Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/07/2019 at 14:29:54 (UTC).

KARYS DALSOOK MA VS JOONG KUN AHN ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/30/2016 KARYS DALSOOK MA filed a Personal Injury - Assault/Battery/Defamation lawsuit against JOONG KUN AHN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5692

  • Filing Date:

    06/30/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Assault/Battery/Defamation

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MA KARYS DALSOOK

Defendants and Respondents

AHN JOONG KUN

CHUN HO JIN

JEUNGSANDO

KIM JAE NAM

KIM KIYON KIM

LEE JONG SUNG

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

KIM HYUNG SUNG

YOON MYUNG SUN

CHUNG JAE SUNG

LEE KYUNG HEE

KIM SUK

KIM KIYON

Assignee

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

KIM JAMIE JIYOON ESQ

Defendant Attorney

DROOKS BIRD MAERLLA BOXER WOLPERT NESSIM

Assignee Attorney

FREED KENNETH JAY

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANTS JAE NAM KIM AND JAE SUNG CHUNG'S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTIO

6/14/2018: DEFENDANTS JAE NAM KIM AND JAE SUNG CHUNG'S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTIO

Minute Order

8/2/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANT HO JIN CHUNG'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; ETC.

8/25/2016: DEFENDANT HO JIN CHUNG'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; ETC.

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

10/3/2016: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/3/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/3/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

1/3/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

PLAINTIFF KARYS DALSOOK MA'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS DEMURRER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF;

1/3/2017: PLAINTIFF KARYS DALSOOK MA'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS DEMURRER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF;

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

4/11/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

4/11/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

STATEMENT OF DAMAGES (PERSONAL INJURY OR WRONGFUL DEATH)

4/11/2017: STATEMENT OF DAMAGES (PERSONAL INJURY OR WRONGFUL DEATH)

STATEMENT OF DAMAGES (PERSONAL INJURY OR WRONGFUL DEATH)

4/11/2017: STATEMENT OF DAMAGES (PERSONAL INJURY OR WRONGFUL DEATH)

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

5/30/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DECLARATION OF JAMIE JIYOON KIM IN SUPPORT OF FAILURE TO APPEAR TO STATUS CONFERENCE ON 05/09/2017 & SUBMIT ENTRY OF DEFAULT

5/30/2017: DECLARATION OF JAMIE JIYOON KIM IN SUPPORT OF FAILURE TO APPEAR TO STATUS CONFERENCE ON 05/09/2017 & SUBMIT ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

6/1/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

6/1/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

6/1/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/17/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

163 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/07/2019
  • Writ of Execution ((Los Angeles )); Filed by Karys DAlsook Ma (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest; Filed by Karys DAlsook Ma (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2018
  • Assignment of Judgment; Filed by Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (Assignee)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2018
  • Assignment of Judgment; Filed by Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (Assignee)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2018
  • Acknowlegment of Assignment of Judgment; Filed by Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (Assignee)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2018
  • Notice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by Jae Sung Chung (Defendant); Jae Nam Kim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2018
  • NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 50; Unknown Event Type - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-08-02 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2018
  • JUDGMENT AFTER GRANTING SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 425.16

    Read MoreRead Less
337 More Docket Entries
  • 08/25/2016
  • REQUEST OF THE DEFENDANT, HO J1N CHUNG, FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2016
  • DEFENDANT HO JIN CHUNG'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2016
  • Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2016
  • DECLARATION OR WILLAIMA J. VOLONTE PURSUANT TO CIVIL CODE 43O41(A)(2) REGARDING GOOD FA1TIIATFEMPTS TO MEET AND CONFER PRIOR TO FILING DEMURRER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2016
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1) SLANDER AND LIBEL; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Karys DAlsook Ma (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC625692    Hearing Date: March 02, 2021    Dept: 50

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

karys dalsook ma,

Plaintiff,

vs.

joong kun ahn, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 625692

Hearing Date:

March 2, 2021

Hearing Time:

10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

CLAIM OF EXEMPTION

Background

On August 2, 2018, judgment was entered in favor of Defendants Jae Nam Kim and Jae Sung Chung (jointly, “Defendants”) after the granting of Defendants’ special motion to strike the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Karys Dalsook Ma (“Plaintiff”) (the “Judgment”). Notice of entry of judgment was served on August 8, 2018.

