This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/13/2019 at 06:12:03 (UTC).

UNITI BANK VS BYUNG HWAN JUNG ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/18/2017 UNITI BANK filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against BYUNG HWAN JUNG. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ELIZABETH R. FEFFER, ROBERT L. HESS and DAVID S. CUNNINGHAM III. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0245

  • Filing Date:

    10/18/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ELIZABETH R. FEFFER

ROBERT L. HESS

DAVID S. CUNNINGHAM III

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

BANK UNITI

UNITI BANK

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

JUNG BYUNG HWAN

ROH SEHEE

DOES 1 TO 50

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

OH JIEUN

KIM IK DONG

R-TECHO INC.

SIC METALS INC.

ROES 1 THROUGH 50

PRIME METALS U.S.A. INC.

CHANG HWEESANG

KIM SHARON

KIM JOSHUA

R-TECHO INC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

PARK HEESOK ESQ.

PARK & LIM

PARK HEESOK

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

LEGACY PRO LAW PC

S. CALVIN MYUNG LAW OFFICES OF

LEE GINAM ESQ.

LEE GI NAM ESQ.

PC LEGACY PRO LAW

Cross Defendant Attorney

HERNANDEZ DON ALAN

 

Court Documents

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

12/4/2018: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Demand for Jury Trial

12/4/2018: Demand for Jury Trial

Answer

12/12/2018: Answer

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC., SECTION 170.6)

3/20/2018: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC., SECTION 170.6)

Minute Order

4/20/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

5/8/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Minute Order

6/20/2018: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

1/30/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

1/30/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/31/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

HWEESANG CHANG'S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. IMPLIED EQUITABLE INDEMNITY 2. CONTRIBUTION 3. APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT 4. DECLARATORY RELIEF

2/1/2018: HWEESANG CHANG'S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. IMPLIED EQUITABLE INDEMNITY 2. CONTRIBUTION 3. APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT 4. DECLARATORY RELIEF

SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

2/1/2018: SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. IMPLIED EQUITABLE INDEMNITY; ETC.

1/25/2018: FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. IMPLIED EQUITABLE INDEMNITY; ETC.

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

12/21/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

12/12/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Unknown

12/19/2017: Unknown

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

11/8/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

10/18/2017: SUMMONS

52 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/11/2019
  • Notice ( OF CASE REASSIGNMENT); Filed by Uniti Bank (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for ([Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice]); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2018
  • Answer (to cross complaint for Implied Equitable Indemnity); Filed by R-Techo, Inc. "dismissed" (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2018
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Sehee Roh (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2018
  • Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2018
  • Demand for Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2018
  • Minute Order ((Case Management Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure t...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
112 More Docket Entries
  • 11/30/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Uniti Bank (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Uniti Bank (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Uniti Bank (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Uniti Bank (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Uniti Bank (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF WRITTEN COMMERCIAL GUARANTY AGREEMENT; ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC680245    Hearing Date: January 14, 2020    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE: January 14, 2020

CASE NUMBER: BC680245

CASE NAME: Uniti Bank v. Byung Hwan Jung, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Cross-Defendant, R-Techno, Inc. “dismissed”; Plaintiff, Uniti Bank [Notice of Joinder]

OPPOSING PARTY: Cross-Complainants, Jieun Oh and Sehee Roh

TRIAL DATE: January 21, 2020

PROOF OF SERVICE: OK

MOTION: R-Techno, Inc.’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial

OPPOSITION: December 31, 2019

REPLY: January 7, 2020

TENTATIVE: The motion to bifurcate is denied. Counsel for the moving party to give notice.

 

Background

This action arises out of Plaintiff Uniti Bank (“Plaintiff”)’s commercial loan of $500,000 to Prime Metals U.S.A., Inc. (“Prime Metals”) on or about March 13, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that Prime Metals’ Chief Executive Officer was Sehee Roh and that Sehee’s spouse was Jieun Roh. Further, Prime Metals’ secretary was alleged to be Byung Hwan Jung (“Jung.”)

In connection with this loan, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and Sehee Roh entered into the First Guaranty Agreement, as modified by Change in Terms Agreements dated October 28, 2015, January 28, 2016 and June 10, 2016. The Complaint further alleges that after the latest Change in Terms Agreement, the parties agreed that Prime Metals was to pay the balanced owed on the loan in the amount of $384,000.00 by paying installment payments consisting of nine principal payments of $8,000.00 each, with a final principal and interest payment of $312,819.00 due June 13, 2017. In addition, Prime Metals allegedly also agreed to regularly pay accrued unpaid interest due, beginning September 26, 2016. Prime Metals allegedly breached this agreement on or about June 13, 2017, leaving $312,000 plus interest and late charges in the amount of $16,077.37 due and owing.

