This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/04/2015 at 20:04:10 (UTC).

DAISY SANDOVAL VS LAW OFFICES OF MOON KIM ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/26/2011 DAISY SANDOVAL filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against LAW OFFICES OF MOON KIM. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ADR NEUTRAL and KEVIN C. BRAZILE. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0381

  • Filing Date:

    04/26/2011

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ADR NEUTRAL

KEVIN C. BRAZILE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SANDOVAL DAISY

Defendants

DOES 1 THROUGH 20

LAW OFFICES OF MOON KIM PROFESSIONAL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

PETERS JAMES J.

Defendant Attorneys

SHPALL WILLIAM ESQ.

HENRY M. LEE LAW CORPORATION

 

Court Documents

AMENDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, LAW OFFICES OF MOON KIM, PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, TO PLAINTIFF S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

6/16/2011: AMENDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, LAW OFFICES OF MOON KIM, PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, TO PLAINTIFF S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

Unknown

6/27/2011: Unknown

Unknown

6/28/2011: Unknown

NOTICE OF ASS1GNMENT OF MEDIATOR

8/2/2011: NOTICE OF ASS1GNMENT OF MEDIATOR

Proof of Service

10/20/2011: Proof of Service

DECLARATION OF JAMES .J. PETERS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

10/20/2011: DECLARATION OF JAMES .J. PETERS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER SETTING DEPOSITION PRIORITY AND SEEKING SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR CO U N SF1 L

10/20/2011: PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER SETTING DEPOSITION PRIORITY AND SEEKING SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR CO U N SF1 L

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER SETTING DEPOSITION PRIORITY, DECLARATION OF R. WILLIAM SR PALL

11/2/2011: ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER SETTING DEPOSITION PRIORITY, DECLARATION OF R. WILLIAM SR PALL

PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL?CIVIL

12/6/2011: PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL?CIVIL

STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;ORDER

6/25/2012: STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;ORDER

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANT?S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

6/27/2012: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANT?S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PLAINTIFF?S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO UVI; DANT?S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PLAINTIFF?S REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE

8/30/2012: PLAINTIFF?S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO UVI; DANT?S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PLAINTIFF?S REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE

DEFENDANT?S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11,2012; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF M

9/7/2012: DEFENDANT?S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11,2012; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF M

NOTICE OF RULING

10/3/2012: NOTICE OF RULING

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

2/19/2013: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE

5/15/2013: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE

Minute Order

8/15/2013: Minute Order

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENT

1/25/2017: ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENT

58 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/30/2013
  • Substitution of Attorney Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2013
  • Judgment Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2013
  • Notice (OF NON OPPOSITION ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2013
  • Notice (of non-opposition (filed on behalf of Law Offices of Moon Kim) ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2013
  • Declaration (J. J. PETERS ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2013
  • Points and Authorities Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2013
  • Motion Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2013
  • Notice-Settlement Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2013
  • Proof of Service Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2013
  • Substitution of Attorney (THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES ARE NOTIFIED THAT "MOON KIM" MAKES THE FOLLOWING SUBSTITUTION; ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
31 More Docket Entries
  • 08/10/2011
  • Proof of Service (PARTY SERVED: LAW OFFICES OF MOON KIM ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2011
  • Notice-Assignment-Mediator Filed by ADR Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2011
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2011
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2011
  • Amended Answer (OF DEFT LAW OFFICES OF MOON KIM, PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2011
  • Answer to Complaint (*MOON KIM* ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2011
  • Proof-Service/Summons (& Complaint; Pty svd: LAW OFFICES OF MOON KIM, PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2011
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2011
  • Notice-Case Management Conference Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2011
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC460381    Hearing Date: February 20, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT

(CCP § 187)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Judgment Assignee Andrew Larson’s Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Alter Ego Individual is CONTINUED TO APRIL 27, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25, SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

OPPOSITION: Filed on February 6, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on February 11, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background & Discussion

