This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/03/2019 at 02:05:20 (UTC).

SANG HYEUN LEE ET AL VS DOK KYUN KIM ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/03/2018 a Contract - Professional Negligence case was filed by SANG HYEUN LEE against DOK KYUN KIM in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8875

  • Filing Date:

    01/03/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Professional Negligence

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

JOHN P. DOYLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

CHO SEONMEE

LEE SANG HYEUN

Respondents and Defendants

DOES 1-20

LAW OFFICE OF DOK KIM

KIM DOK HYUN

 

Court Documents

PLAINTIFFS' STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT

7/17/2018: PLAINTIFFS' STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Minute Order

7/26/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANTS DOK KYUN KIM AND LAW OFFICES OF DOK KIM'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC.

8/1/2018: DEFENDANTS DOK KYUN KIM AND LAW OFFICES OF DOK KIM'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC.

DEFENDANTS DOK KYUN KIM AND LAW OFFICES OF DOK KIM'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC.

8/1/2018: DEFENDANTS DOK KYUN KIM AND LAW OFFICES OF DOK KIM'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC.

PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFNDANTS' DEMURRER

8/24/2018: PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFNDANTS' DEMURRER

ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

9/24/2018: ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order

12/18/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/8/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/29/2019: Minute Order

Declaration

6/4/2019: Declaration

Declaration

6/4/2019: Declaration

Request for Refund / Order

6/28/2019: Request for Refund / Order

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT

4/24/2018: STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT

ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT

4/24/2018: ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT

DECLARATION OF LARISSA G. NEFULDA RE AUTOMATIC EXTENSION TO RESOPND TO COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 430.41(A)(2)

4/24/2018: DECLARATION OF LARISSA G. NEFULDA RE AUTOMATIC EXTENSION TO RESOPND TO COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 430.41(A)(2)

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

2/14/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

1/8/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

SUMMONS

1/3/2018: SUMMONS

27 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/01/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 58; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2019
  • Request for Refund / Order; Filed by Dok Hyun Kim (Defendant); Law Offices of Dok Kim Erroneously Sued As Law Office of Dok Kim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Conference (ReMediation Setting) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Conference Re: Mediation Setting; Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Sang Hyeun Lee (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Declaration (In Support); Filed by Dok Hyun Kim (Defendant); Law Offices of Dok Kim Erroneously Sued As Law Office of Dok Kim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Exhibit List; Filed by Dok Hyun Kim (Defendant); Law Offices of Dok Kim Erroneously Sued As Law Office of Dok Kim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Declaration (In Support); Filed by Dok Hyun Kim (Defendant); Law Offices of Dok Kim Erroneously Sued As Law Office of Dok Kim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
53 More Docket Entries
  • 02/14/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Sang Hyeun Lee (Plaintiff); Seonmee Cho (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR 1) LEGAL MALPRACTICE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC688875    Hearing Date: February 07, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: February 7, 2020

Case Name: Lee, et al. v. Kim, et al.

Case No.: BC688875

Motion: Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication

Moving Party: Defendants Dok Kyun Kim and Law Offices of Dok Kim

Responding Party:      Plaintiffs Sang Hyeun Lee and Seonmee Cho

Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication is denied.

This is an action in which Plaintiffs allege that, among other things, Defendants negligently represented Plaintiffs for various immigration matters.  On June 8, 2018, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint for (1) malpractice, (2) intentional misrepresentation, (3) negligent misrepresentation, (4) injunctive relief, and (5) constructive fraud.

Defendants Dok Kyun Kim and Law Offices of Dok Kim move for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication of all causes of action as well as Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages.  The thrust of the Motion is that Defendants did not cause Plaintiffs’ damages.  Specifically, “after the petitioner (My Eagle Express, the prospective employer) received the Notice of Intent to Revoke letter, My Eagle Express decided it did not want to go forward with the Form I-140 petition. As a result, Mr. Kim did not respond to the USCIS' Notice of Intent to Revoke letter, and the Form I-140 petition was revoked. (UMF Nos. 17 and 18) Since the Form I-140 petition was revoked, Plaintiffs' Form I-485 applications could never be approved.”  (MSJ at p. 24.)

However, Plaintiffs have shown triable issues by pointing to the fact that Defendants were involved in the submission of the subject I-140 petition: “Kim has declared that he drafted and filed the Form I-140 application. Declaration of Dok Kyun Kim, ¶3. He also declared that he assisted My Eagle Express with the application. Declaration of Dok Kyun Kim, ¶5.”  (Opposition at p. 7.)  Further, Plaintiffs contend the subject I-140 petition was denied due to incorrect employment information therein.

In reply, Defendants provide new evidence.  First, they point to an employment verification for Plaintiffs they received from a mediator for this action to argue that all employment information provided in the I-140 and I-485 forms was correct.  (Supp. Feldman Decl., Exhibit 23.)  Second, they point to a court order indicating that an arrest warrant was issued and revoked as to Plaintiff Lee to indicate that his action is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands to the extent Lee responded in a prior E-2 Visa application that he had never been arrested.  (Supp. Kim Decl., Exhibits 24-25; 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) [“Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this chapter is inadmissible.”].)

Ordinarily, for the Court to consider new evidence, it must give Plaintiffs an opportunity to respond.  (Wall St. Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal. App. 4th 1171, 1183.)  However, such is not necessary under the circumstances.  Indeed, Exhibit 23—which is Plaintiffs’ purported employment verification—is inadmissible as hearsay.  Further, while Exhibit 25 shows that an arrest warrant was issued and revoked, there is technically nothing to indicate that Lee was actually arrested, which was the call of the interrogatory within the prior E-2 Visa application.  The Court, thus, concludes that there are triable issues as to causes of action 1-3 and 5. 

Defendants also argue the fourth cause of action for injunctive relief fails because they have no documents to return to Plaintiffs.  However, a motion for summary adjudication cannot be directed at injunctive relief, which is neither a cause of action nor claim for damages.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(f)(1) [“A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty”].) 

Defendants lastly argue that Plaintiffs are not entitled to punitive damages because there is no clear and convincing evidence of malice, oppression or fraud.  However, there remains a fraud claim in this action; further, the Court cannot say at this time that the evidence of malice, fraud, or oppression (Civ. Code § 3294), could not approach clear and convincing at trial (Basich v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1121.)

In sum, the Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication is denied.[1]


[1] The objections are overruled.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(q).)