On 09/02/2016 RAYMOND A KLUG filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against DUKE AHN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MARK C. KIM. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****0795
09/02/2016
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MARK C. KIM
RAYMOND A. KLUG M.D. INC. - A CORP
RAYMOND A. KLUG - INDIV
INDIV RAYMOND A. KLUG -
HARRY MARINOW M.D. INC. - MED CORP
DEREK T. DEE- INDIV.
EDWARD GREEN III - A MEDICAL CORP
DUKE AHN M.D. INC. - MED CORP
EDWARD GREEN - INDIV.
DEREK T. DEE M.D. - A PROF. CORP
DUKE AHN - INDIV.
HARRY MARINOW- INDIV
GREATER L.B. ORTHOPAEDIC SURGICAL & MED.G
DOES 1 - 50 INC.
INDIV. DUKE AHN -
INDIV. EDWARD GREEN -
INDIV HARRY MARINOW-
INDIV. DEREK T. DEE-
TREDWAY LUMSDAINE & DOYLE LLP(MAT KINLEY
COLEMAN JONATHAN JACOB
EVANS WILLIAM DAVID
ANDRADE SEAN ADRIAN
DIEM ROBIN LEE
HSU ROBERT CHIHMING
11/14/2016: Unknown
12/21/2016: Answer
1/19/2017: Unknown
1/30/2017: Minute Order
3/2/2017: Answer
5/1/2017: Minute Order
8/9/2017: Minute Order
9/26/2017: Case Management Statement
1/4/2018: Case Management Statement
1/16/2018: Minute Order
9/7/2018: Minute Order
10/2/2018: Notice
11/26/2018: Minute Order
1/29/2019: Objection
2/26/2019: Ex Parte Application
4/9/2019: Request for Judicial Notice
4/18/2019: Reply
4/18/2019: Objection
at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Answers at Deposition) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party
at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (as to Defendants Derek T. Dee and Derek T. Dee, M.D.) - Held - Continued
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendants Derek...)); Filed by Clerk
Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore ((Lori Lillienfeld, CSR: 6618)); Filed by Clerk
Appeal - Reporter Appeal Transcript Process Fee Paid (Appellant); Filed by RAYMOND A. KLUG - INDIV (Appellant); RAYMOND A. KLUG M.D. INC. - A CORP (Appellant)
Appeal - Reporter Appeal Transcripts Deposit Paid (Appellant)
at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (as to Defendants Derek T. Dee and Derek T. Dee, M.D.) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion
at 09:54 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Court Order
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order) of 04/22/2019); Filed by Clerk
Minute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk
Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by RAYMOND A. KLUG - INDIV (Plaintiff); RAYMOND A. KLUG M.D. INC. - A CORP (Plaintiff)
Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by RAYMOND A. KLUG - INDIV (Plaintiff); RAYMOND A. KLUG M.D. INC. - A CORP (Plaintiff)
Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by RAYMOND A. KLUG - INDIV (Plaintiff); RAYMOND A. KLUG M.D. INC. - A CORP (Plaintiff)
Declaration (Of Reasonable Diligence); Filed by RAYMOND A. KLUG - INDIV (Plaintiff); RAYMOND A. KLUG M.D. INC. - A CORP (Plaintiff)
Summons; Filed by RAYMOND A. KLUG - INDIV (Plaintiff); RAYMOND A. KLUG M.D. INC. - A CORP (Plaintiff)
Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case
Civil Case Cover Sheet
Order (To Show Cause Hearing)
Notice of Case Management Conference
Complaint; Filed by RAYMOND A. KLUG - INDIV (Plaintiff); RAYMOND A. KLUG M.D. INC. - A CORP (Plaintiff)
Case Number: NC060795 Hearing Date: December 01, 2020 Dept: S27
Plaintiffs, Raymond A. Klug and Raymond A. Klug, M.D., Inc. filed this action against Defendants, Duke Ahn, Duke Ahn, M.D., Inc., Edward Green, Edward Green, III, a Medical Corporation, Harry Marinow, Harry Marinow, M.D., Inc., Derek T. Dee, Derek T. Dee, M.D., a professional corporation, and Greater Long Beach Orthopedic Surgical and Medical Group for breach of fiduciary duty and related claims. The crux of Plaintiffs’ complaint was that Klug was not paid all monies he was owed while out on medical disability.
