This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/06/2019 at 04:17:36 (UTC).

ADMIRE CAPITAL LENDING LLC ET AL VS HYUN SOON OH ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/07/2017 ADMIRE CAPITAL LENDING LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against HYUN SOON OH. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MALCOLM MACKEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6225

  • Filing Date:

    12/07/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MALCOLM MACKEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners, Respondents and Cross Defendants

ADMIRE CAPITAL LENDING LLC

BELMONT TWO INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC

KIM GEO

ONE PROPERTIES INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

YI SAM

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Appellants

OH HYUN SOON

RHEE HYUN SOON

RHEE DAVID

CARMANITA CORPORATION

RHEE TESTAMENTARY TRUST

RHEE STEFFANY

GAJU MARKET CORPORATION

CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY

DOES 1-100 INCLUSIVE

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

RHEE DAVID

CARMANITA CORPORATION

ADMIRE CAPITAL LENDING LLC

RHEE TESTAMENTARY TRUST

OH HYUN SOON

RHEE STEFFANY

GAJU MARKET CORPORATION

RHEE HYUN SOON

CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY

DOES 1-100 INCLUSIVE

9 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LIM YOUNG S. ESQ.

LIM SHI YOUNG ESQ.

Appellant Attorney

FISHER DAVID ROSS

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

TRACHTENBERG JORDAN ESQ.

SHAPIRO DANIEL MAX ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Unknown

2/21/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

3/5/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING ON RELATED CASE, TRIAL DATE

3/12/2018: NOTICE OF RULING ON RELATED CASE, TRIAL DATE

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

4/30/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

4/30/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

4/30/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Unknown

5/24/2018: Unknown

Unknown

5/24/2018: Unknown

Unknown

5/24/2018: Unknown

Unknown

5/24/2018: Unknown

STIPULATION AND ORDER

5/24/2018: STIPULATION AND ORDER

??F CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; 2) AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; 3) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; 4) FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION; 5) FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT; 6) CONSP

5/25/2018: ??F CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; 2) AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; 3) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; 4) FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION; 5) FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT; 6) CONSP

DEFENDANTS HYUN SOON OH AKA HYUN SOON RHEE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE RICHARD RIJEE TESTAMENTARY TRUST, STEFFANY RHEE, DAVID RHEE, GAJU MARKET CORPORATION, AND CARMANITA CORPORATION?S ANSWER

5/25/2018: DEFENDANTS HYUN SOON OH AKA HYUN SOON RHEE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE RICHARD RIJEE TESTAMENTARY TRUST, STEFFANY RHEE, DAVID RHEE, GAJU MARKET CORPORATION, AND CARMANITA CORPORATION?S ANSWER

SUMMONS

5/30/2018: SUMMONS

CROSS-DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

8/7/2018: CROSS-DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; ETC.

8/30/2018: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; ETC.

ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

8/30/2018: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT HYUN SOON RHEE'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE LAW FIRM OF PARK & LIM; ETC.

8/30/2018: DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT HYUN SOON RHEE'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE LAW FIRM OF PARK & LIM; ETC.

33 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/22/2019
  • Appeal - Original Clerk's Transcript 1 - 5 Volumes Certified; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Appeal - Reporter Appeal Transcript Process Fee Paid (FEE FOR APPEAL "R" $485+$50); Filed by Hyun Soon Oh (Appellant); Hyun Soon Rhee (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Appeal - Reporter Appeal Transcript Process Fee Paid (APPELLANT PAID $50+$485 FOR APPEAL "R1"); Filed by Hyun Soon Oh (Appellant); Hyun Soon Rhee (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Appeal - Clerk's Transcript Fee Paid (APPELLANT PAID $772.65)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Default Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 55, Malcolm Mackey, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE; [cross-reference to related action,...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • Initial Status Conference Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • Initial Status Conference Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
76 More Docket Entries
  • 01/09/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • Notice of Related Cases

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • Declaration; Filed by Chicago Title Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • DECLARATION OF NON-MONETARY STATUS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF WRITTEN GUARANTY AGREEMENT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Admire Capital Lending, LLC (Plaintiff); Belmont Two Investment Holdings, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2013
  • Notice of Related Case; Filed by Admire Capital Lending, LLC (Plaintiff); Belmont Two Investment Holdings, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: BC686225 Hearing Date: November 12, 2021 Dept: 55

ADMIRE\r\nCAPITAL LENDING LLC v. HYUN SOON OH BC686225

\r\n\r\n

Hearing Date: 11/12/21,\r\n Dept. 55

\r\n\r\n

#7: MOTION TO\r\nSEVER EQUITABLE CLAIMS AND DEFENSES FROM CLAIMS TO BE TRIED BY THE JURY.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Notice: Okay