On April 26, 2011, Plaintiff Daisy Sandoval (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for pregnancy discrimination and wrongful termination against Law Offices of Moon Kim, Professional Corporation (“Judgment Debtor”). On April 18, 2013, the parties signed a Stipulation for Settlement (the “Settlement Stipulation”). (Oppo., Kim Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. C.) On May 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of the Entire Case. On August 14, 2013, the Court entered Judgment by Stipulation against Judgment Debtor in the amount of $160,000.00. (8/14/13 Judgment.) Notably, neither the Settlement Stipulation, Notice of Settlement, nor the Judgment include Judgment Debtor’s designation as “A Professional Corporation”; the party is simply identified as “Law Offices of Moon Kim.”

On January 23, 2017, Plaintiff assigned her Judgment to Judgment Assignee Andrew Larson (“Judgment Assignee”). (1/25/17 Acknowledgement of Assignment.)

On May 8, 2019, Judge Moreton signed an Affidavit of Identity and Order to add non-party Moon Kim (“Kim”) as an additional name of Judgment Debtor. Essentially, the Court deemed Judgment Debtor to be “Law Offices of Moon Kim aka Moon Kim” or “Moon Kim dba Law Offices of Moon Kim.” A Writ of Execution was thereafter issued to levy Kim’s personal bank accounts. On August 4, 2019, this case was reassigned to Department 94.

On July 30, 2019, Kim filed a Motion for Order to Recall the Writ of Execution, to Vacate Order on Affidavit of Identity, to Release Property, and to Award Fees and Costs. In part, Kim argued that The Law Offices of Moon Kim, a corporation, and Moon Kim, an individual, are legally different entities. On August 20, 2019, the Court found, in pertinent part, Kim should have brought a noticed motion for reconsideration and to vacate the Affidavit of Identity and Order if Kim wanted to challenge it. (8/20/19.) The Court also noted that before filing a motion, if any, regarding theories of alter ego, Kim must file a motion to reconsider and vacate Department 44’s Affidavit of Identity and Order. (Id.)

On September 11, 2019, Kim filed a Notice of Appeal of the Affidavit of Identity and Order and the August 20, 2019 Order (the “Appeal”). (9/11/19 Notice of Appeal.)

On October 29, 2019, Judgment Assignee filed the instant Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Alter Ego Individual (the “Motion”). On February 6, 2020, Judgment Assignee filed an Opposition and on February 11, 2020, Kim filed a Reply.

As Kim has filed an Appeal of the Affidavit of Identity and Order and the August 20, 2019 Order, the Court continues the hearing on this Motion pending the resolution of the Appeal. If Judge Moreton’s Orders are affirmed, then the Court may amend the judgment pursuant to the Order, and any arguments in the instant Motion regarding whether the corporate veil was pierced would be moot.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Judgment Assignee Andrew Larson’s Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Alter Ego Individual is CONTINUED TO APRIL 27, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC460381    Hearing Date: December 03, 2019    Dept: 94

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Code Civ. Proc., § 526)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Andrew Larson dba HCR Beverly Hills’s request for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED.

The hearing on Andrew Larson dba HCR Beverly Hill’s Motion to Amend Judgment is advanced to Feb. 20, 2020 at 10:30 am in Department 94.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for wrongful termination.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Issue a Preliminary Injunction enjoining non-party Moon Ki Kim (“Kim”) from spending, transferring, or wasting any of the subject funds in his Wells Fargo and Bank of America, N.A. Accounts (the “Bank Accounts”) and restraining the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department from releasing any personal property to Kim or Kim’s business, the Law Offices of Moon Kim, Professional Corporation (the “Law Offices of Moon Kim”).

