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

  • 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: October 06, 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: October 6, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for relief from waiver of jury trial

Background

On September 30, 2016, Plaintiffs Hansik Inc. and Brian Chong (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action. On March 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the operative complaint. As of August 31, 2020, the only remaining Defendant who has not been dismissed or defaulted is Defendant Keum S. Ko (“Defendant”). At the trial setting conference and order to show cause hearing on August 31, 2020, the Court noted that neither Plaintiff nor Defendant had posted jury fees. (Minute Order 8/31/20.) The court also noted that “[i]f any party seeks a jury trial, that party will have to timely file and serve a noticed motion for relief from jury waiver to be heard on a date reserved on CRS.” (Minute Order 8/31/20.)

On September 10, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion for relief from jury waiver. On September 16, 2020, Defendant filed an ex-parte application to advance the hearing for relief from jury waiver. At the hearing, the court granted the ex-parte application, advanced the hearing on Defendant’s motion to October 6, 2020. On September 17, 2020, Defendant filed notice of the advancement of the hearing on the instant motion to October 6, 2020 and the briefing schedule. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the instant motion.

Legal Standard

If a party has waived the right to jury trial, he or she may seek relief from such waiver. The court has discretion to allow a jury trial, notwithstanding a waiver, upon such terms as may be just. (CCP § 631(g).) The grounds upon which relief will be granted are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. However, the right to a jury trial is constitutional in nature, and therefore, any doubt must be resolved in favor of upholding the right. (Bishop v. Anderson (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 821, 823.)

In light of the public policy favoring trial by jury, a motion to be relieved of a jury waiver should be granted unless granting the motion would work serious hardship to the objecting party. (Boal v. Price Waterhouse & Co. (1985) 165 Cal. App.3d 806 [court should have granted relief from waiver, which occurred when substitute for plaintiff's attorney inadvertently signed waiver at second trial setting conference, where plaintiff immediately moved for relief and defendant had known throughout proceedings that plaintiff desired jury trial].)

If the waiver was inadvertent, the court must grant relief from the waiver as long as there has been no prejudice to the other party or to the court. (Winston v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 600 [court should have granted relief from waiver, which occurred when party’s attorney inadvertently failed to deposit fees on time, since failure was due to conflict in statutory provisions regarding fees and relief from waiver would not have prejudiced other party].)

Discussion

It is an abuse of discretion to deny relief from waiver where the waiver is shown to be inadvertent (attorney’s secretary failed to deposit jury fees on time), and relief from waiver has been promptly sought. (Byram v. Superior Court (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 648, 652; see Wharton v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 100, 104 [timely deposit but insufficient amount].) Likewise, it is an abuse of discretion to deny relief where the jury waiver was inadvertent, and no prejudice to opposing parties will result from granting relief. (Winston v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 600, 602 [fact that it takes longer to try a jury case is not prejudice from granting relief from waiver]; see also Johnson-Stovall v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 808, 811 [prejudice not shown by need to prepare motions in limine, enlarged exhibits, and jury instructions unless inadequate time also shown].)

However, denial of relief from waiver has been upheld where such relief would necessitate rescheduling the trial and prejudice other parties who neither desired nor requested a jury trial; and the only reason advanced for relief was counsel’s change of mind as to the “jury appeal” of his case. (March v. Pettis (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 473, 480.) Likewise, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny relief from waiver only 5 days before trial where defendants had engaged in substantial preparation for a court trial and prepared no jury instructions after learning plaintiffs had failed to deposit jury fees. (Gann v. Williams Bros. Realty, Inc. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1698, 1703.)

Here, Defendant asserts that the failure to post jury fees was due to inadvertence as previous counsel for Defendant, Will C. Kersten filed a Notice of Posting Jury Fees on behalf of Defendant Pag Mooga, Inc on February 27, 2017. (Heath Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) “Until recently, Defendant did not believe trial was going forward, and that the case would be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s counsel filing a motion to be relieved and failing to appear at hearings to prosecute the case. Given that the case appeared to be headed for dismissal, there was no sense of urgency in addressing the issue of jury fees. In the event that the trial was to go forward, Defendant presumed that these fees had already been covered by Defendant Pag Mooga Inc.’s jury fee deposit in 2017.” (Id. ¶ 4.)

