This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/21/2020 at 17:00:07 (UTC).

CTBC BANK CORP. (USA) VS DAMO TEXTILE, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Case Summary

On 04/02/2020 CTBC BANK CORP USA filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against DAMO TEXTILE, INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SAMANTHA JESSNER. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3128

  • Filing Date:

    04/02/2020

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

SAMANTHA JESSNER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CTBC BANK CORP. USA

Defendant

DAMO TEXTILE INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Not Classified By Court

DONELL STEPHEN J.

SHAOXING BENLU TEXTILE LTD

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

DAVIS MICHAEL

WEBER COREY R

BRUTZKUS MARK D.

BRUTZKUS MARK D. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

KIM PIO SUK

Not Classified By Court Attorney

BUBMAN MICHAEL ELLIOT

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (EX PARTE APPLICATION OF RECEIVER FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE C...)

9/8/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (EX PARTE APPLICATION OF RECEIVER FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE C...)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. BUBMAN IN SUPPORT OF REPLY RE APPLICATION TO SET OSC RE CONTEMPT

8/31/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. BUBMAN IN SUPPORT OF REPLY RE APPLICATION TO SET OSC RE CONTEMPT

Reply - REPLY RE APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT AGAINST EDWIN MIN AKA BYONG S. KIM AND FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

8/31/2020: Reply - REPLY RE APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT AGAINST EDWIN MIN AKA BYONG S. KIM AND FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Supplemental Declaration - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PIO S. KIM ISO OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF OSC

9/1/2020: Supplemental Declaration - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PIO S. KIM ISO OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF OSC

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (EX PARTE APPLICATION OF RECEIVER, STEPHEN DONELL, FOR ORDER T...)

8/6/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (EX PARTE APPLICATION OF RECEIVER, STEPHEN DONELL, FOR ORDER T...)

Notice of Ruling

8/10/2020: Notice of Ruling

Notice - NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT AGAINST EDWIN KIM AKA BYON S. KIM AND FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITI

8/14/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT AGAINST EDWIN KIM AKA BYON S. KIM AND FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITI

Declaration - DECLARATION OF MICHAEL KUNKEL, STEPHEN J. DONELL, AND MICHAEL E. BUBMAN IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO SET OSC RE CONTEMPT

8/14/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF MICHAEL KUNKEL, STEPHEN J. DONELL, AND MICHAEL E. BUBMAN IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO SET OSC RE CONTEMPT

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ERRATA RE NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT AGAINST EDWIN MIN AKA BYONG S. KIM AND FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES

8/19/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ERRATA RE NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT AGAINST EDWIN MIN AKA BYONG S. KIM AND FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT AGAINST EDWIN MIN AKA BYONG S. MIN AND FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES; DECLARATION OF JAMES MIN, EDWI

8/20/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT AGAINST EDWIN MIN AKA BYONG S. MIN AND FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES; DECLARATION OF JAMES MIN, EDWI

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

7/10/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF JERROLD L. BREGMAN IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT OF DEFENDANT DAMO TEXTILE, INC.

7/10/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF JERROLD L. BREGMAN IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT OF DEFENDANT DAMO TEXTILE, INC.

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE JULY 15, 2020, EX PARTE APPLICATION

7/14/2020: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE JULY 15, 2020, EX PARTE APPLICATION

Status Report - STATUS REPORT JOINT REPORT RE STATUS OF RECEIVERS DEMAND TO EDWIN MIN FOR INSPECTION OF COMPUTER AND VEHICLE

7/8/2020: Status Report - STATUS REPORT JOINT REPORT RE STATUS OF RECEIVERS DEMAND TO EDWIN MIN FOR INSPECTION OF COMPUTER AND VEHICLE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

7/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

6/8/2020: Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

6/8/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

6/8/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

38 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/17/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal (Without Prejudice; Entire action of all parties and all causes of action;); Filed by CTBC Bank Corp. (USA) (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 82; Hearing - Other (ON APPLICATION FOR OSC RE CONTEMPT) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (EX PARTE APPLICATION OF RECEIVER FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE C...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • DocketSupplemental Declaration (of Pio S. Kim ISO Opposition to Application for Issuance of OSC); Filed by Damo Textile, Inc. a California corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (of Michael E. Bubman in Support of Reply re Application to Set OSC re Contempt); Filed by Stephen J. Donell (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketReply (re Application for Issuance of Order to Show Cause re Contempt against Edwin Min aka Byong S. Kim and for an Award of Attorneys' Fees; Memorandum of Points and Authorities); Filed by Stephen J. Donell (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2020
  • DocketOpposition (OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT AGAINST EDWIN MIN AKA BYONG S. MIN AND FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS? FEES; DECLARATION OF JAMES MIN, EDWIN MIN AND PIO S. KIM); Filed by Damo Textile, Inc. a California corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2020
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Errata Re Notice of Application and Application for Issuance of Order to Show Cause re Contempt against Edwin Min aka Byong S. Kim and for an Award of Attorneys' Fees); Filed by Stephen J. Donell (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Application and Application for Issuance of Order to Show Cause re Contempt Against Edwin Kim aka Byon S. Kim and for an Award of Attorneys' Fees; Memorandum of Points and Authorities); Filed by Stephen J. Donell (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (of Michael Kunkel, Stephen J. Donell, and Michael E. Bubman in Support of Application to Set OSC re Contempt); Filed by Stephen J. Donell (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
39 More Docket Entries
  • 04/07/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR COURT ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by CTBC Bank Corp. (USA) (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2020
  • DocketDeclaration in Support of Ex Parte Application; Filed by CTBC Bank Corp. (USA) (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2020
  • DocketDeclaration in Support of Ex Parte Application; Filed by CTBC Bank Corp. (USA) (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2020
  • DocketDeclaration in Support of Ex Parte Application; Filed by CTBC Bank Corp. (USA) (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2020
  • DocketEx Parte Application (Ex Parte Application for Court Order Approving Stipulation for the Appointment of Receiver and Stipulated Order Appointing Receiver and for the issuance of a Preliminary Injunction in Aid of the Receiver); Filed by CTBC Bank Corp. (USA) (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by CTBC Bank Corp. (USA) (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by CTBC Bank Corp. (USA) (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by CTBC Bank Corp. (USA) (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCV13128    Hearing Date: September 08, 2020    Dept: 82

CTBC Bank Corp.,

v.

Damo Textile, Inc.,

Judge Mary Strobel

Hearing: September 8, 2020

20STCV13128

OSC re: Contempt

Procedural History

On April 2, 2020, Plaintiff CTBC Bank Corp. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Damo Textile, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Damo”) for breach of contract and appointment of a receiver. Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached a loan agreement, and that Defendant granted Plaintiff a security interest in certain property (inventory, accounts receivable).

On April 8, 2020, the court (Judge Samantha Jessner) entered an order approving a stipulation for the appointment of receiver. A related minute order dated April 7, 2020, states that the appointment of a receiver shall only apply to “Damo Textile and Mr. Min,” apparently referring to James Min.

On June 16, 2020, Receiver Stephen Donnell (“Receiver”) filed an ex parte application for an OSC re: contempt against Edwin Min. The court heard and continued the matter on June 17, 2020. The court’s June 17 minute order states, inter alia: “Counsel are to meet and confer regarding a protocol for examination of the computer in Edwin Min’s possession which will allow the receiver to determine whether it contains DAMO documents but also protect Edwin Min’s privacy interest in his personal data on the computer.”

The matter was again heard on August 6, 2020, and was continued for an affidavit from Plaintiff’s counsel and an opposition from Defendant.

On August 14, 2020, Receiver filed a notice of application and application for issuance of an OSC re: contempt against Edwin Min and request for attorney’s fees. Receiver requests the “that this court issue an order to show cause against Edwin Min to show why he should not be held in contempt for: (1) his willful failure to turn over to the Receiver records in the Computer that relate to Damo’s business in light of the Receivership Order issued on April 8 and specifically directed at Mr. Min, ordering his personal cooperation; and (2) for his efforts to delete Damo files from the Computer on or about June 21, 2020, after this Court ordered him to cooperate in allowing the Receiver to inspect Damo business records on the Computer.

Edwin Min filed an opposition, and Receiver filed a reply.

Legal Standard for OSC re: Contempt

“The substantive issues involved in a contempt proceeding are (1) the rendition of a valid order, (2) actual knowledge of the order, (3) ability to comply, and (4) willful disobedience.” (Conn v. Sup.Ct. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 774, 784.)

Analysis

The threshold legal issue for the hearing on September 8, 2020, is whether Edwin Min (“Edwin”) is subject to the court’s April 8, 2020 Order Appointing Receiver (“Order”) so that he can be held in contempt for disobeying the Order or subsequent related orders of the court (i.e. June 17, 2020 minute order). There are two parts of the Order that appear relevant to this legal issue:

Receiver’s Authority over Books and Records

The Order states in pertinent part: “The Receiver shall further take control of the books and records of DAMO, including, without limitation, all books, files, documents, accounting records, writings, electronic media, and records (including computer records), related thereto, and all proceeds thereof, wherever located (the ‘Books and Records’), as the Receiver deems necessary for the proper operation, preservation, management and/or disposition of the Collateral, or winding down and discontinuing those parts of DAMO’s business that are no longer producing income, at his sole discretion, but copies of the Books and Records shall be made available upon request to DAMO, James Min, Edwin Min, and the foregoing’s attorneys and other representatives as may be reasonably necessary.” (Order ¶ 1 at p. 3.)

Apparently, Receiver interprets this final clause (starting with “but copies”) as granting Receiver authority to seize control of a computer (“Computer”) allegedly owned by Edwin Min as his personal property. (See Application 4:13-17.) Receiver quotes this provision as authority for him to compel Edwin Min to provide copies of books and records of Damo at his request. (See also Reply 1-2.) In doing so, Receiver inserts the words “[to the Receiver]” and also omits the word “but.”

Receiver’s interpretation of this clause is not persuasive. Edwin Min submits the stronger interpretation. (See Suppl. Decl. of Pio Kim filed 9/1/20.)

The first part of paragraph 1 of the Order states that the Receiver shall take control of the books and records of Damo. The clause starting with “but copies” is reasonably interpreted to modify Receiver’s control of the records so that Receiver, not Damo, James Min, or Edwin Min, has an obligation to make “copies” of the records available upon their request. This interpretation is supported by the plain language (“but copies shall be made available upon request to DAMO ….”). It makes no sense that Receiver would take control of the records and then have to ask other persons for copies.

Although the plain language seems clear, Edwin Min also submits extrinsic evidence from the negotiation of the Order that supports his interpretation. (See Suppl. Decl. of Pio Kim filed 9/1/20.) This evidence was partly submitted in a sur-reply declaration, but was also discussed in Kim’s 8/20/20 opposition declaration at paragraph 2. Although the court should allow Receiver to address this negotiation history at the hearing, it appears that Receiver submitted no extrinsic evidence to the contrary with his moving papers or reply. (See Reply Bubman Decl.)

It may be that Receiver could seek contempt against James Min or Damo to the extent either of those parties could direct Edwin Min, as a former employee of Damo, to turn over the Computer. However, Petitioner has not requested contempt against James Min or Damo.

Petitioner’s request that the court “compel” Edwin Min to turnover the computer is improper through a request for an OSC re: contemptThat request also fails for the same reasons discussed above (not supported by the language of the Order). (See Application 7.)

Preliminary Injunction

Some Parts Not Applicable to Edwin Min

The Order includes a Preliminary Injunction, which specifically ordered Damo and James Min to turn over Books and Records of Damo to the Receiver. (Order p. 9.) This specific order did not apply to Edwin Min and cannot support an OSC re: contempt against him (although it perhaps could against Damo or James Min).

The Broad Preliminary Injunction Seems Too Vague to Enforce With Respect to Edwin Min’s Computer

In a separate paragraph, the Order included the following preliminary injunction: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DAMO and all customers, principals, investors, collectors, stockholders, lessors, and other persons seeking to establish or enforce any claim, right or interest against or on behalf of DAMO or any of its affiliates, and all others acting for or on behalf of such persons, attorneys, trustees, agents, sheriffs, constables, marshals, and other officers and their deputies, and their respective attorneys, servants, agents, and employees, shall be prohibited and enjoined from doing any act or thing whatsoever to interfere with the Receiver taking control, possession, or management of the Premises and Collateral subject to this receivership, or to in any way interfere with the Receiver; or to harass or interfere with the duties of the Receiver; or to interfere in any manner with the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court over the Collateral; provided, however, nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit any federal or state law enforcement or regulatory authority from commencing or prosecuting an action against DAMO or its affiliates.” (Order p. 10.)

This paragraph appears too vague to enforce against Edwin Min, at least with respect to any alleged obligation to turn over the Computer.

Conclusion

The court should not issue the OSC re: contempt against Edwin Min because the Order does not authorize the Receiver to take a personal computer from Edwin Min, even if it contains Damo information. E need for this informt

Even if the Order could allow Receiver to compel production of the Computer or information thereon (e.g. through James Min or Damo), it does not clearly require Edwin Min to give a computer in his possession to Receiver. Accordingly, it seems that Edwin Min should not be held in contempt. Receiver may have other remedies to obtain possession of the data in the computer. The court would also direct the Receiver to explain the need for this information before it pursues other remedies.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where DAMO TEXTILES INC is a litigant

Latest cases where CHINATRUST BANK (USA) is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BUBMAN MICHAEL ELLIOT