Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/02/2021 at 04:57:37 (UTC).

ANDREW DU BAIK ET AL VS NANCY MURAKAMI ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/10/2018 ANDREW DU BAIK filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against NANCY MURAKAMI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are KENNETH R. FREEMAN, DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB and DEBRE KATZ WEINTRAUB. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3389

  • Filing Date:

    07/10/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • 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 Judges

KENNETH R. FREEMAN

DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB

DEBRE KATZ WEINTRAUB

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

BAIK ANDREW DU

Los Angeles, CA 90010

KIM CONNIE

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

OH STEVE

YELLOW HOUSE CAFE (YELLOW CAFE)

MISSME.COM INC.

OH YOON SIK

YOON ANNA

T. J. PARK INC.

CENTRAL ESCROW INC.

PARK MOOSOOL LLANG

WILSHIRE STATE BANK

BANK OF HOPE

LEE JAMES J.

PARK T. J.

C C G L INC.

CHANG SERIM

CHO YOUNG

DOES 1 - 100

MURAKAMI NANCY

YELLOW HOUSE CAFE YELLOW CAFE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorney

KIM ANDREW

Defendant Attorneys

SONG JOON W

WONG MAURICE

MYUNG S CALVIN

LEE SANG I

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE MSC)

2/8/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE MSC)

Witness List

12/30/2020: Witness List

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO ...)

1/4/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO ...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE; HEARING ON DE...)

7/21/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE; HEARING ON DE...)

Request for Judicial Notice

5/11/2020: Request for Judicial Notice

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)]

4/20/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)]

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/22/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

3/23/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Substitution of Attorney

3/26/2020: Substitution of Attorney

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

10/15/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

8/22/2019: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Cross-Complaint

8/9/2019: Cross-Complaint

Answer - ANSWER NANCY MURAKAMI AND SERIM CHANG'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

8/9/2019: Answer - ANSWER NANCY MURAKAMI AND SERIM CHANG'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

8/5/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens

5/13/2019: Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens

Proof of Personal Service

11/9/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Minute Order -

9/5/2018: Minute Order -

Civil Deposit -

7/27/2018: Civil Deposit -

184 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/22/2021
  • Hearing07/22/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • DocketMotion for Reconsideration; Filed by Connie Kim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 74; Jury Trial - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 74; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (of all unserved defendants) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal of all unserved...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Andrew Du Baik (Plaintiff); Connie Kim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2021
  • DocketNotice of Settlement (re Settlement Conference); Filed by Andrew Du Baik (Plaintiff); Connie Kim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Andrew Du Baik (Plaintiff); Connie Kim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Andrew Du Baik (Plaintiff); Connie Kim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 74; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
252 More Docket Entries
  • 07/12/2018
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Andrew Du Baik (Plaintiff); Connie Kim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Connie Kim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2018
  • DocketRequest-Waive Court Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2018
  • DocketRequest-Waive Court Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Andrew Du Baik (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC713389    Hearing Date: October 29, 2020    Dept: 74

BC713389 ANDREW DU BAIK vs NANCY MURAKAMI

Defendants Missme, Murakami and Chang’s Demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer is MOOT. The court overruled the demurrer on October 26, 2020

Case Number: BC713389    Hearing Date: October 26, 2020    Dept: 74

BC713389 ANDREW DU BAIK vs NANCY MURAKAMI

Defendants Nancy Murakami, Serim Chang, Young Cho and Missme.com, Inc’s Demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendants shall answer the 3rd amended complaint within 10 days.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants Nancy Murakami’s and Serim Chang’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. The court takes judicial notice of the following documents: (1) Demurrer filed by Bank of Hope on December 06, 2018, with the Los Angeles Superior Court in case no. BC713389; (2) Request for Judicial Notice filed by Bank of Hope on December 06, 2018, with the Los Angeles Superior Court in case no. BC713389; and (3) Deed of Trust recorded on October 26, 2019, with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office, as Instrument No. 20091611326 (“DOT”). Evid. Code §§ 452, 453.

Demurrer

Defendants demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint on the ground the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for conspiracy to commit conversion (2nd cause of action) or fraud and misrepresentation (3rd cause of action).

In determining whether a complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the judge may consider all material facts pleaded in the complaint and matters of which the judge may take judicial notice, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. CCP § 430.30(a); Richtek USA, Inc. v uPI Semiconductor Corp. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 651, 658; Esparza v County of Los Angeles (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 452, 459. Because a demurrer challenges defects on the face of the complaint, it can only refer to matters outside of the pleadings that are subject to judicial notice. Tenet Healthsystem Desert, Inc. v Blue Cross of Cal. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 821, 831; Rea v Blue Shield of Cal. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1223.

A judge may not resolve questions of fact on demurrer unless there is only one legitimate inference to be drawn from the allegations of the complaint. TracFone Wireless, Inc. v County of Los Angeles (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1368.

Conspiracy to Commit Conversion (2nd cause of action)

The TAC alleges Central Escrow, Murakami, Yoon, Lee, Oh and Chang approached Cho to purchase the bank note owned by the Bank and approached Park to aid in their plan to take over ownership of the Restaurant and the real property attached to the Restaurant; due to the Bank’s sell of the note, Plaintiffs lost their ownership rights in the Restaurant after the Bank foreclosed upon the Restaurant due to a “complicated title history” and a default of the loan. (TAC ¶¶ 11-13.) The TAC also alleges a number of suspicious transactions occurred among Cho, Yoon and Central Escrow where certain transfers of ownership rights occurred without receipt of any value and Defendants collective scheme to take away the title of the real property and the Restaurant. (TAC ¶¶ 16-17.)