Hence, the waiver of jury trial appears to be inadvertent. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition. Nor has Plaintiff demonstrated any prejudice. Accordingly, the court will exercise its discretion and set aside the waiver of jury trial. Defendant Keum S. Ko’s motion for relief from jury waiver is GRANTED. Defendant is to post jury fees with 10 days.

Pursuant to the General Order of the Presiding Judge filed September 10, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, civil non-preference jury trials may not resume until January 21, 2021. Accordingly, the current bench trial date of November 16, 2020 is vacated, and a jury trial is set for January 21, 2021 at 9:30 am. The final status conference is continued to December 8, 2020 at 9:00 am.

As Defendant is the party demanding jury, Defendant will undertake the primary responsibility for preparing all joint trial documents in compliance with the court’s standing Final Status Conference and trial readiness order. No later than November 2, 2020, Defendant is ordered to send to Plaintiff proposed joint statement of the case, joint witness list, joint exhibit list, joint jury instructions (full text), joint list of proposed jury instructions, joint verdict form, and joint page and line designations for deposition and former testimony. The parties are ordered to meet and confer in order that they may timely file all of these joint trial documents in accordance with the court’s standing Final Status Conference and trial readiness order.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, defendant Keum S. Ko’s motion for relief from jury waiver is GRANTED. Defendant Keum S. Ko is to post jury fees with 10 days.

The current bench trial date of November 16, 2020 is vacated, and a jury trial is set for January 21, 2021 at 9:30 am. The final status conference is continued to December 8, 2020 at 9:00 am.

Defendant is to undertake the primary responsibility for preparing all joint trial documents in compliance with the court’s standing Final Status Conference and trial readiness order. No later than November 2, 2020, Defendant is ordered to send to Plaintiff proposed joint statement of the case, joint witness list, joint exhibit list, joint jury instructions (full text), joint list of proposed jury instructions, joint verdict form, and joint page and line designations for deposition and former testimony. The parties are ordered to meet and confer in order that they may timely file all of these joint trial documents in accordance with the court’s standing Final Status Conference and trial readiness order.

Moving Party is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: October 6, 2020 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC636032    Hearing Date: September 11, 2020    Dept: 26

IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT PHYSICAL DISTANCING AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR REMOTELY FOR NON-TRIAL AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS, INCLUDING THIS MOTION.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

CLIFTON HUTCHINS;

Plaintiff,

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.: 19STCP05127

Hearing Date: September 11, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

dEFENDANT’s motion to vacate JUDGMENT AS VOID;

Background

On November 25, 2019, Plaintiff Clifton Hutchins (“Plaintiff”) filed an application for entry of judgment on foreign judgment against the People of the State of California (“Defendant”). The application states that the judgment is based on a settlement and closure of a purported Superior Court of California County of Los Angles, Case No. GA046775, and that judgment was entered by default pursuant by the “Shaykamaxum Grand/Supreme Court.” On November 25, 2019, the Clerk of the Court entered judgment against Defendant in the amount of $10,420,435.00.

On February 19, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion to vacate the November 25, 2020 judgment as void. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the court continued the hearing for this motion from April 8, 2020 to August 11, 2020. (Minute Orders 3/23/20, 4/22/20.) On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Defendant’s motion to vacate the entry of judgment, but Plaintiff did not reserve a hearing date for his motion to strike. On May 27, 2020, Defendant filed an opposition to the motion to strike. On June 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply as to the motion to strike. On June 11, 2020, the instant action was transferred from Department 44 to the instant department. (Minute Order 6/11/20.) The instant motion was then continued to September 11, 2020 at 2 pm. (Notice Re: continuance of Hearing and Order, 6/22/20.) On June 26, 2020, Defendant filed proof of service of notice of the September 11, 2020 hearing date.

