Search

Attributes

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 a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury 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:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • 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: January 14, 2021    Dept: 74

BC593197 YONG HWAN KIM VS CHRISTINE Y KIM

Petitioner/Intervenor Kinsale Insurance’s (1) Motion to Set Aside Default Against “Simco Construction, A California Corp.” under CCP § 473(b) and (2) to Intervene under CCP § 387 (combined)

(3) Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial and all Relevant Pre-Trial Dates

TENTATIVE RULINGS:

Petitioner/Intervenor Kinsale Insurance’s Motion to Set Aside Default Against “Simco Construction, A California Corp.” under CCP § 473(b) and to Intervene under CCP § 387 are DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to August 30, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.; the Final Status Conference is continued to August 16, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. All related pretrial dates shall be set in accordance with the new trial date.

Background

This action involves consolidated cases concerning the purchase of real property for $8.3 million located at 69 Fremont Place, Los Angeles, CA 90005 (the “Subject Property”) by Plaintiffs Yong Hwan Kim and Haeng Cha Kim.

On September 01, 2015, Plaintiffs Yong Hwan Kim and Haeng Cha Kim, Trustees of The Kim Family Trusts dtd April 22, 2003 (“Plaintiffs”), filed their initial Complaint in Case No. BC593197 against Defendants Christine Y. Kim; Bee Investment, Inc., dba Bee Realty Group dba Bee Commercial, a California Corporation (collectively, “Brokers”) for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. On December 16, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, adding Defendants Joon Kim; JK-0618, Inc., a dissolved California Corporation; Elaine Oh; Jisun Oh, and Sookryul Choi (collectively, “Sellers”) to the action. Then, on February 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, alleging five (5) causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty; fraudulent concealment/misrepresentation; negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract; and recission.

On March 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a second lawsuit (Case No. BC655731) against Defendants Simco Construction (“Simco”) and Namu Development, Inc. (“Namu”), for allegedly defective renovation work completed on the Subject Property prior to Plaintiffs’ purchase of the same. Plaintiffs alleged one (1) cause of action against Simco and Namu for negligence. On May 19, 2017, Namu filed its Answer and on June 02, 2017, filed a cross-complaint against Simco for indemnity and contribution. Then, on July 19, 2017, Simco filed its Answer.

On August 13, 2018, this Court found Cases Nos. BC593197 and BC655731 to be related and ordered their consolidation. Case No. BC593197 was as lead.

In or about March 2019, the Court granted Simco’s defense counsel, hired by Simco’s insurance company, nonparty Kinsale Insurance Company (“Kinsale”), to withdraw from representation. Thereafter, Simco failed to retain counsel and was unresponsive to subsequent discovery requests.

Then, on July 08, 2020, the Court struck Simco’s July 19, 2017 Answer for Simco’s failure to show cause re failure to obtain counsel. At the same hearing, the Court denied Kinsale’s Motion for Leave to Intervene, without prejudice.

Kinsale Insurance’s Motion to Set Aside Default Against “Simco Construction, A California Corp.” under CCP § 473(b) and to Intervene under CCP § 387

Motion to Intervene

Kinsale argues, as Simco’s insurer, it has a direct and immediate interest in the litigation. The immediacy of Kinsale’s interest in intervening in the lawsuit became apparent when Simco refused to defend itself in the action. This Court agrees. However, explained further below, the Court also notes the extreme lack of urgency upon which Kinsale sought to intervene in the lawsuit upon discovering its interest in the litigation.

The following recitation is provided for context. On or about May 2017, Kinsale accepted Simco’s tender of defense under the liability policy issued to Simco and retained the law firm of Springel & Fink, LLP to defend Simco. (Motion at p. 5:21–25.) Springel & Fink filed answers to Plaintiff’s Complaint and Namu’s Cross-Complaint on July 07, 2017 and September 01, 2017, respectively. Then, on or about April 25, 2019 the Court granted Springel & Fink’s motion to withdraw pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 284 subd. (2), on the grounds that counsel was unable to communicate with the client for approximately nine (9) months. (Decl. E. Doyle, at Exh. D.) Next, on February 19, 2020 the Court compelled Simco, who was unresponsive to discovery requests, to provide responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Admissions, resulting in $600 sanctions against Simco (personally). Finally, on July 08, 2020, the Court struck Simco’s July 19, 2017 Answer for failure to obtain counsel. Based on its Simco’s apparent lack to defend itself in the instant lawsuit, it appears that Kinsale has met the first prong for permissive intervention.

Next, upon review of Kinsale’s Complaint in Intervention (Decl., E. Doyle, at Exh. A) it appears that Kinsale is solely joining the lawsuit on behalf of Simco and does not raise new claims, defenses, or factual issues beyond the scope of the original pleadings. Accordingly, Kinsale has met the second prong for permissive intervention.

