This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 09:55:25 (UTC).

YONG HWAN KIM ET AL VS CHRISTINE Y KIM ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/01/2015 YONG HWAN KIM filed an Other lawsuit against CHRISTINE Y KIM. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is TERESA SANCHEZ-GORDON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3197

  • Filing Date:

    09/01/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

TERESA SANCHEZ-GORDON

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

KIM HAENG CHA

KIM YONG HWAN

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

BEE COMMERCIAL

BEE INVESTMENT INC.

BEE REALTY GROUP

DOES 1 THROUGH 10

KIM CHRISTINE Y.

CHOI SOOKRYUL

NAMU DEVELOPMENT INC

OH JISUN

BEE INVESTMENT INC. DBA BEE REALTY GROUP DBA BEE COMMERCIAL

OH ELAINE

KIM JOON

SIMCO CONSTRUCTION

JK-0618 INC

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

CHOI SOOKRYUL

OH JISUN

OH ELAINE

KIM JOON

JK-0618 INC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

SPIERER WOODWARD CORBALIS & GOLDBERG

BROWN JEFFREY N.

KIM HELEN BYUNGSUN

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

PARK & LIM

SELMONT RUSSELL MATTHEW ESQ.

MCPHILLIPS DENNIS

CHUNG KENNETH WONSUP

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

REYNOLDS MATTHEW ALAN

Cross Defendant Attorney

LIM SHI YOUNG

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF RULING RE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

8/3/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

10/22/2018: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Brief

1/23/2019: Brief

Objection

1/28/2019: Objection

Cross-Complaint

2/21/2019: Cross-Complaint

Minute Order

4/8/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

5/7/2019: Notice of Ruling

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

12/2/2015: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CHRISTINE KIM AND BEE INVESTMENT INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES OF YONG HWAN KIM TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SET TWO AND FORM INTERROGATOTRIES SET TWO AT INTERROGATORY 17

10/18/2016: CHRISTINE KIM AND BEE INVESTMENT INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES OF YONG HWAN KIM TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SET TWO AND FORM INTERROGATOTRIES SET TWO AT INTERROGATORY 17

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES OF HAENG CHA KIM TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET TWO AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,810.00; DECLARATION OF DENNIS MCP

10/18/2016: DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES OF HAENG CHA KIM TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET TWO AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,810.00; DECLARATION OF DENNIS MCP

NOTICE OF COURT'S CONTINUANCE OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES OF YONG HWAN KIM TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 2.6 AND 2.7 OF SET ONE AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560.00.

12/13/2016: NOTICE OF COURT'S CONTINUANCE OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES OF YONG HWAN KIM TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 2.6 AND 2.7 OF SET ONE AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560.00.

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

1/24/2017: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

DECLARATION OF NICOLE M. RIVERS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF HAENG CHA KIM'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET

2/14/2017: DECLARATION OF NICOLE M. RIVERS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF HAENG CHA KIM'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET

CHRISTINE KIM AND BEE INVESTMENT INC.'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 2.6 AND 2.7 AND ETC.

2/17/2017: CHRISTINE KIM AND BEE INVESTMENT INC.'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 2.6 AND 2.7 AND ETC.

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF YONG HWAN KIM'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 2.6 AND 2.7 OF SET ONE

2/24/2017: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF YONG HWAN KIM'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 2.6 AND 2.7 OF SET ONE

Minute Order

6/6/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING RE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

6/8/2017: NOTICE OF RULING RE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF DE-CALENDARING OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES OF YONG HWAN KIM TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET TWO

6/12/2017: DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF DE-CALENDARING OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES OF YONG HWAN KIM TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET TWO

187 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/08/2020
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Post-Mediation Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 74; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 74; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Cross-defendant Namu Development, Inc?s Motion to Compel Answ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
393 More Docket Entries
  • 10/29/2015
  • DocketNOTICE OF ERRATA TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2015
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Yong Hwan Kim (Plaintiff); Haeng Cha Kim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2015
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Yong Hwan Kim (Plaintiff); Haeng Cha Kim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2015
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2015
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2015
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2015
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2015
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Yong Hwan Kim (Plaintiff); Haeng Cha Kim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2015
  • DocketPLAINTIFFS COMILAINT FOR: 1) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2015
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC593197    Hearing Date: July 08, 2020    Dept: 74

BC593197 YONG HWAN KIM vs CHRISTINE Y KIM

Motion to Continue Trial and Motion for Leave to Intervene

TENTATIVE RULING:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED. The court will discuss the new trial counsel with counsel in conjunction with today’s Trial Setting Conference.

2. Kinsale’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is DENIED. The motion is untimely and does not comply with the requirements of C.C.P. § 387 in that it does not provide a proposed answer in intervention.

Case Number: BC593197    Hearing Date: July 01, 2020    Dept: 74

BC593197 YONG HWAN KIM ET AL VS CHRISTINE Y KIM

Cross-Defendant Namu Development, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.

Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(2) states, “Notice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing. If the notice is served by mail, the required 75-day period of notice shall be increased by 5 days if the place of address is within the State of California, 10 days if the place of address is outside the State of California but within the United States, and 20 days if the place of address is outside the United States. If the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required 75-day period of notice shall be increased by two court days.”

This motion was not served within the minimum notice period for summary judgment hearings. Namu served notice of motion upon Plaintiffs on April 17, 2020 via email and attempted hand delivery. (Opp. to MSJ p.12: 18-26.) An unsigned copy of the proof of service, filed by Namu states, “The documents were placed in sealed, addressed envelopes and served by personal delivery to the party or attorney indicated herein or, if upon an attorney, by leaving the labeled envelopes with a receptionist or other person having charge of the attorney's office.” However, Namu’s service processor did not deliver a copy to any employee or counsel of Plaintiff’s firm, so it emailed a copy to Plaintiffs’ counsel on April 17, 2020, two days after the electronic service time limitation. (Opp. to MSJ p.12: 13-26.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ offered to stipulate to continue the motion hearing date so as to allow for proper service; however, Namu’s counsel did not agree. (Opp. to MSJ p.12: 13-26.)

“Because it is potentially case dispositive and usually requires considerable time and effort to prepare, a summary judgment motion is perhaps the most important pretrial motion in a civil case. Therefore, the Legislature was entitled to conclude that parties should be afforded a minimum notice period for the hearing of summary judgment motions so that they have sufficient time to assemble the relevant evidence and prepare an adequate opposition.‘[W]e hold that, in light of the express statutory language, trial courts do not have authority to shorten the minimum notice period for summary judgment hearings.’” (Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1262.)