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff did not make a reservation for a hearing date for his motion to strike, but he listed the same date as the hearing for this motion to vacate. Therefore, the court will consider Plaintiff’s motion to strike as an opposition to Defendant’s instant motion to vacate.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests that the court take judicial notice of:

  1. Application for Recognition and Entry of Tribal Court Money Judgment, filed by Claimant Clifton Hutchins Jr. against the People of the State of California on September 11, 2017, in Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2017-00942770

  2. State of California’s Objection to Recognition and Entry of Purported Tribal Civil Court Money Judgment, and Request for Judicial Notice in Support Thereof, filed by the State on October 11, 2017, in Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2017-00942770

  3. An Order sustaining the State’s Objection to Recognition and Entry of Purported Tribal Civil Court Money Judgment, and granting the State’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support Thereof, entered by the Orange County Superior Court on November 17, 2017, in Case No. 30-2017-00942770

  4. A copy of the complete docket from Clifton Hutchins Jr., Trustee for Syrys Investment Services, Accommodation party for Clifton Hutchins, Jr. v. People of the State of California, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2017-00942770

  5. A copy of the complete docket from Clifton Hutchins Jr., Trustee for Syrys Investment Services, Accommodation party for Clifton Hutchins, Jr. v. People of the State of California, Clark County Nevada District Court, Case No. a-19-790827

As the Court may take judicial notice of court records, (See Evid. Code, § 452(d)), Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted. However, the Court will not take judicial notice of the truth of assertions within. (See Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375.)

Discussion

Defendant contends that the judgment is void on its face, barred by res judicata, and procedurally defective. As the court finds that the judgment was void on its face the court does not address Defendant’s alternative arguments.

Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d): Judgment Void On Its Face

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d), “[t]he court may . . . on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.”

The text of the statute provides no time limitation within which to bring a motion challenging the validity of the judgment. Moreover, courts have held that where a judgment is “void on its face” it “may be set aside on motion without any time limitation.” (See Manson, Iver & York v. Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 36, 43.)

Under Code of Civil Procedure § 1714, a “‘Foreign country’ means a government other than any of the following: [¶] (1) The United States[,] [¶](2) A state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States[,] [¶](3) A federally recognized Indian nation, tribe, pueblo, band, or Alaska Native village[,] (4) Any other government with regard to which the decision in this state as to whether to recognize a judgment of that government's courts is initially subject to determination under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.” (Id. at (a).)

Plaintiff’s application for entry of judgment on Foreign Judgment states that the foreign state is Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and that judgment was entered by a purported “Shaykamaxum Grand/Supreme Court.” Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is not a foreign state as it is a city within the United States. Thus, a foreign application for judgment is improper, and no basis exists for a judgment entered under this section.

Moreover, there is no state court referred to as the “Shaykamaxum Grand/Supreme Court.” (See http://www.pacourts.us/courts/.)[1] Nor, is there a federally recognized tribe of the United States with the name “Shaykamaxum.” (RJN 3.)

As noted by numerous courts, a judgment purportedly issued from the “Shaykamaxum Grand/Supreme Court” is void as that “there is no indication that such a government exists or is recognized by the United States.” (See Jolivette v. California (E.D. Cal., Dec. 5, 2013, No. 2:13-CV-1882 LKK DAD) 2013 WL 6331356, at *1; LaSalle Bank Natl. Assoc. v. Johnson (M.D. Tenn., Nov. 29, 2012, No. 3:12-1030) 2012 WL 6628940, at *2, report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Lasalle Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Johnson (M.D. Tenn., Dec. 19, 2012, No. 3-12-1030) 2012 WL 6628929, [Finding that “there is no indication that such a government exists or is recognized by the United States”].)

Moreover, even if the court were to recognize “Shaykamaxum”’s existence as a foreign state, which it does not, the court cannot and will not recognize a foreign judgment that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with due process of law. (CCP § 1716(b)(1), (c)(1)(C); RJN 5.)

