This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/09/2019 at 03:17:37 (UTC).

HANSIK INC VS PAG MOOGA INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/30/2016 HANSIK INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against PAG MOOGA INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ELAINE LU. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6032

  • Filing Date:

    09/30/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ELAINE LU

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

HANSIK INC.

CHONG BRIAN

LIM JI YOU B.

LIM BORAM

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

KO YOUNG JOON

KO HYE MI

MYJOO SOLAR SUPPLY INC.

KWON MI HYUN

MILLER HYE

DOES 1 TO 100

KO FAMILY CATERING INC.

KO KEUM S.

PAG MOOGA INC.

LEE GAP SUN

KO HYE JIN

KO HYE YOUNG

KIM MIN

SON CHRISTINE DBA KOREA HOUSE

KOREA HOUSE

2 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

RYU LAW FIRM APC

RYU THOMAS JAY

Defendant Attorneys

KWON JEAN

KERSTEN WILLIAM CLARENCE ESQ.

Cross Defendant Attorney

HAN STEVEN YUN SIK

 

Court Documents

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

1/17/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

1/17/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

3/13/2019: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

3/13/2019: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Proof of Personal Service

3/14/2019: Proof of Personal Service

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY KEUM S. KO TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND ETC

5/10/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY KEUM S. KO TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND ETC

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT KEUM S. KO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

7/24/2017: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT KEUM S. KO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT KEUM S. KO'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

7/24/2017: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT KEUM S. KO'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT YOUNG JOON KO TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED HANSIK, INC. AND BRIAN CHONG; ETC.

8/3/2017: REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT YOUNG JOON KO TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED HANSIK, INC. AND BRIAN CHONG; ETC.

Minute Order

8/9/2017: Minute Order

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

8/9/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/16/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Minute Order

8/17/2017: Minute Order

FIRST AMENDED SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

9/29/2017: FIRST AMENDED SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

107 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/29/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Pag Mooga, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial); Filed by Keum S. Ko (Defendant); Pag Mooga, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel) of 04/17/2019 and Order re: Motion to be Relieved as Counsel); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Order (re: Motion to be Relieved as Counsel); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
215 More Docket Entries
  • 10/25/2016
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Hansik, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2016
  • AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Hansik, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Hansik, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND OSC RE PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Hansik, Inc. (Plaintiff); Brian Chong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC636032    Hearing Date: February 26, 2020    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

HANSIK, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Pag mooga, inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: bc636032

Hearing Date: February 26, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

thomas j. ryu’s motion to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff Brian Chong

Thomas J. Ryu (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Brian Chong (“Client”).

On November 14, 2019, Defendant Nutrition Mitoma Inc., dba Korea House filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings notifying that defendant Keum S. Ko had filed for bankruptcy under petition number: 2:19-bk-23412 and attaching a docket from Keum S. Ko’s bankruptcy case. (Notice of Stay p. 2.) At the February 24, 2020 hearing, Plaintiff’s Counsel provided an order of dismissal of the bankruptcy case dated December 11, 2019. As Keum S. Ko’s bankruptcy case is no longer pending, the Court lifted the stay in the instant action as to all parties on February 24, 2020 and set a trial setting conference for April 20, 2020 at 8:30 am. All parties are ordered to appear in Department 26 on April 20, 2020 at 8:30 am for a trial setting conference. No later than one week prior to the April 20, 2020 trial setting conference, each party is to file an updated Case Management Conference Form advising whether it demands or waives jury and indicating its time estimate for trial.

On January 16, 2020, Thomas J. Ryu (“Counsel”), filed the instant motions to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Brian Chong (“Client”).

Counsel has filed a form MC051 and MC-052 as to the Client and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1362.

California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 requires that Counsel confirm Client’s address “within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.” Rule 3.1362 further provides that “[m]erely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current.”

