On 12/11/2014 MMC CAPITAL FUND filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against CASTLE CAPITAL PARTNERS NO 2. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LORI ANN FOURNIER, ROGER ITO, RAUL A. SAHAGUN and TORRIBIO, JOHN A.. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
LORI ANN FOURNIER
RAUL A. SAHAGUN
TORRIBIO, JOHN A.
MMC CAPITAL FUND A NEVADA CORPORATION
MEDLINE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
WHITE EAGLE PROPERTIES A NEVADA CORPORATION
FIRESTONE FINANCE CORPORATION A NEVADA CORPORATION
MEDLINE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
FIRESTONE FINANCE CORPORATION
CASTLE CAPITAL PARTNERS NO. 2 A
BANK OF HOPE A CA CHARTERED BK CORP
TOP PROPERTIES CORPORATION A CALIFORNIA
TOP PROPERTIES CORPORATION
MR SOLOMON LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED
MR SOLOMON INVESTMENTS LLC
BANK OF HOPE A CALIFORNIA-CHARTERED
CASTLE CAPITAL PARTNERS NO. 2 LLC
PARK SEONG JIN
PARK AN INDIVIDUAL SEONG JIN
CHANG AN INDIVIDUAL MICHAEL
TZO HARVARD LLC
DE NOVO LAW FIRM
LAW OFFICE OF MASAI MCDOUGALL
MASAI MCDOUGALL ESQ.
MCDOUGALL MASAI DENNIS
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
WILK MICHAEL B
9/8/2015: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Second Amended Complaint
8/18/2015: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Order
8/21/2015: Notice of Ruling
6/28/2016: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration
7/7/2016: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2016-07-07 00:00:00
12/14/2016: Declaration - Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel-Civil
7/7/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Stipulation and Order
9/19/2017: Order - Order to: Consolidate Cases VC064466 and BC671208 and to Vacate the Pending Trial and FSC Dates or, in the Alternative, to Continue the Pending Trial and FSC Dates at Least 100 Days
3/2/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration
10/19/2018: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike
12/7/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Answer/Responsive Pleading to the Thi...)
12/27/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)
6/7/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REGARDING ANSWER/RESPONSIVE PLEADING ...)
9/10/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING OF DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
9/10/2019: Order - ORDER HEARING OF 9/10/19
12/4/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ADVANCEMENT OF HEARING DATE OF DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
3/24/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
5/1/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 05/01/2020
Hearing04/12/2021 at 13:30 PM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Trial Setting ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing04/12/2021 at 13:30 PM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Order to Show Cause Re: regarding answer/responsive pleading to the cross complaint filed 8/18/2020Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department F; Trial Setting Conference - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department F; Order to Show Cause Re: (regarding answer/responsive pleading to the operative complaint) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department F; Order to Show Cause Re: (regarding service/answer/responsive pleading to the cross complaint (when filed)) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: regarding a...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration (of Demurring Party in Support of Automatic Extension); Filed by White Eagle Properties, a Nevada corporation (Cross-Defendant); JAMAL DAWOOD (Cross-Defendant); FIRESTONE FINANCE CORPORATION (Cross-Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by BANK OF HOPE, a California-chartered (Defendant); Michael Chang, an individual (Defendant); MR SOLOMON, LLC, a California limited (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by BANK OF HOPE, a California-chartered (Defendant); Michael Chang, an individual (Defendant); SEONG JIN PARK, an individual (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Trial Setting Conference - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMiscellaneous-Other (FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT NO SUMMONS ISSUED ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by MMC CAPITAL FUND, a Nevada corporation (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by MMC CAPITAL FUND, a Nevada corporation (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons IssuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by MMC CAPITAL FUND, a Nevada corporation (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: VC064466 Hearing Date: July 02, 2020 Dept: SEC
MMC CAPITAL FUND v. CASTLE CAPITAL PARTNERS NO. 2
CASE NO.: VC064466
Defendants BANK OF HOPE; SEONG JIN PARK; MR SOLOMON INVESTMENTS, LLC; TOP PRIORTIES CORPORATION; TZO HARVARD LLC; MICHAEL CHANG; and CASTLE CAPITAL PARTNERS NO. 2, LLC’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint is OVERRULED in part and SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to Defendants PARK and Defendant BANK OF HOPE in part. CCP §430.10(e).
Moving Party to Give Notice.
Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to the existence of the documents, but not as to any hearsay statements contained therein. Cal. Ev. Code §452.