As the TAC alleges a common plan to take away plaintiffs’ ownership rights the demurrer to the second cause of action is overruled.

Fraud and Misrepresentation (3rd cause of action)

The TAC alleges the Bank, Central Escrow, Murakami, Yoon, Lee and Change approached Cho to purchase the bank note for the real property upon which the Restaurant operates; Cho’s purchase of the real property was pretext to convey title without consideration to Yoon five days thereafter; Defendants intentionally withheld the role of Murakami and Yoon to prevent Plaintiffs knowledge of a concerted action to deprive them of their ownership rights in the real property and the Restaurant. (TAC ¶ 28.) The alleged misrepresentation is the unlawful conveyance of the bank note with knowledge that such occurred without sufficient consideration, which induced Plaintiffs to believe that they lawfully lost their ownership interest in the real property. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ were unable to inquire about the representations related to the conveyance of the bank note, which caused Plaintiffs to be unable to gather information to save the Restaurant and cure the issues with the default. (TAC ¶ 14.)

The court finds the TAC states fact sufficient to state a cause of action for fraud and misrepresentation.

Case Number: BC713389    Hearing Date: July 20, 2020    Dept: 74

BC713389 ANDREW DU BAIK vs NANCY MURAKAMI

Defendants Nancy Murakami’s, Young Cho’s, and Missme.com, Inc’s Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint

TENTATIVE RULINGS:

(1) Nancy Murakami’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiffs may file a third amended complaint within 10 days.

(2) Young Cho’s Demurrer (joined by defendants Murakami and Chang) is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiffs may file a third amended complaint within 10 days.

(3) Missme.com’s Demurrer (joined by defendants Murakami and Chang) is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiffs may file a third amended complaint within 10 days.

Request for Judicial Notice

The court takes judicial notice of the following documents: (1) demurrer filed by Bank of Hope on December 06, 2018, with the Los Angeles Superior Court in case no. BC713389 and (2) Deed of Trust recorded on October 26, 2019, with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office, as Instrument No. 20091611326. Evid. Code §§ 452, 453.

First cause of action for conversion

“The basic elements of (conversion) are (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of personal property; (2) the defendant's disposition of the property in a manner that is inconsistent with the plaintiff's property rights; and (3) resulting damages.” (Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.) The SAC does not allege plaintiffs’ ownership or right to possession of personal property. The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Second cause of action for conspiracy

“There is no separate tort of civil conspiracy and no action for conspiracy to commit a tort unless the underlying tort is committed and damage results therefrom. (Unruh v. Truck Insurance Exchange (1972) 7 Cal.3d 616, 631, 102 Cal.Rptr. 815, 498 P.2d 1063.) The significance of a conspiracy theory of liability is that each member may be held jointly liable as a tortfeasor, even though he or she may not have participated directly in the underlying tort. (Richard B. LeVine, Inc. v. Higashi (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 566, 574, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 244.) “The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are (1) formation and operation of the conspiracy and (2) damage resulting to plaintiff (3) from a wrongful act done in furtherance of the common design.” (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1062, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 516, 128 P.3d 713.) Where fraud is alleged to be the object of the conspiracy, the claim must be pleaded with particularity. (Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 189, 211, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 274.)” (Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1136.)

The SAC does not allege a common scheme by defendants or even a wrongful act in furtherance of a common scheme. The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Third cause of action for fraud and misrepresentation

“Where fraud is alleged to be the object of the conspiracy, the claim must be pleaded with particularity.” (Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 189, 211, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 274.” The SAC alleges defendants “committed the act of fraud and misrepresentation against the economic interest of plaintiffs herein,” which caused damage. (SAC ¶¶ 28-29.) This lacks the requisite specificity. The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Fourth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty

Breach of fiduciary duty requires: (1) the existence of fiduciary duty, (2) breach of that duty and (3) damage proximately caused by that breach. (Mosier v. Southern Cal. Physicians Ins. Exchange (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1044, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 550.)

The SAC does not allege facts alleging how defendants breached a fiduciary duty owed to plaintiffs and does not allege the damage proximately caused by that breach. The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Case Number: BC713389    Hearing Date: July 14, 2020    Dept: 74

BC713389 ANDREW DU BAIK vs NANCY MURAKAMI

Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Vacate Dismissal

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. CCP § 473(b)

Case Number: BC713389    Hearing Date: February 05, 2020    Dept: 74

BC713389 ANDREW DU BAIK VS NANCY MURAKAMI

Defendant Missme.com, Inc’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer is taken off calendar as MOOT.

Case Number: BC713389    Hearing Date: February 04, 2020    Dept: 74

BC713389 ANDREW DU BAIK ET AL VS NANCY MURAKAMI ET AL

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint

Defendant’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint within 10 days. Defendant’s demurrer is taken OFF CALENDAR as moot.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where C C G L INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where T. J. PARK INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where CENTRAL ESCROW INC. is a litigant