\r\n\r\n

Opposition

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MP:\r\n Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants

\r\n\r\n

RP: Defendants/Cross-Complainants DAVID RHEE and\r\nSTEFFANY RHEE

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Summary

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On 12/7/17, plaintiffs ADMIRE CAPITAL LENDING, LLC and\r\nBELMONT TWO INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC filed a Complaint having alleged theories,\r\nincluding that, plaintiffs are entitled to various security interests, and\r\ndamages, related to business loans made, and that, about September 10, 2015, as\r\nan inducement to plaintiffs to grant financial accommodations to non-party, 450\r\n5. Western, LLC, individual defendants executed written guaranty agreements, as\r\nto obligations of that non-party.

\r\n\r\n

The causes of action are:

\r\n\r\n

1. BREACH OF WRITTEN\r\nGUARANTY AGREEMENT

\r\n\r\n

2. BREACH OF WRITTEN\r\nGUARANTY AGREEMENT

\r\n\r\n

3. BREACH OF WRITTEN\r\nGUARANTY AGREEMENT

\r\n\r\n

4. BREACH OF WRITTEN\r\nGUARANTY AGREEMENT

\r\n\r\n

5. CLAIM AND DELIVERY

\r\n\r\n

6. FORECLOSURE OF\r\nPERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY

\r\n\r\n

7. FORECLOSURE OF REAL\r\nPROPERTY SECURITY

\r\n\r\n

8. FORECLOSURE OF REAL\r\nPROPERTY SECURITY.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On 5/25/18, defendants/cross-complainants HYUN SOONOH,\r\nSTEFFANY RHEE, DAVID RHEE, GAJU MARKET CORPORATION, and CARMANITA CORPORATION,\r\nfiled a Cross-Complaint, against plaintiffs, and others, alleging, inter alia, that cross-defendants Yi,\r\nGeo Kim and One Properties knowingly acted against Rhee’s interests, in\r\nconnection with her execution of the loan documents at issue in this action,\r\nrelated to the California Marketplace, by placing their interests ahead of\r\ntheir client, thereby compromising her position in 450 S. Western, LLC.

\r\n\r\n

The causes of action are:

\r\n\r\n

1) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY\r\nDUTY

\r\n\r\n

2) AIDING AND ABETTING\r\nBREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

\r\n\r\n

3) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY\r\nDUTY

\r\n\r\n

4) FRAUDULENT\r\nMISREPRESENTATION

\r\n\r\n

5) FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

\r\n\r\n

6) CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD

\r\n\r\n

7) UNFAIR COMPETITION IN\r\nVIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 17200

\r\n\r\n

8) INDEMNITY.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MP\r\nPositions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving parties request the Court to sever equitable\r\nclaims and defenses and issues of law from issues to be tried by the jury, on\r\ngrounds including the following:

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nEquitable claims and defenses in this case\r\ninclude (i) Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action for Claim and Delivery; and (ii)\r\nPlaintiffs’ Sixth Cause of Action for Foreclosure of Personal Property\r\nSecurity; (iii) Defendants’ Fifteenth Affirmative Defense for Rescission; (iv)\r\nDefendants’ Sixteenth Affirmative Defense for Unjust Enrichment; (v) Defendants’\r\nTwenty-Second Affirmative Defense of Unenforceable Penalty; (vi) Cross-Complainants’\r\nSeventh Cause of Action for Unfair Competition; and (vii) Cross-Defendants’ Twenty-Fourth\r\nAffirmative Defense of Release.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nTrial will also require adjudication of issues\r\nof law including, but not limited to, Defendants’ argument that the $10 million\r\ndebt underlying the guaranty agreements has been “extinguished” by operation of\r\nlaw and no longer exists.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nThese equitable claims and defenses and\r\nissues of law must be tried first by the Court.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nAdditionally, the Court may sever an issue\r\nto avoid prejudicing the jury. C.C.P. § 1048. Certain of these equitable claims\r\nand defenses and issues of law would likely confuse and mislead the jury,\r\nconsume undue time and create substantial danger of undue prejudice.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

RP Positions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Opposing parties advocate denying, for reasons\r\nincluding the following:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nResolution of the "equitable"\r\ncauses of action will not obviate the need for a jury trial to resolve the\r\n"legal" causes of action.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nPlaintiffs fail to make any cognizable\r\nshowing as to how trying the alleged equitable claims and defenses, and legal\r\nissues together will “confuse and mislead the jury,” “consume undue time,” or\r\n“create substantial danger of undue prejudice.”

