Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/28/2018 at 14:09:55 (UTC).

JACLYN JANG VS LEE DONG JUN

Case Summary

On 06/02/2015 JACLYN JANG filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against LEE DONG JUN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARK A. BORENSTEIN, EMILIE H. ELIAS, MICHELLE R. ROSENBLATT and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3700

  • Filing Date:

    06/02/2015

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

EMILIE H. ELIAS

MICHELLE R. ROSENBLATT

EDWARD B. MORETON

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

JANG JACLYN

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 10

JUN LEE DONG

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

WEISSMAN KENNETH A.

 

Court Documents

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AFTER JUDGMENT, ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CREDIT, AND DECLARATION OF ACCRUED INTEREST

4/17/2018: MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AFTER JUDGMENT, ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CREDIT, AND DECLARATION OF ACCRUED INTEREST

ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER (SUPERIOR COURT)

6/3/2015: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER (SUPERIOR COURT)

SUMMONS

6/18/2015: SUMMONS

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

7/20/2015: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

8/13/2015: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

8/13/2015: STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

Minute Order

10/7/2015: Minute Order

JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT BY COURT

1/25/2016: JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT BY COURT

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

1/25/2016: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

1/25/2016: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Unknown

4/8/2016: Unknown

PROOF OF SERVICE ON MOTION TO VACATE

6/29/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE ON MOTION TO VACATE

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE

6/29/2016: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

10/19/2016: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

12/23/2016: JUDGMENT

Minute Order

12/23/2016: Minute Order

SUMMARY OF CASE FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; DECLARATION OF JACLYN JANG (PROVE-UP); INTEREST COMPUTATION; ETC.

12/23/2016: SUMMARY OF CASE FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; DECLARATION OF JACLYN JANG (PROVE-UP); INTEREST COMPUTATION; ETC.

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

1/4/2017: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

34 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/18/2018
  • Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest; Filed by Jaclyn Jang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AFTER JUDGMENT, ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CREDIT, AND DECLARATION OF ACCRUED INTEREST

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • Cost Bill After Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2017
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2017
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2017
  • NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2017
  • Notice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by Jaclyn Jang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2016
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 40; (Notice of Entry of Judgment mailed; Notice of Entry of Judgment mailed) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2016
  • REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2016
  • SUMMARY OF CASE FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; DECLARATION OF JACLYN JANG (PROVE-UP); INTEREST COMPUTATION; ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
70 More Docket Entries
  • 06/18/2015
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 44, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Unknown Event Type - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2015
  • Summons; Filed by Jaclyn Jang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2015
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver After Hearing (Superior Court); Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2015
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER [AFTER HEARING (SUPERIOR COURT)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2015
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2015
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER (SUPERIOR COURT)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2015
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Jaclyn Jang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2015
  • COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Jaclyn Jang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC583700    Hearing Date: December 03, 2020    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Dong Jun Lee

OPPOSITION: Plaintiff Jaclyn Jang

Plaintiff Jaclyn Jang (“Plaintiff” or “Jang”) filed a complaint against Defendant Dong Jun Lee (“Defendant” or “Lee”) over his 2004 film Clementine, which starred the actor Steven Seagal (“Seagal”). The gist of Jang’s claims is that she was hired to secure Seagal’s participation in film and to produce the film but did not receive the compensation she was entitled to for those services.

Lee has filed the instant motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel Kenneth A. Weissman on the ground that he represented Lee and his company, Pearl Star Pictures Inc. (“Pearl Star”) , in hiring Seagal and during the production of the film.

Standard: Rule 1.9 of the Rules of Professional Conduct states that “[a] lawyer who has formerly

represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a

substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of

the former client unless the former client gives informed written consent.” (Rules of Prof’l Conduct, Rule 1.9 (a).) California Code of Civil Procedure section 128(a)(5) authorizes the Court to control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it. This authority includes disqualifying an attorney. People ex. rel. Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) Cal. 4th 1135, 1145.

In ruling on a motion to disqualify the court considers and weighs: (1) the party's right to counsel of choice; (2) the attorney's interest in representing a client; (3) the financial burden on a client of change of counsel; (4) any tactical abuse underlying a disqualification motion; and (5) the principal that the fair resolution of disputes requires vigorous representation of parties by independent counsel. Mills Land & Water Co. v. Golden West Refining Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 116, 126. Whether an attorney should be disqualified is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Henriksen v. Great American Savings & Loan (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 109, 113. In exercising that discretion, the trial court is required to make a reasoned judgment which complies with the legal principles and policies applicable to the issue at hand. (Ibid.)

Analysis: Lee argues that Weissman previously represented him and his company, Pearl Star. Weissman drafted a power of attorney by which Jang acted as Lee’s attorney-in-fact and was authorized to enter into entertainment related contracts on his behalf. (Decl. Lee, Ex. A.) Lee asserts Jang as his attorney-in-fact hired Weissman to represent him and Pearl Star. Lee states that Jang’s claims – related to hiring Segal and producing the film – are the same matters Weissman was retained for.

Weissman argues that he represented Jang and Lee’s company Pearl Star Pictures, Inc., but did not represent Lee, citing Lynn v. George (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 630, 642, for the proposition that an attorney for a partnership does not have an attorney-client relationship with the individual partners, whose logic he argues equally applies to corporations and their members. Weissman also argues that there was no confidential communication between himself and Lee, as the latter does not speak or read English. Weissman states that he communicated with Lee by having Jang interpret and aside from that their only communication was simple greetings. Finally, Weissman argues that Lee knew since November 2018, that he was representing Jang and that there has been an unreasonable delay in filing this motion.

The Court will grant the motion to disqualify: Weissman concurrently represented Pearl Star and Jang, but the latter was Lee’s agent through the power of attorney and the agreement/contracts Weissman was retained to negotiate and draft were for the benefit of Lee. Essentially, Weissman represented Lee as Jang’s actions were performed on his behalf. Through this previous representation Weissman received confidential information and communications from Lee, which he would now use against Lee. There is a substantial relationship between Weissman’s past representation and Jang’s current claims regarding the compensation owed for her services. Although Lee delayed for two years in filing this motion, Jang has not demonstrated that she has suffered substantial prejudice because of this delay.

Conclusion: Respectfully, Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel is GRANTED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer WEISSMAN KENNETH ALAN