Third, it appears that Kinsale’s reasons for intervention outweighs any opposition by Plaintiffs. That is, Kinsale seeks intervention to protects its interests as Simco’s insurer since Simco has demonstrated complete a lack of defense that resulted in Plaintiffs’ entering default against Simco on July 15, 2020. Further, by granting the intervention, Kinsale argues that its presence may increase the efficiency of the principal suit by presenting a timely defense and participating in further discovery. Accordingly, the Court finds Kinsale has met the third prong for permissive intervention.

Finally, however, in the Court’s July 08, 2020 order, wherein the Court denied Kinsale’s previous Motion for Leave to Intervene, without prejudice, the Court found that the motion was untimely. While there is no statutory deadline for filing a motion to intervene, the court may determine the issue of timeliness of a motion to intervene based on the date an interested party knew or should have known their interests were not being adequately represented. (Ziani Homeowners Assn. v. Brookfield Ziani LLC (2015) 243 Cal. App. 4th 274, 280; (Noya v. A.W. Coulter Trucking (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 838, 842.)

In review of the instant Moving Papers and Reply, Kinsale contends it filed this motion to set aside and intervene “as soon as possible after becoming aware of the July 15, 2020 entry of the default against Simco” and “prior to any notification to Kinsale’s counsel of the same.” (Motion at p. 14:21–23.) By contrast, in the Opposition Plaintiffs raise issue with this alleged timeline for the date Kinsale knew or should have known its interests were not being adequately represented. That is, Plaintiffs contend that while it was Simco that abandoned communication with Springer & Fink in June 2018, it was ultimately Kinsale’s decision as Simco’s insurer that provided such defense to withdraw from defending Simco in April 2019. Thereafter, Kinsale was unable to contact Simco to retain different counsel, resulting in the Court’s July 08, 2020 order dismissing Simco’s July 17, 2017 Complaint and the default against Simco entered on July 15, 2020. It was not until February 2020, nearly two years after Kinsale’s legal defense of Simco withdrew, that Kinsale first moved to intervene in the instant suit. Kinsale’s Moving Papers and Reply wholly fail to address this deficiency. Based on the previous determination of untimeliness stated in the July 08, 2020 Order and the apparent, previous involvement of Kinsale in providing and later withdrawing defense counsel from Simco, the Court finds the instant Motion to Intervene is untimely.

Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) provides the trial court may, “upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” In order for the Court to grant discretionary relief, the moving party must (1) “be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein,” (2) “be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months,” but (3) “[n]o affidavit or declaration of merits shall be required of the moving party.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b).) Whether the filing is made within a reasonable time is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court, and depends upon the specific circumstances of the delay, including the cause for the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Minick v. City of Petaluma (2016) 3 Cal. App. 5th 15; Comunidad En Accion v. Los Angeles City Council (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1133–1134.)

As an intial matter, ‘[t]he term ‘legal representative’ has been interpreted with considerable liberality to permit one who would not normally be considered a “representative” of a party but has sufficient interest in the action to maintain the motion. [Citations.]” (Clemmer v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 865, 885.) Further, “[i]ntervention by an insurer is permitted where the insurer remains liable for any default judgment against the insured, and it has no means other than intervention to litigate liability or damage issues.” (Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (200) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 385.) Accordingly, Kinsale brings this motion to set aside default in the alternative to intervene in the action.

Here, the disputed entry of default was entered on July 15, 2020, less than six months from the filing of this motion on September 04, 2020. Accordingly, review is timely under the discretionary provision of Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b).

Kinsale has not shown that the entry of default against Simco was due to the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect of Kinsale. As explained above, it appears Kinsale accepted coverage of Simco and provided legal defense for nearly two years before Simco became unresponsive in June 2018, leading Kinsale’s defense to withdraw in April 2019. Moreover, the Court notes that Kinsale fails to allege any mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect resulting in the entry of default against Simco in the supporting declaration of Kinsale’s counsel Emily Doyle. That is, the declaration does not state any mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect but rather points to Kinsale’s knowledge and intent to intervene as early as September 2019, five months after Kinsale abandoned Simco’s legal defense and one year before the filing of this motion. (Decl. E. Doyle, ¶ 23.) Thus, the Court finds the neglect of Kinsale to move to intervene at an earlier time when it became aware that Simco’s defense was inadequate as early as April 2019 resulting in the default entered on July 15, 2020 was inexcusable.

Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial

Plaintiffs have established good cause for continuing trial. First, the parties participated in an unsuccessful mediation on October 17, 2019 and wish to engage in additional settlement discussions, potentially including more mediation in January or February 2021. Second, Plaintiffs served a deposition subpoena on third party witness Sunny Oh (“Ms. Oh”) on October 29, 2020 but have not and will not be able to depose Ms. Oh before the January 19, 2021 discovery cut-off due to Ms. Oh being out of the country from November 2020 to January 2021. Third, Plaintiffs and joining parties opine that they intend to conduct additional discovery, although such discovery is undisclosed. Fourth, the parties contend that the COVID-19 pandemic has made it difficult to identify third party witnesses, slowing the discovery process. Fifth, the parties’ counsel have trial dates and other conflicts scheduled up to and including July 2021. Based on the foregoing, it appears that Plaintiffs have established good cause despite reasonable diligence for a six-month continuance of the trial.