Here, the MC-052 form states that Counsel served Client via mail at Client’s last known mailing address which Counsel states he has confirmed as current within 30 days of the motion. However, Counsel does not assert that he confirmed that the address is current by the traditional means of “mail, return receipt requested,” “telephone,” or “conversation” on Form MC-052. Instead, Counsel states that he has confirmed that the address is current “by California Secretary of State Website information.” This notation on Counsel’s declaration does not make sense as Client Brian Chong is an individual. Counsel fails to explain how he was able to confirm the address of an individual with the California Secretary of State Website. Further, Counsel merely lists the same address as for Plaintiff Hansik Inc. Counsel does not state the date of the Secretary of State filing that he used to confirm Client Brian Chong’s address. Nor does Counsel provide a copy of the Secretary of State filing itself. Accordingly, Counsel has failed to demonstrate that the address listed on the Secretary of State filing is indeed current as of 30 days prior to the filing of Counsel’s motion to be relieved.

Rule 3.1362’s requirement that Client’s address be confirmed as current within 30 days of Counsel’s motion to be relieved is not a mere technicality without a purpose. If the Court grants Counsel’s motion to be relieved without requiring a current, working address for Client, neither the Court nor the other parties will have the ability to serve Client with pleadings, motions, and orders, which implicates due process concerns.

Because Counsel has failed to confirm within 30 days of the motion that Client’s address is current, Counsel’s motion to be relieved is denied without prejudice. Before renewing this motion to be relieved, Counsel must make diligent and reasonable efforts to obtain a current address for Client, by a combination of the following means: mailing the motion papers to Client’s last known address, return receipt requested; calling Client’s last known telephone numbers; contacting persons familiar with Client; and conducting searches via Lexis, a private investigator, or other means. If after making these reasonable and diligent efforts, Counsel is still unable to locate a current address for Client, Counsel may renew his motion to be relieved by filing new moving papers, and properly completing item 3(b)(2) of Form MC-052 to identify all diligent and reasonable efforts made to attempt to locate a current address for Client.

For any future motion to be relieved, Counsel’s moving papers should note:

- The upcoming hearing date of “April 20, 2020 (8:30 am) – OSC re Hansik Inc.’s representation and trial setting conference at 111 N. Hill St., Dept. 26, L.A., CA 90012” in item 7 of the Proposed Order (form MC-053.

- The Client’s email address(es) should be added to item 6 of the Proposed Order (form MC-053.

- Additional language for Item 13 of the Proposed Order (form MC-053): “Moving Counsel is ordered to file proof of service of this signed order on all parties, including Client, within 3 days.”

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

On February 24, 2020, the Court lifted the stay in the instant action as to all parties. All parties are ordered to appear in Department 26 on April 20, 2020 at 8:30 am for a trial setting conference. No later than one week prior to the April 20, 2020 trial setting conference, each party is to file an updated Case Management Conference Form advising whether it demands or waives jury and indicating its time estimate for trial.

Thomas J. Ryu’s Motion To Be Relieved As Counsel For Plaintiff Brian Chong is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Before renewing this motion to be relieved, Counsel must make diligent and reasonable efforts to obtain a current address for Client, by a combination of the following means: mailing the motion papers to Client’s last known address, return receipt requested; calling Client’s last known telephone numbers; contacting persons familiar with Client; and conducting searches via Lexis, a private investigator, or other means. If after making these reasonable and diligent efforts, Counsel is still unable to locate a current address for Client, Counsel may renew his motion to be relieved by filing new moving papers, and properly completing item 3(b)(2) of Form MC-052 to identify all diligent and reasonable efforts made to attempt to locate a current address for Client.

Counsel is ordered to give notice of this order and file proof of service of such .

DATED: February 26, 2020 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC636032    Hearing Date: February 24, 2020    Dept: 26

The court has read and considered all papers filed in connection with the multiple motions to be relieved.

On November 14, 2019, Defendant Nutrition Mitoma Inc., dba Korea House filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings notifying that defendant Keum S. Ko had filed for bankruptcy and attaching a docket from Keum S. Ko’s bankruptcy case. Since then, no party has filed an updated docket reflecting the current status of Keum S. Ko’s bankruptcy case. All Counsel seeking to be relieved are to appear at the February 24, 2020 hearing with an updated docket reflecting the current status of Keum S. Ko’s bankruptcy case.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

jean kwon’s motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant nutrition mitoma, inc. dba korea house:

Jean Kwon (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for defendant Nutrition Mitoma, Inc. dba Korea House (“Client”).