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nPlaintiffs’ fail to make the required\r\nshowing that severance will result in judicial efficiency. CCP § 1048(b).

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nWitnesses would have to be called twice to\r\nprovide virtually the same testimony-- once for the court, and once for the\r\njury.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nVirtually the same documentary evidence would\r\nhave to be introduced into evidence twice.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nDefendants’ Affirmative Defense of Unjust\r\nEnrichment relates to a legal claim.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Tentative\r\nRuling

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The motion is denied, in the Court’s discretion.

\r\n\r\n

"Code of Civil Procedure section 598 allows a\r\nparty to seek an order before trial ‘that the trial of any issue or any part\r\nthereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the\r\ncase,\' where ‘the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy\r\nand efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby\r\n….\'" Estate of Young (2008)\r\n160 Cal. App. 4th 62, 90. In general,\r\n‘[w]hether there shall be a severance and separate trials on issues in a single\r\naction is a matter within the discretion of the trial court . . . .’\r\n" Shade Foods, Inc. v.\r\nInnovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th\r\n847, 911. Accord Regents of Univ.\r\nof Cal. v. Sheily (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 824, 833; Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Ranger\r\nIns. Co. (2002) 100 Cal. App. 4th 193, 205; \r\nFinley v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 1152, 1163; Grappo v. Coventry Financial Corp.\r\n(1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 496, 504.

\r\n\r\n

Preferably, equitable issues are to be tried before\r\nlegal issues in a case, although judges have discretion. Hoopes v. Dolan (2008) 168 Cal. App.\r\n4th 146, 150–51, 157 (“While the trial\r\njudge should have considered the equitable defense first, and thus avoided an\r\nunnecessary jury trial, the order of trial was within the court\'s discretion\r\nand did not divest the judge of his duty to determine applicability of\r\nequitable estoppel.”).

\r\n\r\n

“Where plaintiff\'s claims consist of a ‘mixed bag’ of\r\nequitable and legal claims, the equitable claims are properly tried first by\r\nthe court.” Nwosu v. Uba (2004)\r\n122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1238 (citing, e.g.,\r\nWalton v. Walton (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 277, 293). A bifurcated, initial\r\ncourt trial of equitable issues, claims implicating legal issues, is\r\nproper. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122\r\nCal.App.4th 1229, 1244.

\r\n\r\n

Where a ‘mixed bag’ of legal and equitable claims is\r\npresented in a case, a court trial of the equitable claims first may obviate\r\nthe necessity of a jury trial on the legal claims, but otherwise the plaintiff\r\ncannot be denied the right to a jury trial on the legal causes of action.” DiPirro v. Bondo Corp. (2007) 153\r\nCal.App.4th 150, 184-85. “Where … there\r\nare equitable and legal remedies sought in the same action, the parties are\r\nentitled to have a jury determine the legal issues unless the trial court\'s\r\ninitial determination of the equitable issues is also dispositive of the legal\r\nissues, leaving nothing to be tried by a jury.” \r\nAm. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 68 Cal. App. 4th 864,\r\n871. Accord Raedeke v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan\r\nAssoc. (1974) 10 Cal. 3d 665, 671.

\r\n\r\n

“While the judge determines equitable causes of\r\naction, the judge may (in rare instances) empanel an advisory jury to make\r\npreliminary factual findings.” Hoopes\r\nv. Dolan (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 146, 156. “‘There can be no question that there may be\r\nan advisory jury in an equitable action, and that a trial court has the\r\ndiscretion to submit issues to a jury and adopt the jury\'s findings on factual\r\nmatters.’” Caira v. Offner (2005)\r\n126 Cal. App. 4th 12, 22 n.4 (quoting Saks v. Charity Mission Baptist Church\r\n(2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1147).

\r\n\r\n

Judges’ findings made in a first trial phase\r\naddressing equitable issues are binding on juries in the second phase, and,\r\nlikewise, issues adjudicated by juries are binding in later phases of trial,\r\nand are not re-litigated. Hoopes v.\r\nDolan (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 146, 157. "Issues adjudicated in earlier phases of\r\na bifurcated trial are binding in later phases of that trial and need not be\r\nrelitigated." Arntz Contracting\r\nCo. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. \r\n(1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 464, 487.

\r\n\r\n

Unjust enrichment involving a definite sum of money\r\nwithout an accounting goes to the jury. Am.\r\nMaster Lease LLC v. Idanta Partners, Ltd. (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 1451,\r\n1483.

\r\n\r\n

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ONE PROPERTIES INC. (ROE 1) is a litigant

Latest cases where BELMONT TWO INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where ADMIRE CAPITAL LENDING LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where GAJU MARKET CORPORATION is a litigant