Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/09/2021 at 23:03:34 (UTC).

CREDIT CARD SERVICES INC VS JOE TEH CHUANG ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/28/2012 CREDIT CARD SERVICES INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JOE TEH CHUANG. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JOSEPH R. KALIN, GREGORY KEOSIAN, SUSAN BRYANT-DEASON and JOHN L. SEGAL. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7454

  • Filing Date:

    06/28/2012

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JOSEPH R. KALIN

GREGORY KEOSIAN

SUSAN BRYANT-DEASON

JOHN L. SEGAL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners, Respondents and Appellants

BANKCARD SERVICES

CREDIT CARD SERVICES INC.

BYUN SEUNG IL

CHUANG JOE TEH

MAN J WORLD

SU ZHI XIAN

US MERCHANT SOLUTIONS

UNITED MERCHANT SERVICES INC.

BYUN SAM

SU ANDREI

UNITED MERCHANT SERVICES INC. DOE 5

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

SUHYUN HYUN HONG - DOE 4

ONE MERCHANT SOLUTIONS LLC - DOE 2

DAVID CHANG - DOE 3

Defendants, Respondents and Appellants

BYUN SAM

BYUN SEUNG IL

CHUANG JOE TEH

MAN J WORLD

SU ANDREI

SU ZHI XIAN

US MERCHANT SOLUTIONS

UNITED MERCHANT SERVICES INC. DOE 5

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

SUHYUN HYUN HONG - DOE 4

ONE MERCHANT SOLUTIONS LLC - DOE 2

DAVID CHANG - DOE 3

UNITED MERCHANT SERVICES INC.

GENGA & ASSOCIATES P.C.

18 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LIM YOUNG S. ESQ.

SCHLOSS CRAIG A.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

USMS INTERNATIONAL INC. DOE 1

GENGA JOHN M. ESQ.

GENGA JOHN MICHAEL ESQ.

RYU FRANCIS S. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF STIPULATION TO LIABILITY BY DEFENDANTS CHUANG, BYUN, SU, MAN J WORLD AND USMS LNTERNATIONAL

8/16/2018: NOTICE OF STIPULATION TO LIABILITY BY DEFENDANTS CHUANG, BYUN, SU, MAN J WORLD AND USMS LNTERNATIONAL

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION

4/17/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION

Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

2/24/2020: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal (Unlimited Civil)

6/9/2020: Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal (Unlimited Civil)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO TAX COSTS)

6/25/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO TAX COSTS)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT

7/17/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT

Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING RULING RE DEFENDANT UNITED MERCHANT SERVICES, INC.'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT

8/17/2020: Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING RULING RE DEFENDANT UNITED MERCHANT SERVICES, INC.'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT

Appeal - Notice of Non-Compliance - APPEAL - NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE NOA: 06/25/20 B306223

9/3/2020: Appeal - Notice of Non-Compliance - APPEAL - NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE NOA: 06/25/20 B306223

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

10/10/2012: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANTS JOE TEH CHUANG, SEUNG IL BYUN, AND MAN J. WORLD

11/8/2012: DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANTS JOE TEH CHUANG, SEUNG IL BYUN, AND MAN J. WORLD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE

3/7/2013: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE

PLAINTIFF CREDIT CARD SERVICES, INC.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; ETC

3/19/2015: PLAINTIFF CREDIT CARD SERVICES, INC.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; ETC

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE AND OPPOSE AMENDMENT TO ADD "DOE" DEFENDANT

3/23/2016: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE AND OPPOSE AMENDMENT TO ADD "DOE" DEFENDANT

DECLARATION OF S. YOUNG LIM

5/12/2016: DECLARATION OF S. YOUNG LIM

AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE RE: SERVICE OF 1) PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND 2) DECLARATION OF S. YOUNG LIM

7/27/2016: AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE RE: SERVICE OF 1) PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND 2) DECLARATION OF S. YOUNG LIM

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

9/22/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

Minute Order -

10/24/2016: Minute Order -

PLAINTIFF CREDIT CARD SERVICE, INC.'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2/6/2017: PLAINTIFF CREDIT CARD SERVICE, INC.'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

286 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/31/2020
  • DocketAppeal Document; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2020
  • DocketAppellate Order Reinstating Appeal (NOA: 10/07/20-R B308266); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2020
  • DocketAppellate Order Reinstating Appeal (NOA: 09/15/20-U B308266); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2020
  • DocketAppellate Order Dismissing Appeal (NOA: 10/07/20-R B308266); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2020
  • DocketAppellate Order Dismissing Appeal (NOA: 09/15/20-U B308266); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103 ("X"); Filed by Credit Card Services, Inc. (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Non-Compliance (NOA:9/15/20-U B308266); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103 ("U"); Filed by United Merchant Services, Inc. (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Default Issued ("R"); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Non-Compliance (NOA: 06/25/20-X B306223); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
563 More Docket Entries
  • 09/11/2012
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2012-09-11 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2012
  • DocketNOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE AND ORDER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2012
  • DocketNotice of Status Conference filed; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2012
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Credit Card Services, Inc. (Plaintiff); Bankcard Services (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2012
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2012
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2012
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2012
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2012
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Credit Card Services, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2012
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC487454    Hearing Date: August 03, 2020    Dept: 61

Defendant United Merchant Services, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict is DENIED.