On November 14, 2019, Defendant Nutrition Mitoma Inc., dba Korea House filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings notifying that defendant Keum S. Ko had filed for bankruptcy and attaching a docket from Keum S. Ko’s bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy action is under petition number: 2:19-bk-23412. (Notice of Stay p. 2.) The Court hereby sets a status conference regarding status of the bankruptcy case for April 20, 2020 at 8:30 am. All parties are ordered to appear in Department 26 on April 20, 2020 at 8:30 am for the status conference re bankruptcy. No later than one week prior to the April 20, 2020 trial setting conference, each party is ordered to file and serve an updated docket from Keum S. Ko’s bankruptcy case (petition number: 2:19-bk-23412). If Keum S. Ko wishes for the instant action to remain stayed, Keum S. Ko must file an updated docket for his bankruptcy case no later than one week prior to the April 20, 2020 status conference.

Under 11 USC section 362, the filing of a bankruptcy petition stays the continuation of any judicial action against the bankruptcy petitioner. (11 U.S.C. § 362, subd. (a)(1).) Therefore, this action is automatically stayed against Defendant Keum S. Ko. The automatic stay provisions apply to proceedings against the debtor, the debtor's property, and the property of the bankruptcy estate, but they do not apply to acts against property which is neither the debtor's nor the estate's. (Barnett v. Lewis (1985) 170 Cal. App. 3d 1079, 1088.) Generally, the automatic stay does not protect nonbankrupt third parties even when the codefendants are closely related to the debtor. (see In re Miller (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2001) 262 B.R. 499, 503- 504, fn. 6., [“It is clearly established that the automatic stay does not apply to non-bankrupt co-defendants of a debtor ‘even if they are in a similar legal or factual nexus with the debtor.’”, (citing Seiko Epson Corp. v. Nu–Kote International, Inc. (Fed.Cir.1999) 190 F.3d 1360, 1364; “It is well-established that stays pursuant to § 362(a) are limited to debtors and do not encompass non-bankrupt co-defendants.” (citing Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n v. Butler (2d Cir.1986) 803 F.2d 61, 65.)].)

Pursuant to the authorities cited above, the Court finds that the instant action is stayed only with respect to debtor defendant Keum S. Ko. The stay is lifted with respect to all other parties, and the Court hereby sets a trial setting conference for April 20, 2020 at 8:30 am. All parties are ordered to appear in Department 26 on April 20, 2020 at 8:30 am for a trial setting conference. No later than one week prior to the April 20, 2020 trial setting conference, each party is to file an updated Case Management Conference Form advising whether it demands or waives jury and indicating its time estimate for trial.

On November 4, 2019, Jean Kwon (“Counsel”), filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant Nutrition Mitoma, Inc. dba Korea House (“Client”).

On November 22, 2019, the Court advanced this hearing from November 27, 2019, to November 22, 2019, and then continued it to February 24, 2020. (Minute Order 11/22/19.)

Counsel has filed a form MC051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1362.

The MC-052 form states that Counsel served Client via mail at Client’s last known mailing address which Counsel states she has confirmed as current within 30 days of the motion by conversation.

Counsel states that there has been a break down in the attorney-client relationship.

Counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing and submit a corrected proposed order on form MC-053. Provided that Counsel submits a corrected proposed order on form MC-053, the Court is inclined to grant the motions based on the declaration filed by Counsel. However, the proposed order on form MC-053 must be amended to add the following language:

Counsel is responsible for determining if there are any other hearings scheduled or due dates for discovery for this case, including any motions hearings, which must all be listed in the proposed order. For each hearing, Counsel must state the date, time, and location of the hearing (“111 N. Hill Street, Dept. 26, Los Angeles, CA 90012”). For each due date for discovery, Counsel must identify the nature of the discovery responses that are outstanding, the due date, and the address where verified responses must be sent.

As to defendant Nutrition Mitoma, Inc. dba Korea House, the Court notes that while a corporation has the capacity to bring a lawsuit because it has all the powers of a natural person in carrying out its business, under a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. (CLD Const., Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) “[A Corporation] must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record. (Id.; Gutierrez v. G & M Oil Co., Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 551, 564; Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 503.) However, “[a]n attorney may be allowed to withdraw without offending the rule against corporate self-representation.” (Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc., supra, 104 Cal.App.3d at 504.)

In light of these authorities, the Court will require that Nutrition Mitoma, Inc. dba Korea House timely retain new counsel and file a substitution of counsel within 21 days of service of the signed order (MC-053). The court hereby sets an OSC regarding status of Nutrition Mitoma, Inc. dba Korea House’s representation for April 20, 2020 at 8:30 am in Department 26. Nutrition Mitoma, Inc. dba Korea House is ordered to appear on April 20, 2020 with its new counsel.

If Nutrition Mitoma, Inc. dba Korea House fails to file a substitution of counsel within 21 days of service of the signed order, Nutrition Mitoma, Inc. dba Korea House is ordered to appear on April 20, 2020, at 8:30 am in Department 26 and show cause why Nutrition Mitoma, Inc. dba Korea House’s answer should not be stricken and why default and default judgment should not be entered against Nutrition Mitoma, Inc. dba Korea House on Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. Nutrition Mitoma, Inc. dba Korea House’s failure to appear on April 20, 2020, at 8:30 am in Department 26 shall be deemed consent to: striking of Nutrition Mitoma, Inc. dba Korea House’s answer, and entry of default and default judgment against Nutrition Mitoma, Inc. dba Korea House on Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.

________________________________________________________________________________

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

HANSIK, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Pag mooga, inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: bc636032

Hearing Date: February 24, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

thomas j. ryu’s motion to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff hansik, inc.

Thomas J. Ryu (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Hansik Inc. (“Client”).

On November 14, 2019, Defendant Nutrition Mitoma Inc., dba Korea House filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings notifying that defendant Keum S. Ko had filed for bankruptcy and attaching a docket from Keum S. Ko’s bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy action is under petition number: 2:19-bk-23412. (Notice of Stay p. 2.) The Court hereby sets a status conference regarding status of the bankruptcy case for April 20, 2020 at 8:30 am. All parties are ordered to appear in Department 26 on April 20, 2020 at 8:30 am for the status conference re bankruptcy. No later than one week prior to the April 20, 2020 trial setting conference, each party is ordered to file and serve an updated docket from Keum S. Ko’s bankruptcy case (petition number: 2:19-bk-23412). If Keum S. Ko wishes for the instant action to remain stayed, Keum S. Ko must file an updated docket for his bankruptcy case no later than one week prior to the April 20, 2020 status conference.

Under 11 USC section 362, the filing of a bankruptcy petition stays the continuation of any judicial action against the bankruptcy petitioner. (11 U.S.C. § 362, subd. (a)(1).) Therefore, this action is automatically stayed against Defendant Keum S. Ko. The automatic stay provisions apply to proceedings against the debtor, the debtor's property, and the property of the bankruptcy estate, but they do not apply to acts against property which is neither the debtor's nor the estate's. (Barnett v. Lewis (1985) 170 Cal. App. 3d 1079, 1088.) Generally, the automatic stay does not protect nonbankrupt third parties even when the codefendants are closely related to the debtor. (see In re Miller (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2001) 262 B.R. 499, 503- 504, fn. 6., [“It is clearly established that the automatic stay does not apply to non-bankrupt co-defendants of a debtor ‘even if they are in a similar legal or factual nexus with the debtor.’”, (citing Seiko Epson Corp. v. Nu–Kote International, Inc. (Fed.Cir.1999) 190 F.3d 1360, 1364; “It is well-established that stays pursuant to § 362(a) are limited to debtors and do not encompass non-bankrupt co-defendants.” (citing Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n v. Butler (2d Cir.1986) 803 F.2d 61, 65.)].)