The Complaint alleges causes of action as follows: (1) breach of commercial guaranty against Sehee Roh, (2) breach of commercial guaranty against Jung, (3)advance and recovery of fraudulent transfers against Sehee Roh and Jieun Roh.

On December 19, 2017, Sehee Roh and Jieun Roh (“Roh Complainants”) filed a cross-complaint against Prime Metals and various other defendants, including moving party R-Techo, Inc. (“Techo”) (“Roh Cross-Complaint.”) The Cross-Complaint alleges that Techo was a South Korean corporation with its principal place of business in South Korea and a shareholder of Prime Metals. Further, cross-defendant Ik Dong Kim (“Kim”) is alleged to be a director and officer of Prime Metals and a shareholder of Techo. Hweesang Chang is also alleged to be a shareholder of Prime Metals. (“Chang”) Further, the cross-complaint alleges that cross-defendant Sic Metals, Inc. (“Sic”) is the successor in interest to JLK International, Inc. (“JLK”), now dissolved. Cross-defendants Joshua Kim and Sharon Kim are alleged to be shareholders of Sic and/or JLK. JLK is also alleged to be a shareholder of Prime Metals.

The Roh cross-complaint further alleges that Techo does not exist and is a shell corporation whose existence is indistinct from that of Kim. Further, the cross-complaint alleges that in or about July 2015, Techo and the individual defendants were engaged in an alleged scheme so as to affect Prime Metals’ rights and obligations under its loan with Plaintiff. Specifically, the cross-complaint alleges that Jung and Chang became sole shareholders of Prime Metals with the knowledge that Techo would purchase stocks of Prime owned by JLK. Further, Sehee Roh allegedly requested that his name be removed as a guarantor from Prime Metals’ loan prior to the end of his employment in April 2015, which was allegedly not granted.

The Roh cross-complaint also alleges that in or about July 2015, Techo, JLK, Jung and Chang entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement, wherein Techo would purchase the stocks of Prime Metals owned by JLK and assume the liabilities of Prime Metals, including that with respect to its loan with Plaintiff. Based on all of the foregoing, the Roh Complainants deny liability for the events described in Plaintiff’s Complaint, or, alternatively, contend that some or all of the cross-defendants are liable. The cross-complaint alleges six causes of action: (1) implied equitable indemnity, (2) contribution, (3) apportionment of fault, (4) declaratory relief, (5) fraud, (6) negligent misrepresentation. The fifth cause of action is alleged against cross-defendant Joshua Kim only, while the sixth cause of action is alleged against cross-defendants Prime Metals and Joshua Kim. There is no indication that Techo was ever served with this cross-complaint or appeared.

On November 17, 2017, Prime Metals filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy before the United States Bankruptcy Court.

On January 12, 2018, Jung filed a cross-complaint (“Jung cross-complaint”) against Techo and Kim, alleging four causes of action for: (1) implied equitable indemnity, (2) contribution, (3) apportionment of fault, and (4) declaratory relief. On January 25, 2018, Jung filed his First Amended Cross-Complaint. The first amended cross-complaint added more factual allegations about the facts surrounding Plaintiff’s loan and Techo’s stock purchase and added Cross Defendant Oh.

On August 16, 2018 and pursuant to stipulation, cross-complainants Jung, Chang, Joshua Kim, Sharon Kim and Sic filed a cross-complaint (Sic cross-complaint), alleging implied equitable indemnity, contribution, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief against Techo, Prime, Roh and Oh.

On September 18, 2018, the Roh Cross-Complainants filed a request for dismissal without prejudice as to Techo on their cross-complaint.

On November 25, 2019, the Roh Cross-Complainants provided notice to this court that the Prime Metals bankruptcy remained ongoing and is heavily litigated. On December 19, 2019, the instant motion to bifurcate trial was filed. Plaintiff filed a notice of joinder as to the instant motion on December 26, 2019. The Roh Cross-Complainants oppose the motion.

Discussion

I. Procedural Considerations

Code of Civil Procedure, section 598 provides, in relevant part: “The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order, no later than the close of pretrial conference in cases in which such pretrial conference is to be held, or, in other cases, no later than 30 days before the trial date, that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case, except for special defenses which may be tried first pursuant to Sections 597 and 597.5.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.) “The court, on its own motion, may make such an order at any time.” (Ibid.)

Techo filed the subject motion on December 19, 2019. Trial in this matter is set for January 21, 2020. The motion was initially set for hearing on January 24, 2020, which falls outside of the trial date. On January 10, 2020, Techo’s ex parte to advance the motion for bifurcate was granted and the court set the hearing for January 14, 2020, the date of the final status conference. As this motion was filed more than 30 days before the trial date, the motion is timely.

II. Bifurcation

“The major objective of bifurcated trials is to expedite and simplify the presentation of evidence.” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 888 (Foreman).) This objective is thwarted if the proposed separate trial requires the presentation of evidence that would also be presented at a later stage of a bifurcated trial. (Ibid.)

Techo requests that the court bifurcate and separately try each of the following prior to the trial on the remaining issues:

  1. Plaintiff’s Complaint and causes of action against the Roh Complainants and Jung;

  2. The Roh Complainants’ Cross-Complaint and causes of action against Sic, Joshua Kim, Sharon Kim, Jung and Chang;

  3. Jung, Chang, Joshua Kim, Sharon Kim and Sic’s cross-complaint against the Roh Complainants.

(see Notice of Motion, 1-2.) Overall, Techo’s motion contends that it is minimally involved and, as such, causes of action against it must be bifurcated. Specifically, Techo contends that the Roh cross-complaint was never served on Techo or Kim, while the Sic cross-complaint was, and as such, constitutes the only causes of action properly alleged against Techo. (Motion, 1-2.) Techo further contends that the Sic cross-complaint alleges Techo’s liability on two theories which do not relate to Plaintiff’s complaint or the Roh cross-complaint, because they are based on: (1) Techo’s status as the alleged alter ego of Prime Metals, and (2) Techo’s agreement to assume liability for Prime Metals’ loan from Plaintiff by the July 2015 agreement where it purchased Prime Metals’ stock. (Motion, 2-3.) Finally, Techo contends that minimal discovery has been taken by the Sic complainants from Techo, as no depositions have been taken, and the written discovery taken describe little to no evidence supporting Techo’s liability. (Id.) Accordingly, the motion seems disguised as an attempt to file a separate motion for summary judgment on the issues relating to Techo.

Plaintiff joins in Techo’s motion to bifurcate the trial.

The Roh Complainants oppose the motion on the following grounds: (1) Techo was not minimally involved but instead, would be a key witness in the pending trial, (2) the entire action should be stayed pending the completion of Prime’s bankruptcy rather than any bifurcation that Techo requests, and (3) the Roh Complainants intend to again add Techo to the Roh cross-complaint. (Opposition, 5-7.)

The Roh Complainants also submit the declaration of their attorney Calvin Myung (“Myung”) in support of their opposition. Myung attests that in November 2018 as part of the Prime Metals bankruptcy, the trustee filed adversary complainants against various parties, including Techo. (Myung Decl. ¶ 6.)

On reply, Techo again attests that the Roh Complainants failed to properly serve their cross-complaint against Techo and failed to take discovery. (Reply, 1.) Further, Techo argues that the Roh Complainants’ contention that Techo will be a key witness must fail because Techo’s status as a sole shareholder does not make Techo an alter ego of Prime, and because Techo itself cannot be appropriately a witness without service to its individual employees, all of whom presumably reside in South Korea. (Reply, 4-5.)

Techo also submits the declaration of Brian Beck in support of its motion to bifurcate. Beck attests that Techo has never been served with the Roh cross-complaint. (Beck Decl. ¶ 3.) Further, Beck attests that minimal discovery has been taken from Techo, and that the key witnesses from Techo have not been individually subpoenaed pursuant to applicable procedure to obtain a deposition of a foreign national. (Beck Decl. ¶ 4-6.)

Given the timing of this motion just before the trial date and the complicated nature of all the cross-complaints in this action, the court is not inclined to bifurcate. If Techo is accurate about the limited involvement in the trial it should not be too much of a burden to participate. Given the foregoing ruling, the court will not address the statements in the opposition suggesting that the case should be stayed.

Case Number: BC680245    Hearing Date: November 13, 2019    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE: November 13, 2019

CASE NUMBER: BC680245

CASE NAME: Uniti Bank. v. Byung Hwan Jung et al.

MOVING PARTY: Cross-Defendant R-Techo, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: None

TRIAL DATE: January 21, 2020

PROOF OF SERVICE: OK

MOTION: Cross-Defendant’s Application for Order Admitting Brian J. Beck as Counsel Pro Hac Vice

OPPOSITION: None

REPLY: None

TENTATIVE: The court is inclined to GRANT the motion. At the hearing, Defendants should be prepared to present proof of payment of the required fees to the State Bar as well as proof of service and of the application and notice of hearing upon the State Bar of California at San Francisco. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 9.40(e) and 9.40(c)(1).) Counsel for Cross-Defendant R-Techo, Inc. to give notice.