The Court entered summary judgment in favor of Green and Dee in their individual capacities. The Court found the complaint failed to advance any theory of liability against Green or Dee in their individual capacities. The Court also found Green and Dee met their moving burden to show they were not the alter egos of their medical corporations, and Plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of material fact regarding alter ego.
The case proceeded to jury trial against Dee and Green’s medical corporations. The jury trial concluded in a judgment in favor of Plaintiff, Raymond A. Klug, M.D., a corporation and against the Dee and Green entities in the total principal amount of $104,998.17.
The Court’s summary judgment rulings in favor of Dee and Green, in their individual capacities, are on appeal.
On 5/07/20, Plaintiff, Raymond A. Klug propounded subpoenas on the Dee and Green entities’ banks (Wells Fargo), seeking production of their entire account financial records. The purpose of the subpoenas is to show that the defendant entities commingled funds and/or engaged in other inappropriate banking behavior which tends to show alter ego liability on the part of the individual defendants.
On 6/05/20, Defendants filed this motion to quash. Defendants seek an order quashing the subpoenas on the following grounds:
The subpoenas were issued by Raymond A. Klug in his individual capacity, but Klug is not a judgment creditor;
The subpoenas are improper in light of the pending appeal;
The subpoenas are improper in light of the Court’s summary judgment ruling on the alter ego issue.
Not a Judgment Creditor
The subpoenas were propounded by Klug in his individual capacity, but Klug is not a judgment creditor. Defendants contend the subpoenas should be quashed, as they were not issued by a judgment creditor. Plaintiffs fail to address this argument in opposition to the motion. The motion to quash on this ground is granted. However, because the entity plaintiff/judgment creditor could simply propound new subpoenas, the Court will reach the remaining issues.
Alter Ego
The second and third issues are intertwined. Plaintiffs provide substantial authority for the position that, in the context of judgment collection, it is proper to seek discovery to prove that an individual is the alter ego of the entity judgment creditor, and then to move to amend the judgment to add the individual as a judgment debtor. Defendants, in reply, correctly note that NONE of these cases involved a situation where, as here, the alleged alter ego had successfully moved for summary judgment specifically on the alter ego issue.
The Court finds the fact that there is a dispositive and final ruling on the alter ego issue is conclusive, and Plaintiff cannot, in the future, move to amend the judgment and have the alleged alter ego individuals added as judgment debtors. There would be no point to having a summary judgment ruling on this issue if the issue could simply be re-opened after judgment. Plaintiff had ample opportunity to conduct discovery on the alter ego issue BEFORE the Court entered judgment in the individual defendants’ favor, and cannot re-open the issue now.
Compounding the matter, as Defendants correctly note in their opposition, the issue of the alter ego ruling is up on appeal. Pursuant to CCP §916(a), all issues embraced by the appeal are stayed at the trial court level pending the outcome of the appeal. The Court understands Plaintiff’s position, which is that the issue at the trial court level is potential amendment of the judgment to include the individuals as alter egos, which Plaintiff argues is different from a summary judgment ruling on the alter ego issue. The Court, however, rejects this position. The Court finds the issue of alter ego, once finally adjudicated, cannot be revisited post-judgment.
Conclusion
The motion to quash is granted. The subpoenas were issued by a person who is not a judgment creditor. The issue of alter ego has been conclusively adjudicated by way of summary judgment. To the extent the issue is unsettled, it is because the issue is pending on appeal; any further trial court order on the issue would be improper while the appeal is pending.
Moving Defendants are ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases