This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 10:02:00 (UTC).

JAMES AHN VS KHAN HONG ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/11/2018 JAMES AHN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against KHAN HONG. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8727

  • Filing Date:

    06/11/2018

  • 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

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

AHN JAMES

Defendants and Respondents

HONG LYNN

URBAN WEAR OUTLET

HONG FAMILY TRUST

HONG KHAN

AHN MAK TONG

DUCKSUNG INC.

AHN SEUNG

PRO 5 APPAREL INC.

DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE

OUTLET URBAN WEAR

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

ZUCKERMAN PAUL S. ESQ.

CHUN ERIC

Defendant Attorneys

MCLAIN MICHAEL A. ESQ.

FORD WALKER HAGGERTY & BEHAR LAW O/O

HOBSON SUSAN E.

SCHMITT CHARLES JAMES

SEO EDWARD W

 

Court Documents

Motion for Leave to Amend

7/1/2019: Motion for Leave to Amend

Minute Order

7/26/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

7/29/2019: Notice of Ruling

Request for Judicial Notice

8/9/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Declaration

8/9/2019: Declaration

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

7/19/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

CIVIL DEPOSIT

7/19/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

SUMMONS

9/7/2018: SUMMONS

CROSS-COMPLAINT OF SEUING AHN DBA URBAN WEAR OUTLET

9/19/2018: CROSS-COMPLAINT OF SEUING AHN DBA URBAN WEAR OUTLET

Answer

10/26/2018: Answer

Notice

11/1/2018: Notice

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

5/28/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

6/3/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY WITHIN THE FIRM

7/11/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY WITHIN THE FIRM

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/3/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/21/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/29/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

6/11/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

26 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/11/2021
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; : OSC RE Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2019
  • Hearingat 13:30 PM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Hong Family Trust (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Khan Hong (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2019
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by Ducksung, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2019
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by Ducksung, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2019
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by Ducksung, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Susan E. Hobson in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues of Defendant Ducksung, Inc.); Filed by Ducksung, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
38 More Docket Entries
  • 06/29/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by James Ahn (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by James Ahn (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by James Ahn (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by James Ahn (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by James Ahn (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC708727    Hearing Date: October 28, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion for Summary Judgment

Having considered the moving papers and notice of non-opposition, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On June 11, 2018, Plaintiff James Ahn (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Khan Hong; Lynn Hong; Hong Family Trust; Ducksung, Inc.; Pro 5 Apparel, Inc.; Seung Ahn, an individual dba Urban Wear Outlet; Mak Tong Ahn; Urban Wear Outlet; and Does 1 to 50 for general negligence and premises liability.  Plaintiff alleges he was injured when a gate fell onto him while he was on Defendants’ property.

On July 19, 2018, Defendants Khan Hong, Lynn Hong, and Hong Family Trust filed a cross-complaint against Defendants Mak T. Park; Ducksung, Inc.; Pro 5 Apparel, Inc.; Seung Ahn, an individual dba Urban Wear Outlet; Mak Tong Ahn; Urban Wear Outlet; and Roes 1 to 50 for implied and express indemnity, equitable contribution, and declaratory relief.

On September 19, 2018, Defendant Seung Ahn dba Urban Wear Outlet filed a cross-complaint against Moes 1-30 for implied indemnity, comparative contribution, total equitable indemnity, and declaratory relief.

On August 9, 2019, Defendant Ducksung, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed the instant motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.

Trial is set on February 7, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant requests that this Court enter summary judgment against Plaintiff pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c on the grounds that Plaintiff cannot produce admissible evidence showing that Defendant in any way controlled, managed or operated the premises, including the security gate, at any time before, during, or after the date of the incident.

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facia showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.”  (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.)  A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).)  “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Id.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.”  (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.”  (Avivi, 159 Cal.App.4th at 467; Code Civ. Proc., §437c(c).)

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant requests judicial notice of the complaint filed on June 11, 2018.  Defendant’s request is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Summary Judgment

Defendant moves for summary judgment on the sole causes of action for premises liability and general negligence asserted against it.

The elements for negligence are: (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to the plaintiff. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.)  The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.¿¿(Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp¿(2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.)¿¿Those who own, possess, or control property generally have a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing the property¿to¿avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm.¿¿(Annocki¿v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC¿(2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37.)¿¿The existence and scope of duty are legal questions for the court.¿¿(Id.¿at¿36.)

Defendant argues the premises liability and general negligence causes of action fail because Plaintiff cannot produce admissible evidence that Defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the premises where the incident occurred or that Defendant had control over the storage, maintenance, installation, repair, positioning, or securing of the security gate.  Defendant submits the transcript of the deposition of Seung Ahn (“Ahn”) to support its argument.  Ahn testified that he was the owner of the business at the location of the incident—i.e., Urban Wear Outlet—and that he leased the location where the incident occurred.  (See Hobson Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. B, p. 10-11, 49.)  Ahn testified that it was his responsibility for making sure the gate worked properly.  (Id., p. 50.)  When asked whether Defendant shares any responsibility for the incident, Ahn testified that Defendant did not have anything to do with it as Defendant conducts business at a location different from Urban Wear Outlet’s store.  (Id., p. 97.)  Based on this evidence, Defendant has demonstrated that it did not own, possess, or control the premises where the incident occurred or the subject security gate that allegedly injured Plaintiff.  Defendant has thus met its burden of demonstrating that it did not owe a duty of care to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has filed a notice of non-opposition, indicating he is not opposing this motion.  Plaintiff has thus conceded that there are no triable issues of material fact as to whether Defendant owned, possessed, or controlled the premises and gate such that Defendant is liable for premises liability and general negligence.

Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to judgment on the premises liability and general negligence causes of action.

Summary Adjudication

As Defendant is entitled to summary judgment, Defendant’s alternative motion for summary adjudication is MOOT.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Ducksung, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Defendant’s alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED as moot.  is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Why is this public record being published online?