  1. MOTION FOR JNOV

“The court, before the expiration of its power to rule on a motion for a new trial, either of its own motion, after five days' notice, or on motion of a party against whom a verdict has been rendered, shall render judgment in favor of the aggrieved party notwithstanding the verdict whenever a motion for a directed verdict for the aggrieved party should have been granted had a previous motion been made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 629, subd. (a).)

The trial judge's power to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is identical to his power to grant a directed verdict. The trial judge cannot weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. If the evidence is conflicting or if several reasonable inferences may be drawn, the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be denied. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict of a jury may properly be granted only if it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict. If there is any substantial evidence, or reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in support of the verdict, the motion should be denied.” (Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110, internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)

UMS argues that it cannot be liable for misappropriation of trade secrets because the statute of limitations for any such claim had run before the case against it was filed. (Motion at pp. 5–6.)

“An action for misappropriation must be brought within three years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered. For the purposes of this section, a continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim.” (Civ. Code § 3426.6.) Although this statute provides for delayed accrual for delayed discovery, it has been held that delayed discovery of the identity of the defendant does not toll the limitations period. (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 399.)

UMS argues that BCS had discovered its claim more than three years before bringing it against UMS, because BCS brought the present suit against the other defendants on June, 28, 2012, the statute of limitations had run by the time UMS was added to the FAC in August 2016. (Motion at p. 7.) Moreover, UMS argues that BCS actually knew of UMS’s role in the misconduct by 2011, since Patrick Hong and Yeoung Ho Lee stated on the stand that they knew UMS was providing credit card processing services marketed by Defendants in 2011. (Motion at p. 7.)

BCS argues that its claims against UMS are timely because UMS’s tortious involvement in the case was not discovered until shortly before the amendment including it was filed. BCS relies on trial testimony by Hong to the effect that, early in the litigation, Defendants produced an agreement between UMS and USMS, identifying the latter as a registered Independent Sales Organization (ISO), meaning that UMS and USMS operated independently of each other and did not share liability. (Opposition at p. 3.) BCS claims to have suspected UMS’s responsibility for the alleged misconduct when it learned in late 2015 that USMS, the alleged ISO, and third-party One Merchant Solutions (OMS) had merged earlier that year. (Opposition at p. 3.) It was during its investigation of this merger that BCS learned that the president of OMS, the company that merged with USMS, had the same president as UMS. (Opposition at pp. 3–4.)

“An action for misappropriation must be brought within three years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.” (Civ. Code § 3426.6.) “A plaintiff has reason to discover a cause of action when he or she ‘has reason at least to suspect a factual basis for its elements.’ [Citations.] Under the discovery rule, suspicion of one or more of the elements of a cause of action, coupled with knowledge of any remaining elements, will generally trigger the statute of limitations period.” (Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 575, 586.) “Since the identity of the defendant is not an element of a cause of action, the failure to discover the identity of the defendant does not postpone accrual of the cause of action.” (Id. at p. 587.)

The court agrees with BCS that sufficient evidence was produced at trial to support its delayed discovery of its cause of action against UMS, and thus no judgment notwithstanding the verdict is proper. The testimony of Hong and Lee provides sufficient basis for the trier of fact to conclude that BCS lacked reason to discover its cause of action against UMS until much later in the litigation. Both parties concede that UMS’s liability in this action, as determined by the jury resulted from its ratification of the misappropriation of trade secrets. (Motion at p. 2; Opposition at p. 7.) “[S]ince ratification contemplates an act by one person in behalf of another, there must exist at the time the unauthorized act was done a relationship, either actual or assumed, or principal and agent, between the person alleged to have ratified and the person by whom the unauthorized act was done.” (Anderson v. Fay Imp. Co. (1955) 134 Cal.App.2d 738, 748.) The trial testimony provided the trier of fact with substantial evidence that BCS lacked notice of such a relationship between UMS and other defendants.

UMS in reply argues that the limitations period for a trade-secret misappropriation claim begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or has reason to suspect that a third party acquired or used its trade secrets knowing or with reason to know that it was using plaintiff’s trade secrets. (Reply at pp. 4–5, citing Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 575, 588.) But once more, this court cannot conclude the provision of credit card processing services marketed by other defendants was sufficient to put BCS on notice that UMS was knowingly or negligently using BCS’s trade secrets.

Accordingly, the Motion for JNOV is DENIED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BANKCARD SERVICES is a litigant

Latest cases where United Merchant Services, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where Credit Card Services, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where Genga & Associates, P.C. is a litigant