Pursuant to the authorities cited above, the Court finds that the instant action is stayed only with respect to debtor defendant Keum S. Ko. The stay is lifted with respect to all other parties, and the Court hereby sets a trial setting conference for April 20, 2020 at 8:30 am. All parties are ordered to appear in Department 26 on April 20, 2020 at 8:30 am for a trial setting conference. No later than one week prior to the April 20, 2020 trial setting conference, each party is to file an updated Case Management Conference Form advising whether it demands or waives jury and indicating its time estimate for trial.

On January 16, 2020, Thomas J. Ryu (“Counsel”), filed the instant motions to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Hansik Inc. (“Client”).

Counsel has filed a form MC051 and MC-052 as to the Client and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1362.

California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 requires that Counsel confirm Client’s address “within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.” Rule 3.1362 further provides that “[m]erely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current.”

Here, the MC-052 form states that Counsel served Client via mail at Client’s last known mailing address which Counsel states he has confirmed as current within 30 days of the motion. However, Counsel does not assert that he confirmed that the address is current by the traditional means of “mail, return receipt requested,” “telephone,” or “conversation” on Form MC-052. Instead, Counsel states that he has confirmed that the address is current “by California Secretary of State Website information.” Counsel does not state the date of the Secretary of State filing that he used to confirm Client’s address. Nor does Counsel provide a copy of the Secretary of State filing itself. Accordingly, Counsel has failed to demonstrate that the address listed on the Secretary of State filing is indeed current as of 30 days prior to the filing of Counsel’s motion to be relieved.

Rule 3.1362’s requirement that Client’s address be confirmed as current within 30 days of Counsel’s motion to be relieved is not a mere technicality without a purpose. If the Court grants Counsel’s motion to be relieved without requiring a current, working address for Client, neither the Court nor the other parties will have the ability to serve Client with pleadings, motions, and orders, which implicates due process concerns.

Because Counsel has failed to confirm within 30 days of the motion that Client’s address is current, Counsel’s motion to be relieved is denied without prejudice. Before renewing this motion to be relieved, Counsel must make diligent and reasonable efforts to obtain a current address for Client, by a combination of the following means: mailing the motion papers to Client’s last known address, return receipt requested; calling Client’s last known telephone numbers; contacting persons familiar with Client; and conducting searches via Lexis, a private investigator, or other means. If after making these reasonable and diligent efforts, Counsel is still unable to locate a current address for Client, Counsel may renew his motion to be relieved by filing new moving papers, and properly completing item 3(b)(2) of Form MC-052 to identify all diligent and reasonable efforts made to attempt to locate a current address for Client.

For any future motion to be relieved, Counsel’s moving papers should note:

- The upcoming hearing date of “April 20, 2020 (8:30 am) status conference re status of bankruptcy and trial setting conference, at 111 N. Hill St., Dept. 26, L.A., CA 90012” in item 7 of the Proposed Order (form MC-053.

- The Client’s email address(es) should be added to item 6 of the Proposed Order (form MC-053.

- Additional language for Item 13 of the Proposed Order (form MC-053: “A corporation must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before this Court. Hansik Inc. is ordered to file a substitution of counsel within 14 days of service of this signed order and to appear on April 20. 2020 at 8:30 am in Department 26 with its new counsel. Hansik Inc.’s failure to timely retain new counsel or failure to appear on April 20. 2020, may result in the striking or dismissal of the first amended complaint. Moving Counsel is ordered to file proof of service of this signed order on all parties, including Client, within 3 days.”

Counsel is ordered to give notice of this order and file proof of service of such .

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court hereby sets a status conference regarding status of the bankruptcy case for April 20, 2020 at 8:30 am. All parties are ordered to appear in Department 26 on April 20, 2020 at 8:30 am for the status conference re bankruptcy. No later than one week prior to the April 20, 2020 trial setting conference, each party is ordered to file and serve an updated docket from Keum S. Ko’s bankruptcy case (petition number: 2:19-bk-23412).