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Daisy Sandoval obtained a writ of execution against the personal property of non-party Moon Kim (“Kim”) by submitting an affidavit of identity. In the affidavit of identity, Judgment Creditor claims that “Moon Kim” is an additional name of Defendant/Judgment Debtor Law Offices of Moon Kim, Professional Corporation (“Judgment Debtor”). Kim claims that he is an individual separate and apart from the corporate Judgment Debtor in this action. Kim claims that he is neither a party to this action, nor has been properly served. Judgment Assignee, Andrew Larson dba HCR Beverly Hills (“Judgment Assignee”), now applies to the Court for a Preliminary Injunction pending resolution of his Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Alter Ego Individual, Moon Ki Kim. The Preliminary Injunction sought is necessary to prevent the Sheriff from releasing property to Kim and prevent Kim from hiding the funds that are currently frozen in his Wells Fargo and Bank of America Accounts pursuant to the Court’s August 20, 2019 order.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On August 14, 2013, an unlimited jurisdiction court entered a stipulated judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 in favor of Judgment Creditor Daisy Sandoval (“Judgment Creditor”) and against Judgment Debtor Law Offices of Moon Kim. On January 25, 2017, Judgment Creditor assigned her judgment to Judgment Assignee Andrew Larson dba HCR Beverly Hills (“Judgment Assignee”). On May 8, 2019, Judge Moreton signed an Affidavit of Identity and Order to add non-party Moon Kim (“Kim”) as an additional name of Judgment Debtor. In effect, the Court has deemed Judgment Debtor to be “Law Offices of Moon Kim aka Moon Kim” or “Moon Kim dba Law Offices of Moon Kim.” Soon after, Judge Moreton issued a Writ of Execution to levy Kim’s personal bank accounts (the “Bank Accounts”). On August 1, 2019, this case was reassigned from Judge Moreton in Department 44 to Department 94 in limited jurisdiction court.

On August 20, 2019, the Court denied Kim’s Motion to Quash Writ of Execution and for Attorney’s Fees. The Court also ordered that Judgment Assignee “is not to make any further attempts to collect the subject funds, and []Kim is ordered to not spend, transfer, or waste any of the subject funds, which are of issue, until further order of the court.” (Minute Order, 8/20/19.)

On Spetember 11, 2019, Kim filed a notice of appeal as to (1) the May 6, 2019 order on Judgment Assignee’s “AFFIDAVIT OF IDENTITY AND ORDER” and (2) The August 20, 2019 order “(1) recalling or quashing the Writ of Execution purporting to name Kim as a judgment debtor; (2) vacating the Order on Affidavid of Identity, filed on May 6, 2019; (3) releasing property of Kim from lien and custody; and (4) awarding reasonable fees and costs incurred by Kim” and related Nunc Pro Tunc order requiring Kim to file a motion to reconsider and vacate Department 44’s Affidavit of Identity and Order.

On October 29, 2019, Judgment Assignee filed a Motion to Amend Judmgent to Include Alter Ego Individual, Moon Ki Kim.

Before the Court is an Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Be Ordered. Judgment Assignee filed an Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction on October 30, 2019. Kim filed an Opposition to Judgement Assignee’s Ex Parte Application on October 31, 2019. The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order in this matter on October 31, 2019 and set the instant Order to Show Cause for hearing on December 3, 2019. The Court is not in receipt of an opposition or reply.

II. Discussion

  1. Whether a Preliminary Injunction Should Issue As Requested

Judgment Assignee brings the instant ex parte application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction to restrain (1) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Bank of America, N.A. (collectively, the “Banks”) from releasing any funds in Kim’s personal Bank Accounts to Kim, and (2) retrain the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department from releasing any funds to Kim.

