518771] and “cannot be used for any purposes in any matters or cases relating to said claims.”

(Id. at § 3(I); underscore added.)

The Exemption: Previously the Court sustained Park’s demurrer on the ground that: “[t]his action cannot affect the Whang litigation because the latter has been dismissed. The only way the Whang exemption is in effect is if one interprets this action as still ‘relating’ to the dismissed claims in Whang.” (Def.’s RJN, Ex. 1, p. 2.) On June 29, 2017, the Court issued its judgment which KAPC appealed, and the Court of Appeal remanded in November 2019. In January 2018, the parties in Whang entered into a stipulation by which resolved that matter. (Id. at Ex. 3.)

The common definition of “affect” is to “produce an effect upon.” KAPC relies on the “relating to said claims” language in the last sentence of the exemption and argues that “[t]his instant case, with its causes of actions being directly related to [Park] illegitimately taking control of IRUS, relates to these said claims.” (TAC, ¶ 66.) In this matter, the “said claims” language refers to the “claims or otherwise affecting [Whang].” Therefore, the last sentence of the exemption should be interpreted as reading as follows: the settlement agreement “cannot be used for any purposes in any matters or cases relating to [claims or otherwise affecting Whang.]” KAPC’s present claims cannot have a direct effect upon Whang as that matter has concluded. KAPC’s present claims also cannot relate to claims affecting Whang.

Conclusion and Answer?

YES

Defendant Hun Sung Park’s Demurrer is , respectfully, SUSTAINED.

Case Number: BC582128    Hearing Date: September 10, 2020    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Hun Sung Park

OPPOSITION: Plaintiff Korean American Presbyterian Church

The gravamen of plaintiffs’ complaint is that defendants seized control of International Reformed University and Seminary (“IRUS”) away from Plaintiff Korean American Presbyterian Church (“Plaintiff” or “KAPC”) while improperly using the KAPC name and trademark to hold themselves out as KAPC. Defendant Hun Sung Park (“Defendant”) is one of the current/former directors of IRUS.

On March 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendant alleging causes of action for:

  1. Enforcement of Constructive Trust;

  2. Accounting;

  3. Declaratory Relief;

  4. Fraud.

On November 13, 2019, the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the court’s judgment: allowing KAPC to amend its complaint, but affirmed dismissal of KAPC’s trademark claims on the ground that the settlement agreement barred the claims.

Judicial Notice: The Court takes judicial notice of the pleadings from the following cases which also involved KAPC, IRUS, and their former and current directors.

BC582128: Opinion of the Court of Appeal; 2016 Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment

BC540136: Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release

BC518771: Various Requests for Dismissal

Analysis:

Settlement Agreement: Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims are not sufficiently alleged because they are barred by a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) between the parties. The Agreement in relevant part states:

“Settling Parties, on behalf of themselves, their executors, successors or predecessors in interest, and assigns hereby covenant not to sue and fully and generally release each other, and each of their agents, attorneys, employees, executors, directors, officers, managers, representatives, successors, assigns, partners, corporations, corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliated companies, and divisions from all claims, demands, causes of action, obligations, demands and liabilities, whether or not now known, suspected or claims, arising out of or based up on the facts and circumstances giving rise to the Action, and any and all transactions or interactions between the Parties prior to the date of this Agreement.”

The Agreement contains an exemption (the “Whang exemption”) which states:

“This Settlement Agreement shall not be construed as releasing any claims or otherwise affecting the matter of International Reformed University and Seminary v. John Eun Whang, et. al., bearing case number BC518771 and/or any settling parties’ claims with regard to the Western California Presbytery or the Holy Hills Community Church. Thus, this agreement cannot be used for any purposes in any matters or cases relating to said claims.”

Defendant’s position is that the Whang exemption no longer exists as the Whang litigation has now been fully resolved. (Case No. BC518771.)

Plaintiff argues that the Whang exemption still applies and cites to this Court’s 2016 Summary Judgment ruling, which in relevant part states:

“On January 20, 2016, the Court sustained without leave IRUS's demurrer to Whang, et al.'s cross-complaint leaving only a cause of action for declaratory relief. Thus, the operative cross-complaint involves only a claim that Whang, et al. are legitimate IRUS officers and board members.

Here, the gist of Plaintiffs' claims is that Defendants wrested control of IRUS from them and improperly switched IRUS's affiliation away from KAPC. By way of declaratory relief, KAPC requests an order resolving the issue of who are the legitimate IRUS board members. This claim is substantively identical to the declaratory relief claim in Whang.

This similarity is sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact over whether the instant

claims affect or relate to those operating in Whang.

Therefore, the court cannot summarily adjudicate the second issue in Defendants favor.”

Alternatively, Plaintiff argues that the Agreement is extrinsic evidence which should not be considered and that they have sufficiently alleged their causes of action.

The Court finds that although the Agreement is the “law of the case”, at the demurrer stage of the proceedings it is unclear from the plain language of the exemption what effect the dismissal of the Whang litigation has on the instant action.

Although the Court of Appeal found that Defendant, as one of the Park defendants, was covered by the Agreement and that Plaintiff’s trademark claims were barred, it did not decide or discuss the effect of the dismissal of the Whang litigation.

Therefore, the impact of the dismissal on the exemption is open to interpretation.

Here, Defendant is persuasive: This action cannot affect the Whang litigation because the latter has been dismissed. The only way the Whang exemption is in effect is if one interprets this action as still “relating” to the dismissed claims in Whang.

Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED, with LEAVE to attempt to amend.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where KOREAN AMERICAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH is a litigant

Latest cases where TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION is a litigant