This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/28/2019 at 11:24:01 (UTC).

WILLIAM PARK VS CHRISTEN OH KUMAGAYA

Case Summary

On 05/18/2017 WILLIAM PARK filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against CHRISTEN OH KUMAGAYA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LORI ANN FOURNIER and MARGARET MILLER BERNAL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6600

  • Filing Date:

    05/18/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LORI ANN FOURNIER

MARGARET MILLER BERNAL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

USHIBA JAMES AN INDIVIDUAL

PARK WILLIAM AN INDIVIDUAL

USHIBA CARRIE AN INDIVIDUAL

PARK WILLIAM

USHIBA JAMES

USHIBA CARRIE

Defendant

KUMAGAYA CHRISTEN OH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

PARK LAW OFFICES P.C.

PARK SANG HYUN

Defendant Attorneys

CHONG CHRISTINE LAW OFFICES OF

KIM KI HYON

 

Court Documents

Stipulation and Order

6/19/2019: Stipulation and Order

Minute Order

6/20/2019: Minute Order

Legacy Document

5/18/2017: Legacy Document

Notice

6/22/2017: Notice

Minute Order

8/11/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

8/15/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

10/16/2017: Minute Order

Legacy Document

10/16/2017: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

10/16/2017: Legacy Document

Order

10/19/2017: Order

Legacy Document

10/19/2017: Legacy Document

Notice of Motion

9/13/2018: Notice of Motion

Minute Order

9/18/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

10/22/2018: Minute Order

Answer

10/22/2018: Answer

Reply

12/5/2018: Reply

Motion to Compel Discovery

1/28/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery

Minute Order

1/29/2019: Minute Order

42 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( to Continue Trial Date/Other Related Deadlines/Cut-offs) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date/Other...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial/FSC and Related Discovery and Motion Deadlines/Cut-offs); Filed by William Park (Plaintiff); Carrie Ushiba (Plaintiff); James Ushiba (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date/Other Related Deadlines/Cut-offs); Filed by William Park (Plaintiff); Carrie Ushiba (Plaintiff); James Ushiba (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (to Plaintiff William Park's Special Interrogatories, Set Four); Filed by William Park (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Separate Statement (in Support ot Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Defendant's Further Responses to Plaintiff William Park's Special Interrogatories, Set Four); Filed by William Park (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Order (RULING)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
56 More Docket Entries
  • 08/15/2017
  • Minute Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • Ex-Parte Application; Filed by William Park (Plaintiff); James Ushiba (Plaintiff); Carrie Ushiba (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • Minute Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • Notice (Hearing re: Case Management Conference); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2017
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2017
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by William Park (Plaintiff); James Ushiba (Plaintiff); Carrie Ushiba (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2017
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by William Park (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by William Park (Plaintiff); James Ushiba (Plaintiff); Carrie Ushiba (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/01/1900
  • at 08:32 AM in Department Legacy; Unknown event

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC066600    Hearing Date: January 23, 2020    Dept: SEC

PARK v. KUMAGAYA

CASE NO.: VC066600

HEARING: 01/23/2020

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#11

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

Opposing Party to give notice.

This action for contractual fraud was filled by Plaintiffs WILLIAM PARK; CARRIE USHIBA; and JAMES USHIBA (collectively “Plaintiffs”) on May 18, 2017. On September 18, 2018, Plaintiffs filed the Subject Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”).

The TAC alleges, in pertinent part, “PARK is an elderly man…. PARK’s wife died in august 2013…. Soon after PARK’s wife’s death, KUMAGAYA approached PARK and offered to take care of him. KUMAGAYA convinced PARK to sell the home that he and his wife had shared. KUMAGAYA promised PARK that they would purchase real property and live together. In reliance on KUMAGAYA’s promises, PARK caused his home to be listed and eventually sold. KUMAGAYA then demanded payment from PARK and promised to take care of him for the rest of his life. [¶] On or about July 14, 2015, PARK caused to be deposited Eighty-Two Thousand Dollars ($82,000.00), from the sale of his home, into KUMAGAYA’s checking account for the benefit of, and to be used to care for PARK, and purchase a property for PARK and KUMAGAYA to live together for the rest of PARK’s life. [¶] In or about July 2016, Defendant KUMAGAYA relinquished her duties and responsibilities to care for PARK and broke off contact with PARK. Although KUMAGAYA thereafter repeatedly promised to return the funds owed to PARK, she has failed to and now refuses to do so. [¶] As a result of KUMAGAYA’s misconduct and fraud upon PARK, CARRIE USHIBA and JAMES USHIBA have also been injured in an amount to be proven at trial.” (TAC ¶¶ 6-9.)

The TAC asserts the following causes of action: (1) Fraud – False Promise; (2) Breach of Oral Contract; (3) Common Count; (4) Unjust Enrichment; (5) Money Had and Received; and (6) Financial Elder Abuse.

Plaintiffs move for summary judgment or alternatively summary adjudication on each and every cause of action.

First Cause of Action – Fraud (False Promise)

The elements for a claim of fraud by a false promise are: (1) the defendant made a promise as to a material matter, and at the time it was made, had no intention of performing it, (2) the defendant made the promise with an intent to defraud the plaintiff, i.e., that it was made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to rely upon it and to act or refrain from acting in reliance upon it, (3) the plaintiff was unaware of the defendant’s intention not to perform the promise, i.e., the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the promise and has been justified in relying on such promise, and (4) the plaintiff sustained damage. (See CACI No. 1902.) Promissory fraud exists where there is a promise to do something without any intention of performing. (See Cal. Civ. Code §1710(4).)