On November 15, 2018, Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (“Assignee”) filed an Assignment of Judgment, showing that Defendants assigned and transferred the Judgment to Assignee. According to the Assignment of Judgment, $31,888.50 remained unpaid and owing from Plaintiff.

On December 16, 2020, Assignee filed a Notice of Hearing on Claim of Exemption as well as a Notice of Opposition to Claim of Exemption. Per these filings, a Notice of Filing Claim of Exemption was mailed on December 7, 2020, in which Plaintiff claims that his wages are exempt from withholding.

The Court issued an order on January 20, 2021 directing the parties to submit additional, admissible evidence. The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed a supplemental declaration, but that Assignee has not filed any supplemental documents.

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 703.550, subdivision (a), Assignee was required to file, within 15 days after service of the notice of claim of exemption, a notice of opposition to the claim of exemption and a notice of motion for an order determining the claim of exemption. The Court notes that no notice of motion for an order determining the claim of exemption appears to have been filed. Copies of the notice of opposition and notice of motion are also required to be filed with the levying officer. Once the documents are filed with the levying officer, the levying officer “shall promptly file the claim of exemption with the court.” ((Id., § 703.550, subd. (a).) The claim of exemption does not appear to have been filed. Nevertheless, Assignee attaches a copy of the claim of exemption to its Notice of Opposition. Moreover, the Court notes that Assignee also attaches a memorandum of points and authorities to the Notice of Opposition. Therefore, the Court construes the Notice of Opposition to also be Assignee’s motion for an order determining the claim of exemption.

Plaintiff is seeking to exempt all of his earnings from withholding. Plaintiff’s Claim of Exemption and attached financial statement indicates that his total monthly pay is $0 because he is currently “on EDD.” Plaintiff lists as part of his property a Honda Civic that is “bank owed.” Plaintiff’s total monthly expenses are $6,019. Plaintiff also owes a debt to Juko Chun in the approximate amount of $100,000.

In opposition, Assignee contends that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof to show that his income is actually $0. ((See Id., § 703.580, subd. (b).) Assignee argues that Plaintiff failed to provide proof of income benefits from EDD and any other financial statements to show proof of income or proof of his expenses. But the Court is permitted to base its determination on the claim of exemption and the notice of opposition, and there is no requirement that additional evidence be provided. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.580, subd. (c) [“The claim of exemption is deemed controverted by the notice of opposition to the claim of exemption and both shall be received in evidence. If no other evidence is offered, the court, if satisfied that sufficient facts are shown by the claim of exemption (including the financial statement if one is required) and the notice of opposition, may make its determination thereon. If not satisfied, the court shall order the hearing continued for the production of other evidence, oral or documentary.”].) Moreover, the Court notes that the “exemption statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the [claimant].” (Independence Bank v. Heller (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 84, 88.)

Assignee offers as evidence that the wage garnishment was served on Man Bok Dong Acupuncture Clinic, Inc. (the “Clinic”); that the Clinic was incorporated on August 2, 2012; and that Plaintiff holds all officer positions for the Clinic. But the Court notes that the evidence submitted by Assignee is not authenticated, and there is no foundation laid such as by a declaration made under penalty of perjury.

In Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration, Plaintiff asserts that he operates the Clinic but that since the COVID-19 pandemic, the Clinic has been experiencing severe financial hardship. (Ma Decl., ¶ 1.) The Clinic is “about to shut down” due to loss of income and patients. (Ma Decl., ¶ 1.) Plaintiff also asserts that he has not been able to pay the rent for the Clinic, and he currently owes $8,623.40 in rent. (Ma Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff also owes Juko Chen, a third party, $100,000. (Ma Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 2.) In 2020, Plaintiff received a total of $31,350 in unemployment compensation from the Employment Development Department. (Ma Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 3.)

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that his wages, because he has none, are totally exempt from withholding.

The Court orders Plaintiff to give notice of this order.