Therefore, Defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment entered on November 25, 2019 as void is granted.

Conclusion and ORDER

Based on the forgoing, Defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment entered on November 25, 2019 as void is granted. The Judgment entered on November 25, 2019 is VACATED AS VOID. To the extent that Plaintiff intended for his motion to strike to be deemed anything other than an opposition to Defendant’s motion to vacate, Plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied.

For the same reasons stated above, Plaintiff Clifton Hutchins, Jr.’s Application for Entry of Judgment on Foreign Judgment filed on November 25, 2019 is DENIED.

The Moving party to give notice and file proof of service of such.

DATED: September 11, 2020 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court


[1] On the court’s own motion, the court takes judicial notice of the court systems of Pennsylvania as an official act of the judicial department of a state of the United States. (Evid Code § 452(c).)

Case Number: BC636032    Hearing Date: June 23, 2020    Dept: 26

IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT PHYSICAL DISTANCING AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR REMOTELY FOR NON-TRIAL AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS, INCLUDING THESE MOTIONS.

Jean Kwon's motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant Pag Mooga, Inc.:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thomas J. Ryu's motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Hansik Inc.:

On April 9, 2020, Thomas J. Ryu (“Counsel”), filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Hansik Inc. (“Client”). Due to the COVID-19 Crisis this hearing was continued from May 29, 2020, to June 23, 2020. (Minute Order 4/15/20.)

Counsel has filed a form MC051 and MC-052 as to Client 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 Clients via mail at Clients’ last known mailing address which Counsel states he has confirmed by telephone conversation with Plaintiff Brian Chong's spouse. Brian Chong is the owner of Hansik Inc. Mr. Brian Chong suffered a heart attack and is currently unavailable to confirm the address. As such, Counsel confirmed Hansik Inc.'s current address through a telephone conversation with his spouse, Ms. Moo Yeun Chong.

Counsel states that there has been a breach of retainer agreement due to nonpayment of attorney fees.

Counsel is ordered to electronically file  a revised proposed order on form MC-053 prior to the June 23, 2020 hearing. Based on the notice of motion and the declaration filed by Counsel, the Court is inclined to grant the motion. However, the proposed order on form MC-053 must be updated to reflect a new trial setting hearing which the Court hereby sets for July 14, 2020 at 11:00 am. The revised proposed order must list Client’s current mailing address, phone number, and if available, email address, for service in item 6. The proposed order must also identify all upcoming hearings and list the address of the Court in all items. The proposed order on form MC-053 must include the following additional language:

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thomas J. Ryu's motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Brian Chong:

Plaintiff Brian Chong’s counsel, Thomas J. Ryu (“Counsel”), moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff Brian Chong (“Client”). Counsel filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel on April 9, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 Crisis this hearing was continued from May 27, 2020, to June 23, 2020. (Minute Order 4/15/20.)

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 Clients via mail at Clients’ last known mailing address which Counsel states he has confirmed by telephone conversation with Plaintiff Brian Chong's spouse. Mr. Brian Chong suffered a heart attack and is currently unavailable to confirm the address. As such, Counsel confirmed Plaintiff Brian Chong's current address through a telephone conversation with his spouse, Ms. Moo Yeun Chong.

Counsel states that there has been a breach of retainer agreement due to nonpayment of attorney fees.

Counsel is ordered to electronically file a revised proposed order on form MC-053 prior to the June 23, 2020 hearing. Based on the notice of motion and the declaration filed by Counsel, the Court is inclined to grant the motion. However, the proposed order on form MC-053 must be updated to reflect a new trial setting hearing which the Court hereby sets for July 14, 2020 at 11:00 am. The revised proposed order must list Client’s current mailing address, phone number, and if available, email address, for service in item 6. The proposed order must also identify all upcoming hearings and list the address of the Court in all items. The proposed order on form MC-053 must include the following additional language:

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.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where KOREA HOUSE INC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HAN STEVEN YUN SIK