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication as to the first cause of action is denied. Plaintiffs do not allege, or provide evidence showing that Defendant KUMAGAYA made any oral promise to take care of Plaintiff “for the rest of his life” in consideration for $82,000.00. (See Ushiba Decl., ¶2.; William Park Decl., ¶4.) Rather, the evidence proffered by Plaintiffs indicates that Plaintiff Park expressed a willingness to live with Defendant Kumagaya, and that Plaintiff Park asked his daughter Carrie Ushiba to transfer funds into Defendant Kumagaya’s bank account so that William Park and Christen Kumagaya could live together. (See William Park Decl., ¶5.)

Moreover, any purported oral agreement would seemingly be barred, as a matter of law, by the statute of frauds. The statute of frauds requires that certain contracts must be in writing, including contracts that cannot be performed within one year. (See Cal. Civ. Code §1624(a)(1).) “An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof” is unenforceable unless in writing and signed by the party to be charged. (Id.)

Second Cause of Action – Breach of Oral Contract

Whether it is written, oral, or implied, the elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are as follows: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) a plaintiff’s performance or excused non-performance; (3) a defendant’s breach; and (4) resulting damage to a plaintiff. (Reichert v. General Ins. Co. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 822, 830.) As indicated above, any claim for breach of oral agreement is barred by the statute of frauds. (See Cal. Civ. Code §1624(a)(1).) The motion for summary adjudication of the second cause of action is denied.

Third and Fifth Causes of Action – Common Count (Money Had and Received) and Money Had and Received

The essential elements of any common count are: (1) that defendant is indebted to plaintiff in a certain sum; (2) for some consideration from plaintiff (i.e., goods sold, work done, money paid); and (3) defendant’s nonpayment. (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460.) The elements of the common count for money had and received are: (1) that defendant received money that was intended to be used for the benefit of plaintiff; (2) that the money was not used for the benefit of plaintiff; and (3) that defendant has not given the money to plaintiff. (See CACI 370.)

In accordance to the Declaration of Carrie Ushiba submitted in support of the Motion, “On July 10, 2015, [Carrie Ushiba] wire transferred $82,000.00 from a Bank of America account…to Christen Oh Kumagaya’s Bank of America account, with the intent to allow the money to be used to take care of… William Park.” (Ushiba Decl., ¶5.) In Opposition, Defendant Kumagaya testifies, in her own Declaration, that “Ms. Ushiba never mentioned that the money was conditioned on [Kumagaya] taking care of Mr. Park for any length of time.” (Kumagaya Decl., ¶9.) Kumagaya maintains that the $82,000.00 transferred into her account was a “gift”. (Kumagaya Decl., ¶8.)

The Court finds that there are triable issues of material fact pertaining to whether Kumagaya received money that was intended to be used for the benefit of Plaintiff Park. The motion for summary adjudication as to the third and fifth causes of action are denied.

Fourth Cause of Action – Unjust Enrichment

The motion for summary adjudication as to the fourth cause of action for unjust enrichment is granted. Unjust enrichment is not a separate cause of action. “There is no cause of action in California for unjust enrichment.” (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1370.)

Sixth Cause of Action – Financial Elder Abuse

The elements of a cause of action for financial elder abuse are statutory. Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.30 provides: “(a) ‘Financial abuse’ of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity does any of the following: (1) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud or both. (2) Assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both. (3) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains, or assists in taking, secreting, appropriating obtaining, or retaining, real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult by undue influence, as defined in Section 1575 of the Civil Code. (b) A person or entity shall be deemed to have taken, secreted, appropriated, obtained, or retained property for a wrongful use if, among other things, the person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains the property and the person or entity knew or should have known that this conduct is likely to be harmful to the elder or dependent adult.” “To obtain enhanced remedies under the Elder Abuse Act, ‘a plaintiff must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that defendant is guilty of something more than mere negligence; he or she must show reckless, oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct.” (Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 31.)

The Court finds that there are triable issues of material fact pertaining to whether Kumagaya obtained the subject $82,000.00 with the intent to defraud Plaintiffs. As indicated above, Plaintiffs submit evidence which shows that Plaintiffs intended the $82,000.00 payment to be used for the care of Plaintiff Park. Defendant submits contrary evidence to suggest that the $82,000.00 was a gift, and that Defendant never agreed to care for Plaintiff Park. The motion for summary adjudication of the sixth cause of action is denied.

Plaintiffs’ Evidentiary Objections

No. 1. Overruled

No. 2. Overruled

No. 3. Overruled

No. 4. Overruled

No. 5. Sustained

No. 6. Sustained

No. 7. Sustained

No. 8. Sustained

Case Number: VC066600    Hearing Date: January 16, 2020    Dept: SEC

PARK v. KUMAGAYA

CASE NO.: VC066600

HEARING: 01/16/2020

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#9

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication is CONTINUED to Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. SE-C.

Moving Party to give notice.

The Court reminds counsels of the terms of the General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil issued by Judge Daniel J. Buckley on November 5, 2018. The Order states, in pertinent part: “Regardless of the time of electronic filing, a printed courtesy copy (along with proof of electronic submission) is required for the following documents… B. Pleadings and motions (including attachments such as declarations and exhibits) of 26 pages or more… F. Motions For Summary Judgment/Adjudication.” (Gen. Order (d)(4)(A -G).) To date, no Courtesy Copies have been received by this Court. The parties are ORDERED to delivery Courtesy Copies of the Moving, Opposition, and Reply Papers directly to Dept. SE-C. on or before 12:00p.m. on January 20, 2020.