Next, it appears that Plaintiffs have shown that the facts and circumstances relevant to the determination of the motion weigh in favor of granting the continuance. First, all parties except Namu, who has not filed an opposition, have stipulated to the proposed continuance. Second, it appears that no prejudice will result for the continuance since all parties appear to need more time to conduct discovery given the logistical challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, it appears that the trial continuance will not trigger the five-year deadline under the California Code of Civil Procedure (“Code Civ. Proc.”) section (“§”) 583.310 within which Plaintiffs’ action must be brought to trial. Upon review, it appears that these facts and circumstances weigh in favor of granting the continuance.

Case Number: BC593197    Hearing Date: November 13, 2020    Dept: 74

BC593197 YONG HWAN KIM vs CHRISTINE Y KIM

NAMU Development, Inc’s Motion for Summary Judgment (complaint filed in case number BC655731 on March 28, 2017)

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The court finds defendant has not met its burden of production showing no triable issue of material fact.

Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiffs seek judicial notice of (1) the California Department of Consumer Affairs Contractors State License Board’s (“CSLB”) record on its website, on a page entitled Check A License – Contractor’s License Detail for License # 940413, in the name of NAMU CONSTRUCTION, issued on November 25, 2009; (2) the CSLB’s record on its website, on a page entitled Check A License – Contractor’s License Detail for License # 997839, in the name of NAMU DEVELOPMENT INC. dba NAMU CONSTRUCTION, issued on October 21, 2014; (3) the CSLB’s record on its website, on a page entitled Personnel License List for Choi, Seung Jin, listing Mr. Choi’s history of licenses such as NAMU CONSTRUCTION and NAMU DEVELOPMENT dba NAMU CONSTRUCTION; and (4) the California Secretary of State’s record on its website, on a page entitled Business Search – Entity Detail, listing NAMU DEVELOPMENT, INC with a registration date of August 7, 2014 and copy that registration.

The request is GRANTED and the court takes judicial notice of items 1 – 4. Evid. Code §§ 452, 453.

Evidentiary Objections

The court only rules on those evidentiary objections it deems material to disposition of this motion. CCP § 437c(q).

Plaintiffs’ Objection to Reply Brief

Plaintiff’s object to the reply brief and asserted evidentiary objections on the ground they are untimely and on the ground the reply exceeds 10 page limit and does not include a table of contents or table of authorities.

These objections are SUSTAINED and the court has not considered the non-conforming reply.

Issues as Framed by the Pleadings

The complaint alleges a single cause of action for negligence against defendant. To prevail on this claim, plaintiff must prove “the existence of a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp, (2013) 220 Cal. App. 4th 994, 998.)

Duty

Namu argues it owed no duty to Plaintiffs.

Though a party may not be in privity of contract with another, he or she may owe a duty of care when balancing factors such as “‘…[1] the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, [2] the foreseeability of harm to him, [3] the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, [4] the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, [5] the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, and [6] the policy of preventing future harm.’” (Weseloh Family Ltd. P'ship v. K.L. Wessel Constr. Co., (2004) 125 Cal. App. 4th 152, 165.)

Namu argues Plaintiffs cannot establish that Namu owed Plaintiffs a duty of care when considering the following balancing factors as there was no foreseeable harm to Plaintiffs for any of Namu’s actions. Notwithstanding this argument, it is undisputed Namu undertook renovations to the property and the eventual occupants of the property were intended beneficiaries of Namu’s work. Namu also disputes its role in the renovations. Namu’s position on this motion creates a triable issue of fact. Moreover, there are triable issues of fact concerning whether Namu performed any physical work or construction work at the subject property (UMF#1.); whether Namu supervised or managed any of the repairs at issue in Plaintiffs’ complaint (UMF#2.); whether Namu was the general contractor for any of the repairs at issue in Plaintiffs’ complaint (UMF#3.); whether NAMU was the subcontractor for any of the repairs at issue in Plaintiffs’ complaint (UMF#4.); whether or not Namu contracted with Plaintiffs or Simco for work pertaining to any of the repairs at issue in Plaintiffs’ complaint (UMF#5.); and whether Namu received any compensation for work pertaining to any of the repairs at issue in Plaintiffs’ complaint. (UMF#6.) Such disputed facts place at issue whether or not Namu owed a duty to Plaintiffs as Namu’s actions complained of in the complaint could foreseeably harm Plaintiffs, were intended to affect the purchaser of the subject property, which in this case are Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiffs indeed suffered an injury as they had to hire Ever Builders to remediate the issues discovered at the subject property. (Ha Decl. ¶¶2-3.) There is also a triable material issue concerning whether Namu exercised due care and whether Namu is subject to significant moral blame.

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.)

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BEE REALTY GROUP is a litigant

Latest cases where BEE INVESTMENT INC is a litigant