This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/09/2021 at 10:10:27 (UTC).

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION VS JAECHAN PARK, AN INDIVIDUAL

Case Summary

On 12/28/2020 BANK OF AMERICA, N A , A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JAECHAN PARK, AN INDIVIDUAL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is PETER A. HERNANDEZ. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0898

  • Filing Date:

    12/28/2020

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

PETER A. HERNANDEZ

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

BANK OF AMERICA N.A. A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Defendant

PARK AN INDIVIDUAL JAECHAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

KIM JAMIE

Other Attorneys

KHATCHADOURIAN RAFFI

 

Court Documents

Complaint

12/28/2020: Complaint

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

12/28/2020: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Order to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service

12/28/2020: Order to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

12/28/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Notice of Case Management Conference

12/28/2020: Notice of Case Management Conference

Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/28/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

3/5/2021: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

4/27/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/20/2021: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

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

5/11/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE MANAGEME...)

Order - ORDER ON THE COURT'S TENTATIVE RULING

5/11/2021: Order - ORDER ON THE COURT'S TENTATIVE RULING

Notice of Ruling

5/11/2021: Notice of Ruling

Answer

5/19/2021: Answer

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;)

7/12/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;)

Case Management Statement

6/29/2021: Case Management Statement

Request for Dismissal

9/1/2021: Request for Dismissal

4 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/01/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Bank of America, N.A., a national association (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Bank of America, N.A., a national association (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Jaechan Park, an individual (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2021
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2021
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike; Case Manageme...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
1 More Docket Entries
  • 05/11/2021
  • DocketOrder (on the Court's Tentative Ruling); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2021
  • DocketOpposition (Opposition to Defendant's Demurrer to Complaint); Filed by Bank of America, N.A., a national association (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2021
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike; Filed by Jaechan Park, an individual (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Bank of America, N.A., a national association (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Bank of America, N.A., a national association (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Bank of America, N.A., a national association (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20PSCV00898    Hearing Date: May 11, 2021    Dept: O

Defendant Jaechan Park’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant has 20 days to file his Answer.

Demurrer

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

Defendant Jaechan Park (“Defendant”) contends that Plaintiff’s Bank of America, N.A.’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint as a whole fails to allege sufficient facts on all counts. Specifically, Defendant asserts that the statute of limitations acts to bar all claims in the Complaint. This defense would not only bar the First Cause of Action for Breach of Written Agreement, but also all the other causes of action because the Second Cause of Action for Money Lent, Third Cause of Action for Account Stated, and Fourth Cause of Action for Indebtedness all arise from the First Cause of Action and under the same pled contract.

Statute of Limitations

The elements for a breach of contract cause of action are: (1) the contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach; and (4) resulting damages. (Reichert v. General Ins. Co. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 822, 830.) In alleging a breach of contract cause of action, it is necessary to specify whether the contract is written, oral or implied by conduct. (CCP § 430.10(g).) In order to plead an oral contract, a plaintiff must plead its legal effect, i.e., allege the substance of the contractual terms. (4 Witkin, California Procedure 4th Edition, 483.) If the action is based on breach of a written contract, the terms of the contract must be set forth verbatim in the body of the complaint or a copy of the written contract must be attached and incorporated by reference. (Otworth v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 452, 459.)

A claim breach of written contract has a statute of limitations of 4 years. (CCP § 337.) A claim under the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) section 3-118, which applies to an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay a note, has a statute of limitations of 6 years. (UCC § 3-118, subd. (a).)

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s action relies on claims involving breach of written contract, which are now time barred because the alleged injury to Plaintiff occurred more than eight years from the time Defendant filed the Complaint.

Here, the Complaint was filed on December 28, 2020. Defendant contends that the alleged breach occurred on or about December 1, 2012 when the Note was accelerated as a result of Defendant’s alleged default. Plaintiff also admits in the Complaint’s allegations that Plaintiff was aware of the breach since December 1, 2012, because it alleges that was the date Defendant stopped making payments on the Note. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) There are no allegations that would show that Plaintiff did not discover the alleged breach until a much later time than December 1, 2012.

However, Plaintiff contends in its Opposition that Defendant misstates the law with respect to acceleration versus default. Plaintiff contends that UCC section 3-118 uses the date of acceleration rather than the date of default to calculate the statute of limitations. UCC section 3-118 states that an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay a note payable at a definite time must be commenced within six years after the due date(s) stated in the note or, if a due date is accelerated, within six years after the accelerated date. Plaintiff contends that the Note was not accelerated until Plaintiff commenced this action by filing the Complaint. Thus, Defendant’s argument is without merit as it factually disputes Plaintiff’s alleged start of the statute of limitations in this case.

Furthermore, the court is to liberally construe the pleadings in favor of Plaintiff. (See Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) Thus, the court must follow Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the statute of limitations at this time. Defendant is free to conduct discovery into this matter as to whether the statute of limitations ran before Plaintiff filed this action. On a demurrer, however, the court must take Plaintiff’s assertion at face value without regard to Defendant’s factual dispute of Plaintiff’s allegations.

Thus, the Demurrer on this basis is OVERRULED.

Defendant has 20 days to file his Answer.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Bank of America is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer KHATCHADOURIAN RAFFI