Background

As alleged in the First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”), Defendant and Cross-Complainant Byung Hwan Jung (“Jung”) brings this indemnity suit against Cross-Defendants R-Techo, Inc. (“R-Techo”), Ik Dong Kim (“Kim”), Sehee Roh (“Roh”), and Jieun Oh (“Oh”) disclaiming his liability for a loan taken by Jung and his associates Oh and Roh for their business, Prime Metals U.S.A., Inc. (“Prime Metals”). Uniti Bank (“Uniti”) entered into a loan agreement with Prime Metals, secured by a promissory note (“Note”), on March 13, 2015. Prime Metals defaulted on the Note on June 13, 2017. On October 18, 2017, Uniti brought a breach of contract action against Jung, Roh, and Oh, as corporate officers of Prime Metals, to collect on the Note.

In the Complaint, Uniti alleges three causes of action for: (1) breach of written commercial guarantee agreement against Roh, (2) breach of written commercial guaranty agreement against Jung, and (3) avoidance and recovery of fraudulent conveyances of real properties against Roh and Oh.

In the FACC, Jung alleges four causes of action for: (1) implied equitable indemnity, (2) contribution, (3) apportionment of fault, and (4) declaratory relief against all Cross-Defendants.

Cross-Defendant R-Techo now moves for an order admitting Brian J. Beck as Counsel pro hac vice. The motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

Pro hac vice applications are governed by California Rules of Court, rule 9.40. “It is common practice … to permit upon request an attorney holding a license to practice law from one state to appear in the courts of a sister state, and there take part in the trial of an action pending in said courts.” (In re Application of McCue (1930) 211 Cal. 57, 67.) A judge’s determination of whether to grant an application to appear pro hac vice is evaluated under the abuse of discretion standard.  (Walter E. Heller Western, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 706, 711.) Appearance pro hac vice is a privilege and not a right under the United States Constitution. (Leis v. Flynt (1979) 439 U.S. 438, 441.) “Absent special circumstances, repeated appearances by out-of-state counsel in California lawsuits is cause for denial of his or her application.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(b); Walter E. Heller, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at 709.)

The following elements apply:

  1. The applicant is not a member of the State Bar of California. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).)

  2. The applicant is in good standing of the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, territory or insular possession of the United States. 

  3. The applicant been retained to appear in a particular cause pending in a court of this state. 

  4. An active member of the State Bar of California is to be associated as attorney of record. 

  5. The applicant is not a resident of the State of California.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).)

  6. The applicant is not regularly employed in the State of California.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).)

  7. The applicant is not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).)

  8. The applicant has not made repeated appearances pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 9.40. 

  9. Any special circumstances for repeated appearances pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 9.40.

  10. The application is verified. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1).)

  11. The application is accompanied by a proof of service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure, section 1013a.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1).)

  12. The application is accompanied by a proof of service of a copy of the application and of the notice of hearing of the application upon all parties who have appeared in the cause. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1014; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1).)

  13. The application is accompanied by a proof of service of a copy of the application and of the notice of hearing of the application upon the State Bar of California at San Francisco.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1).)

  14. Notice of hearing has been given at the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure, section 1005 (16 court days plus 5 for mailing).  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1).)

  15. The application states the applicant’s residence and office addresses.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)(1).)

  16. The application states the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)(2).)

  17. The application states that the applicant is a member in good standing in the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)(3).)

  18. The application states that the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)(4).)

  19. The application states the title of court and cause for any case in which the applicant has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)(5).)

  20. The application states the name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)(6).)

  21. The application shows a $50 fee served upon the State Bar of California.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(e).)

  22. The applicant is ready to appear pro hac vice

  23. The applicant’s appearance would not cause a significant disruption of orderly justice. 

Application for Brian J. Beck

CLIENT: Cross-Defendant R-Techo, Inc.

PROOF OF SERVICE: OK (Except on State Bar of California at San Francisco)

CONDITIONS:

1. Associated with California Attorney: Yes, Agnes M. Sullivan.

2. Verified declaration: Yes.

3. Service on State Bar at SF Office: No.

4. Payment of $50 fee to State Bar: Yes. (Sullivan Decl., ¶ 4.)

5. Good standing and not currently suspended/disbarred: Yes.

6. Number of other California appearances in last 2 years: None.

7. Residence Address: Yes, 525 Lotus Lane, Glenview, Illinois 60025

8. Office Address: Yes, 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 600, Chicago, Illinois 60603

Sullivan attests that the application was served on the State Bar of California and that the required fee was paid; however, Cross-Defendant does not present proof that the required payment was made to the State Bar or that service of this application and notice of hearing was made on the State Bar of California at San Francisco Office. As Beck otherwise complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 9.40, the court is inclined to grant the motion. At the hearing, Cross-Defendant should be prepared to demonstrate proof of payment to the State Bar and service of its application and notice of this hearing on the State Bar’s San Francisco Office.