The instant action is stayed only with respect to debtor defendant Keum S. Ko. The stay is lifted with respect to all other parties, and the Court hereby sets a trial setting conference for April 20, 2020 at 8:30 am. All parties are ordered to appear in Department 26 on April 20, 2020 at 8:30 am for a trial setting conference. No later than one week prior to the April 20, 2020 trial setting conference, each party is to file an updated Case Management Conference Form advising whether it demands or waives jury and indicating its time estimate for trial.

Thomas J. Ryu’s Motion To Be Relieved As Counsel For Plaintiff Hansik, Inc. is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Before renewing this motion to be relieved, Counsel must make diligent and reasonable efforts to obtain a current address for Client, by a combination of the following means: mailing the motion papers to Client’s last known address, return receipt requested; calling Client’s last known telephone numbers; contacting persons familiar with Client; and conducting searches via Lexis, a private investigator, or other means. If after making these reasonable and diligent efforts, Counsel is still unable to locate a current address for Client, Counsel may renew his motion to be relieved by filing new moving papers, and properly completing item 3(b)(2) of Form MC-052 to identify all diligent and reasonable efforts made to attempt to locate a current address for Client.

Counsel is ordered to serve copies of the instant order and the signed form MC-053 order on all parties, including Client, and file proof of service of such within 10 days.

DATED: February 24, 2020 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC636032    Hearing Date: November 15, 2019    Dept: 26

Defendant’s counsel, JK Law Firm, APC and Jean Kwon, Esq. (“Counsel”), move to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Pag Mooga, Inc. (“Defendant”).

The Court will address the OSC re striking of Pag Mooga, Inc.’s Answer to the First Amended Complaint and PAG MOOGA, Inc.’s First Amended Cross-Complaint in light of its suspended corporate status prior to addressing the motion to be relieved.

At or before the hearing, Counsel moving to be relieved must submit an amended, corrected proposed order on form MC-053 to reflect:

Case Number: BC636032    Hearing Date: October 30, 2019    Dept: 26

No dispositive ruling is issued as to JK Law Firm, APC, and Jean Kwon’s (Counsel) motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant PAG MOOGA, Inc.

Before the court will consider granting Counsel’s motion, Counsel must address the following:

1) On October 15, 2019, when it came to the court’s attention that PAG MOOGA, Inc. is a suspended corporation, the court set an order to show cause for October 30, 2019 at 8:30 AM. The court ordered PAG MOOGA, Inc. to appear on October 30, 2019 at 8:30 AM and show cause why its answer and cross complaint should not be stricken in light of its suspended status. Counsel must be prepared to address:

a) whether PAG MOOGA, Inc. has been advised of the OSC set for October 30, 2019 at 8:30 AM;

b) whether Defendant/Cross-Complainant PAG MOOGA, Inc.’s corporate status has been reinstated; and

c) if PAG MOOGA, Inc.’s corporate status has not been reinstated, why the court should not strike PAG MOOGA, Inc.’s answer and cross complaint.

2) With the final status conference just over two weeks away and with the trial date less than five weeks away, the court is concerned about prejudice that may befall PAG MOOGA, Inc. if the court grants Counsel’s motion to be relieved. Counsel should be prepared to address potential prejudice to PAG MOOGA, Inc.

3) On October 24, 2019, Counsel filed a request for dismissal of PAG MOOGA, Inc.’s Cross-Complaint as to defendant Boram limb. This request for dismissal was rejected because the date of the Cross Complaint indicated on the request for dismissal (September 8, 2017) did not match the actual date of filing of the Cross-Complaint (September 29, 2017). Counsel should be prepared to address why Counsel has not filed an amended request for dismissal that remedies this defect.

4) Pursuant to a substitution of attorney filed on October 24, 2019, Counsel has substituted out and no longer represents Keum S. Ko, and Keum S. Ko is now representing himself. However, Counsel has not filed any substitution of attorney nor any motion to be relieved as counsel for Nutrition Mitoma, Inc. dba Korea House. Counsel should confirm whether she intends to remain as counsel of record for Nutrition Mitoma, Inc. dba Korea house.