  1. Judgment Assignee’s Arguments

Judgment Assignee brings this application to freeze the funds in non-party Kim’s Bank Accounts. Judgment Assignee contends that following the Court’s August 20, 2019 order, which prohibited the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and Banks from releasing any funds to Kim, both the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and the Banks have violated this order. A Preliminary Injunction will merely enforce the existing court order in this matter by freezing the assets and collection efforts of both parties pending a full hearing on a theory of alter ego. If a Preliminary Injunction is not issued, Judgment Assignee will be harmed because he will lose any security for relief. Judgment Assignee is likely to prevail on his motion to amend judgment to include Kim as an alter ego individual because the Court already determined that Kim was the alter ego of entity defendant Law Offices of Moon Kim in the prior order on the Affidavit of Idenity and by issuing a writ of execution for the levy presently holding the safe-deposit at issue.

 

  1. Kim’s Arguments

Judgment Assignee’s request for a preliminary injunction should be denied because the only attempted change of the status quo was made by Judgment Assignee when he violated the Court’s August 20, 2019 order by placing levies on Kim’s Bank Accounts in early September 2019. Judgment Assignee’s request is purportedly limited to a safe deposit box; however, the proposed preliminary injunction is broadly worded to include all of Kim’s assets. No injunction should issue preventing Kim and his attorneys from transferring Kim’s funds to protect them from Judgment Assignee’s unauthorized collection activities. Finally, Judgment Assignee’s claim that Kim and/or the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office attempted to release funds after the Court’s August 20, 2019 order is false.

  1. Legal Standard

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending final resolution upon a trial. (See Scaringe v. J.C.C. Enterprises, Inc. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1536.) The status quo has been defined to mean the last actual peaceable, uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy. (14859 Moorpark Homeowner’s Assn. v. VRT Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1396. 1402.) “An injunction may be granted…[w]hen it appears, during the litigation, that a party to the action is doing, or threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act in violation of the rights of another party to the action respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 526, subd. (a)(3).)

The trial court considers two factors in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction: (1) the likelihood the applicant will prevail on the merits of its case at trial, and (2) the interim harm the applicant is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as compared to the harm the defendant is likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction. (Code Civ. Proc. § 526(a); see Husain v. McDonald’s Corp. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 860, 866–867.) The balancing of harm between the parties “involves consideration of such things as the inadequacy of other remedies, the degree of irreparable harm, and the necessity of preserving the status quo.” (Husain, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 867.) Thus, a preliminary injunction may not issue without some showing of potential entitlement to such relief. (Doe v. Wilson (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 296, 304.)

Preliminary injunctive relief requires the use of competent evidence to create a sufficient factual showing on the grounds for relief. (See, e.g., ReadyLink Healthcare v. Cotton (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016; Ancora-Citronelle Corp. v. Green (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 146, 150.) The burden of proof is on the party moving for the injunction. (See O’Connell v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.) A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must show the absence of an adequate damages remedy at law. (Code Civ. Proc. § 526, subd. (a)(4); Thayer Plymouth Center, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 300, 307.)

  1. Analysis

The following analysis first establishes the status quo and movant’s entitlement to a preliminary injunction then determines the likelihood of success on Judgment Assignee’s pending Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Alter Ego Individual, Moon Ki Kim (the “Motion”). and weighs the harm to each party if the Court issues a preliminary injunction pending determination on Judgment Assignee’s Motion.

  1. Status Quo

The last uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy was established in this Court’s August 20, 2019 order which states: “[Jusdgment Assignee is not to make any further attempts to collect the subject funds, and []Kim is ordered to not spend, transfer, or waste any of the subject funds, which are of issue, until further order of the court.” It is uncontested that leaving the Bank Accounts untouched remains the status quo in the pending action.

  1. Injunction to Prevent the Dissipation of Funds

Judgment Assignee argues that he is entitled to an injunction to bar the dissipation of funds pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 526, subdivision (a)(3).  Such an injunction is applicable only when there are specific, identifiable funds and the injunction is necessary to prevent dissipation of those funds.  (Heckmann v. Ahmanson (1985) 168 Cal. App. 3d 119, 136 (Heckmann).)  In Heckmann, the Court of Appeal determined that an injunction was proper when there was sufficient evidence to believe dissipation of a funds was occurring, and “absent injunctive relief, plaintiffs would be left with a ‘naked claim for damages ... to be obtained through an action at law.’ ” (Heckmann, supra, 168 Cal.App.3d at p. 136.) Moreover, the funds were identifiable as those acquired from the sale of stock at issue. (Id. p. 138.)