DATED: March 2, 2021 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: BC625692    Hearing Date: January 20, 2021    Dept: 50

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

karys dalsook ma,

Plaintiff,

vs.

joong kun ahn, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 625692

Hearing Date:

January 20, 2021

Hearing Time:

10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

CLAIM OF EXEMPTION

Background

On August 2, 2018, judgment was entered in favor of Defendants Jae Nam Kim and Jae Sung Chung (jointly, “Defendants”) after the granting of Defendants’ special motion to strike the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Karys Dalsook Ma (“Plaintiff”) (the “Judgment”). Notice of entry of judgment was served on August 8, 2018.

On November 15, 2018, Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (“Assignee”) filed an Assignment of Judgment, showing that Defendants assigned and transferred the Judgment to Assignee. According to the Assignment of Judgment, $31,888.50 remained unpaid and owing from Plaintiff.

On December 16, 2020, Assignee filed a Notice of Hearing on Claim of Exemption as well as a Notice of Opposition to Claim of Exemption. Per these filings, a Notice of Filing Claim of Exemption was mailed on December 7, 2020, in which Plaintiff claims that his wages are exempt from withholding.

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 703.550, subdivision (a), Assignee was required to file, within 15 days after service of the notice of claim of exemption, a notice of opposition to the claim of exemption and a notice of motion for an order determining the claim of exemption. The Court notes that no notice of motion for an order determining the claim of exemption appears to have been filed. Copies of the notice of opposition and notice of motion are also required to be filed with the levying officer. Once the documents are filed with the levying officer, the levying officer “shall promptly file the claim of exemption with the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.550, subd. (a).) The claim of exemption does not appear to have been filed. Nevertheless, Assignee attaches a copy of the claim of exemption to its Notice of Opposition. Moreover, the Court notes that Assignee also attaches a memorandum of points and authorities to the Notice of Opposition. Therefore, the Court construes the Notice of Opposition to also be Assignee’s motion for an order determining the claim of exemption.

Plaintiff’s Claim of Exemption and attached financial statement indicates that his total monthly pay is $0 because he is currently “on EDD.” Plaintiff lists as part of his property a Honda Civic that is “bank owed.” Plaintiff’s total monthly expenses are $6,019. Plaintiff also owes a debt to Juko Chun in the approximate amount of $100,000.

In opposition, Assignee contends that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof to show that his income is actually $0. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 703.580, subd. (b).) Assignee argues that Plaintiff failed to provide proof of income benefits from EDD and any other financial statements to show proof of income or proof of his expenses. But the Court is permitted to base its determination on the claim of exemption and the notice of opposition, and there is no requirement that additional evidence be provided. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.580, subd. (c) [“The claim of exemption is deemed controverted by the notice of opposition to the claim of exemption and both shall be received in evidence. If no other evidence is offered, the court, if satisfied that sufficient facts are shown by the claim of exemption (including the financial statement if one is required) and the notice of opposition, may make its determination thereon. If not satisfied, the court shall order the hearing continued for the production of other evidence, oral or documentary.”].) Moreover, the Court notes that the “exemption statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the [claimant].” (Independence Bank v. Heller (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 84, 88.)

Assignee offers as evidence that the wage garnishment was served on Man Bok Dong Acupuncture Clinic, Inc. (the “Clinic”); that the Clinic was incorporated on August 2, 2012; and that Plaintiff holds all officer positions for the Clinic. But the Court notes that the evidence submitted by Assignee is not authenticated, and there is no foundation laid such as by a declaration made under penalty of perjury. There is no request for judicial notice. Additionally, in Plaintiff’s Financial Statement attached to the Claim of Exemption, Plaintiff indicates that he is “currently on EDD,” which suggests that he is getting benefits. But Plaintiff wrote in $0 in section 2(d) (“Other money I get each month from (specify source)”). Accordingly, the Court finds that it is unable to make a determination based solely on the facts set forth in the claim of exemption and the notice of opposition. The Court will continue the hearing so that the parties may proffer admissible evidence in support of their respective positions.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the hearing on the claim of exemption is continued to a date to be set by the Clerk.

The Court orders Assignee to give notice of this order.

DATED: January 20, 2021 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer FREED KENNETH JAY