Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/17/2020 at 18:36:35 (UTC).

R CONSULTING & SALES, INC. VS ANDY KIM, ET AL.,

Case Summary

On 08/22/2017 R CONSULTING SALES, INC filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against ANDY KIM, . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GERALD ROSENBERG and LISA HART COLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7990

  • Filing Date:

    08/22/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GERALD ROSENBERG

LISA HART COLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

R CONSUTLING & SALES INC.

Defendants

COUNTRYSIDE SECURITY INC.

IT SOURCE HOLDING CORP.

R. SMITH & ASSOCIATES INC.

KIM ANDY

EMAJEE INC.

KIM ENTERPRISES LLC

INFO TECH CORPORATION

360 JETS INC.

DAKA NETWORKS INC.

IT SOURCE CORPORATION

PARK M.D. CHUN M.

OUTSOURCED SOLUTIONS INC.

PARK KERRY M.D.

KIM CHUN

IT SOURCE CORPORATION NEVADA CORP(DOE 3

IT SOURCE CORPORATION NEVADA CORPDOE 3

KIM CHUN M.

IT SOURCE HOLDING CORP A NEVADA CORPORATION

DAKA NETWORK INC. A TEXAS CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

MASON MICHAEL J.

METSCH PAUL S.

METSCH & MASON

Defendant Attorneys

TAUGER PAUL N.

TAUGER PAUL

 

Court Documents

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: PROOF-SERVICE/SUMMONS

9/5/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: PROOF-SERVICE/SUMMONS

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION

12/4/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION

Declaration - DECLARATION OF PAUL N. TAUGER

10/29/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF PAUL N. TAUGER

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE SUBPOEANED DEPOSITION

12/4/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE SUBPOEANED DEPOSITION

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RE LANCE RICOTTA'S 2004 FELONY PLEA REGARDING AIRCRAFT LOGBOOKS

12/24/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RE LANCE RICOTTA'S 2004 FELONY PLEA REGARDING AIRCRAFT LOGBOOKS

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE RELATING TO UNDERLYING LAWSUIT

12/24/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE RELATING TO UNDERLYING LAWSUIT

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. MASON RE OSC RE MONETARY SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT STATUS CONFERENCE

12/30/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. MASON RE OSC RE MONETARY SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT STATUS CONFERENCE

Declaration - DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. MASON RE OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE RE VACATE DEFAULTS

1/13/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. MASON RE OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE RE VACATE DEFAULTS

Affidavit - AFFIDAVIT OF PAUL N. TAUGER IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO VACATE DEFAULTS PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE 473(B)

1/31/2020: Affidavit - AFFIDAVIT OF PAUL N. TAUGER IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO VACATE DEFAULTS PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE 473(B)

Case Management Statement

12/20/2017: Case Management Statement

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Opposition

12/20/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Opposition

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Amendment to Complaint

1/8/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Amendment to Complaint

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/8/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/9/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice of Ruling

4/6/2018: Notice of Ruling

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

5/24/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

Declaration - of Michael J. Mason

10/2/2018: Declaration - of Michael J. Mason

Proof of Service by Mail

11/27/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

228 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/29/2020
  • Hearing10/29/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department O at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Motion to Strike Answer and Enter Default

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • Hearing08/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department O at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/31/2020
  • DocketOrder (Denying Defendants' Motion to Vacate Defaults); Filed by R CONSULTING & SALES, INC. a Nevada Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2020
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities (in Support of Motion to Strike the Answer of Defendant Kim Enterprises, LLC and Enter its Default and for Sanctions); Filed by R CONSULTING & SALES, INC. a Nevada Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2020
  • DocketMotion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer (the Answer of Defendant Kim Enterprises, LLC and Enter its Default and for Sanctions); Filed by R CONSULTING & SALES, INC. a Nevada Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (of Michael J. Mason in Support of Motion to Strike Answer and Enter Default and Sanctions); Filed by R CONSULTING & SALES, INC. a Nevada Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by R CONSULTING & SALES, INC. a Nevada Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by R CONSULTING & SALES, INC. a Nevada Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Motion to Vacate (Defaults) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
409 More Docket Entries
  • 09/13/2017
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CONTINUANCE (OF CMC ); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2017
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by R CONSULTING & SALES, INC. a Nevada Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by R CONSULTING & SALES, INC. a Nevada Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by R CONSULTING & SALES, INC. a Nevada Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by R CONSULTING & SALES, INC. a Nevada Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC127990    Hearing Date: December 08, 2020    Dept: O

Alhambra-Shumway Mines, Inc. v. Alhambra Gold Mine Corp. (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 46, 50-51.

Case Number: SC127990    Hearing Date: October 29, 2020    Dept: O

Case Name: R Consulting & Sales, Inc. v. Kim, et al.

Case No.: SC127990

Hearing: 10-29-20

Calendar #: 5

Notice: OK

Complaint Filed: 8/22/17

Trial Date: 7-21-21

______________________________________________________________________________

SUBJECT: MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff R Consulting & Sales, Inc.

RESP. PARTY: Defendant Kim Enterprises, LLC

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Answer is CONTINUED to ________________ solely to give Defendant Kim Enterprises, LLC and opportunity to obtain a revivor.

“A claim of lack of corporate capacity to prosecute or defend a civil action because of its suspended status is a plea in abatement which is not favored in law.  The primary purpose of statutes depriving suspended corporations of privileges enjoyed by a going concern, including the capacity to sue or defend litigation, is to motivate delinquent corporations to pay back taxes or file missing statements.  The suspension statutes are not intended to be punitive. Once the statutory goals underlying suspension are met, no purpose is served by imposing additional penalties. Leniency permits a delinquent corporation to secure a revivor, even at the time of the hearing, at the request of the corporation or on the trial court's own motion. When a corporation's suspended status “comes to light during litigation, the normal practice is for the trial court to permit a short continuance to enable the suspended corporation to effect reinstatement to defend itself in court.”  Cadle Co. v. World Wide Hospitality Furniture, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 504, 512.  “Suspension of a corporation is intended to encourage them to pay taxes, not to provide a monetary windfall to private parties.”  Id. at 514.  Revivor of the corporation validates all acts taken prior to revivor.  Id. at 513. 

Where a corporation is suspended and fails to cure the suspension, it is clearly barred from participating in the action under Rev. & Tax. C. §§23301 and 23301.5.  Alhambra-Shumway Mines, Inc. v. Alhambra Gold Mine Corp. (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 46, 50-51.  The Court may strike the pleadings of the suspended corporation where it has not cured the suspension and will not do so.  Id. 

Defendant does not deny its lack of capacity. Defense counsel indicates Defendant is in the process of obtaining a certificate of revivor. See Dec. of P. Tauger in ISO Opposition, ¶¶4-6. However, Defense counsel also indicates he has no personal involvement in the efforts to obtain revivor and therefore his testimony lacks foundation. Id. at ¶7. Regardless, Defendant must be given an opportunity to obtain revivor per Cadle Co. v. World Wide Hospitality Furniture, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 504, 512. As such, the motion strike must be continued for 30 days to provide Defendant that opportunity.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer Mason, Michael J

Latest cases represented by Lawyer METSCH, PAUL S