Here, Judgment Assignee identifies the funds as those contained in Kim’s Wells Fargo and Bank of America accounts, defined as the “Bank Accounts,” above. Judgment Assignee also identifies a safe deposit box that was levied by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department which the Sheriff’s Department stated its intent to release absent a court order. (App. p. 2:8-10.) In his opposition to the ex parte application, Kim contends that if the injunction issues, he and his lawyers will not be able to make any efforts to protect Kim from Judgment Assignee’s collections activities. (Opp. P. 2:19-20.) This is, in essence, an admission that Kim intends to hide his assets from Judgment Assignee. As in Heckmann, Judgment Assignee has adequately identified the funds as the Bank Accounts and the safe-deposit box. Moreover, Kim has confirmed Judgment Assignee’s argument that Kim intends to become judgment-proof absent a court order granting Judgment Assignee’s request for a preliminary injunction. The Court finds that Judgment Assignee meets his burden in establishing his entitlement to a preliminary injunction to prevent the dissipation of Kim’s funds.

  1. Likelihood Judgment Assignee Will Prevail In His Motion To Amend Judgment To Include Alter Ego Individual, Moon Ki Kim

Judgment Assignee provides evidence that he will prevail on the merits of his Motion. Judgment Assignee refers to the Judge Moreton’s May 8, 2019 order on the Affidavit of Identity in which Judge Moreton determined that that Kim was the alter-ego of the Law Offices of Moon Kim. Judge Moreton later issued a Writ of Execution to levy Kim’s personal bank accounts. Kim challenged this order on due process grounds claiming that he did not receive notice of the hearing on the Affidavit of Identity. This is sufficent to meet Judgment Assignee’s burden of establishing the likelihood of success on the merits of his Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Alter Ego Individual, Moon Ki Kim.

  1. Balancing Test; Interim Harm to Judgment Assignee Versus Harm to Kim

As discussed above in Section E, Part 2, Kim admits that the only identifiable harm to him is that he and his lawyers will not be able to make any efforts to protect Kim from collections activities. (Opp. P. 2:19-20.) This is, in essence, an admission that Kim intends to hide his assets from Judgment Assignee. If Kim is able to secrete his assets by transferring the funds currently held in his Bank Accounts, Judgment Assignee contends that he will not be able to collect on the judgment that he seeks to have amended to include Kim. As discussed in Section E, Part 2, it is necessary to preserve the status quo when there is evidence that a judgment debtor is secreting assets. Kim admits that he intends to avoid Judgement Assignee’s collection efforts. Kim does not identify any other harm Kim would suffer if his assets are frozen. As such, the Court determines that the interim harm to Judgment Assignee outweighs the harm to Kim.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Judgment Assignee, Andrew Larson dba HCR Beverly Hill’s Ex Parte Application for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. The Court issues a preliminary injunction: (1) restraining the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department from releasing any property belonging to defendant, Law Offices of Moon Kim or non-party individual, Moon Ki Kim, pursuant to the Affidavit of Identity and Order, Notice of Levy, and Writ of Execution issued in this matter naming Kim as the judgment debtor; and (2) enjoining Kim, individually, and through his agents, assigns, partners, or an individual or entity acting in concert with Kim from obtaining, or making any efforts towards obtaining, the release of any property which is/are the subject of any Notice of Levy and Writ of Execution issued in this matter pursuant to the Affidavit of Identity and Order naming Kim as the judgment debtor.

The hearing on Andrew Larson dba HCR Beverly Hill’s Motion to Amend Judgment is advanced to Feb. 20, 2020,  at 10:30 am in Department 94.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Order to Show Cause will be placed off calendar.