This action was filed by Plaintiffs on December 11, 2014. The relevant facts, as alleged, are as follows: “Defendant Chang has wrongfully exerted control over up to $750,000 of partnership funds located in the partnership’s bank accounts without any intent to provide Plaintiffs their appropriate share.” (TAC ¶73.) “Park and Bank of Hope have offered Chang material assistance and aided and abetted Chang in taking wrongful control over these funds, and in failing to notify Plaintiffs of the wrongful taking.” (TAC ¶75.) “The account agreement entered by and among Plaintiffs’ manager Dawood, Chang, and Defendant Bank of Hope provided that withdrawals of over $5,000 required the signature of both Dawood and Chang. [¶] Defendants Bank of Hope and Park were aware that the reason for this requirement of dual signatures was to prevent one side of the partnership from withdrawing or transferring more than $5,000 of partnership funds without the other side’s approval.” (TAC ¶¶100-101.) “Chang issued approximately 160 checks in the amount of $4,5000 [sic] over the course of 7 days with the express inent of withdrawing money from the account without Plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent.” (TAC ¶109.) “By ignoring this massive amount of transfers completed in the course of a week, Defendants Bank of Hope and Park breached their duty to exercise reasonable care in administering the account according to the agreement it had entered with Chang and Dawood.” (TAC ¶110.) “On information and belief, Bank of Hope maintains policy alerts regarding a suspiciously high number of transactions within a short period of time or for transactions of unusual amounts within a short period of time. On information and belief, Defendant Bank of Hope, Park, and its other agents ignored these alerts and other internal policies when Chang executed the above withdrawals.” (TAC ¶111.)
The TAC, filed on September 27, 2019, asserts the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (2) Conversion; (3) Fraud; (4) Breach of Oral Contract; (5) Accounting; and (6) Negligence.
Defendants BANK OF HOPE (“Bank”); SEONG JIN PARK (“Park”); MR SOLOMON INVESTMENTS, LLC; TOP PRIORITIES CORPORATION; TZO HARVARD LLC; MICHAEL CHANG; and CASTLE CAPITAL PARTNERS NO. 2 (collectively “Defendants”) demur to the sixth cause of action for Negligence as to Defendants BANK and PARK pursuant to CCP §430.10(e).
Sixth Cause of Action – Negligence
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs MEDLINE and FIRESTONE lack standing to sue Defendants PARK and BANK OF HOPE for negligence.
“The elements of a cause of action for negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages. [Cite.]” (Johnson v. Prasad (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 74, 78.) Only a real party in interest has standing to prosecute an action, except as otherwise provided by statute. (CCP §367.) A party who is not the real party in interest lacks standing to sue. (Cloud v. Northrup Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 1004.) “A real party in interest ordinarily is defined as the person possessing the right sued upon by reason of the substantive law.” (Killian v. Millard (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1601, 1605.) A complaint filed by someone other than the real party in interest is subject to general demurrer on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action. (Id.) “When a partnership has a claim, the real party in interest is the partnership and not an individual member of the partnership.” (Wallner v. Parry Professional Building, Ltd. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1449.)
It is unclear how Defendants PARK or BANK OF HOPE owe any duties to Plaintiffs MEDLINE and/or FIRESTONE. These Plaintiffs are not alleged to be account holders and have no operative account agreement with the Bank. Where it is alleged that Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a partnership agreement, and signed the Account Agreement with the Bank in its capacity as a partnership, it would follow that any claim for negligence properly belongs to the partnership—not its individual partners. The demurrer to the sixth cause of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to the Negligence claims asserted by MEDLINE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and FIRESTONE FINANCE CORPORATION.
As to the Entire TAC – Sham Pleading
Defendants also demur to the entire TAC, arguing that it is barred by the sham pleading doctrine.
The “sham pleading doctrine” provides that “[i]f a party files an amended complaint and attempts to avoid the defects of the original complaint by either omitting facts which made the previous complaint defective or by adding facts inconsistent with those of previous pleadings, the court may take judicial notice of prior pleadings and may disregard any inconsistent allegations.” (Colapinto v. County of Riverside (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 147, 151-152.) Plaintiffs can only “avoid the effect of the sham pleading doctrine by alleging an explanation for the conflicts between the pleadings. [Citation.]. (Deveny v. Entropin, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 408, 426.) While the sham pleading rule “is a good rule to defeat abuses of the privilege to amend and to discourage sham and untruthful pleadings” … "[i]t is not a rule…which is intended to prevent honest complainants from correcting erroneous allegations…or to prevent correction of ambiguous facts.” (Avalon Painting Co. v. Alert Lumber Co. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 178, 185.)
In its ruling(s) on previous demurrers, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend to clarify their allegations pertaining to the sixth cause of action. Plaintiffs have done so in accordance with this Court’s prior rulings. Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ allegations in the TAC (particularly ¶¶102-106) are not barred by the sham pleading doctrine. The demurrer to the entire complaint on the basis of the sham pleading doctrine is OVERRULED.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases