Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/05/2020 at 03:50:15 (UTC).

YONG PYO HONG VS HENRY M LEE ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/29/2017 YONG PYO HONG filed a Contract - Professional Negligence lawsuit against HENRY M LEE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ELIZABETH R. FEFFER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7083

  • Filing Date:

    06/29/2017

  • 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

Presiding Judge

ELIZABETH R. FEFFER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

HONG YONG PYO

Defendants and Respondents

LEE HENRY M.

HENRY M. LEE LAW CORPORATION

DOES 1 TO 100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

KIM HOWARD B. ESQ.

KIM KI HYON

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMEN...)

6/17/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMEN...)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE PROVE-UP HEARING PENDING THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/29/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE PROVE-UP HEARING PENDING THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT (2ND)

10/17/2019: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT (2ND)

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/26/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/26/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

5/5/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

3/5/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

Minute Order -

6/5/2018: Minute Order -

SUMMONS - TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

6/15/2018: SUMMONS - TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

DECLARATION OF ANDREW KIM IN RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

7/9/2018: DECLARATION OF ANDREW KIM IN RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -

8/3/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -

Minute Order - Minute Order (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL...)

10/23/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL...)

Proof of Personal Service

11/8/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

4/18/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

4/18/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL...)

5/1/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL...)

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

5/15/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

SUMMONS -

6/29/2017: SUMMONS -

46 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/21/2020
  • Hearing08/21/2020 at 08:45 AM in Department 39 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2020
  • Hearing08/21/2020 at 08:45 AM in Department 39 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Yong Pyo Hong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 39; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re Continuance Of Hearing Dates)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re Continuance Of Hearing Dates) of 05/07/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2020
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Yong Pyo Hong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2020
  • DocketDeclaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment; Filed by Yong Pyo Hong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2020
  • DocketMemorandum (Of Points And Authorities); Filed by Yong Pyo Hong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2020
  • Docketat 08:45 AM in Department 39; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
94 More Docket Entries
  • 12/11/2017
  • Docketat 08:45 AM in Department 39; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2017
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-12-11 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Yong Pyo Hong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketPLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR: 1) LEGAL MALPRACTICE BASED ON NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC667083    Hearing Date: September 11, 2020    Dept: 39

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS HENRY M. LEE AND HENRY M. LEE, LAW CORPORATION

[TENTATIVE] RULING:

The court CONTINUES the subject hearing to allow Plaintiff to present evidence and legal authority to establish he suffered non-speculative damages based on Defendants’ professional negligence. Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.

Additionally, Plaintiff submits evidence in connection with the subject request that contains the sensitive information of nonparties, including their unredacted financial account numbers. See Declaration of Yong Pyo Hong (“Hong Decl.”) Ex. J. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 1.201(a)(2), such information must be redacted or excluded to protect personal privacy and other legitimate interests. Plaintiff is instructed to withdraw the exhibits in question and to file and submit new versions of the documents that properly redact all sensitive information.

Background

This legal malpractice action arises in connection with Defendant Henry M. Lee (“Lee”) and the Henry M. Lee, Law Corporation’s (“Lee Corp.”) (collectively “Defendants”) representation of Plaintiff Yong Pyo Hong (“Hong” or “Plaintiff”) in connection with the civil action styled Yong Pyo Hong v. Moses Joon Suk Lee, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC390377 (“Case BC390377”). Plaintiff alleges he engaged Defendants to represent him in collection of the judgments entered in Case BC390377. According to Plaintiff, Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in undertaking to perform legal services for Plaintiff.

Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on September 25, 2019, alleging one cause of action for legal malpractice based on negligence. Plaintiff now requests entry of default judgment against Defendants.

Proof of Service of Summons

Lee: Plaintiff filed proof of service on November 26, 2019, indicating that Defendant Lee was served the SAC and summons through substituted service that occurred on November 12, 2019, at the address: 3731 Wilshire Blvd. #312, Los Angeles, CA 90010. Service was performed on a Jane Doe, who is listed as being an Asian female, age 27, 5’3” in height, 150 lbs. in weight, with black hair and brown eyes. The address of service is the same address listed for “Henry Min Lee,” Bar #156041, with the California State Bar. Copies of the documents were mailed to the same address as the address of service on November 14, 2019. This service was sufficient. See Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(b).

Lee Corp.: Plaintiff filed proof of service on November 26, 2019, indicating that Defendant Lee Corp. was served through substituted service on defendant Lee that occurred on November 15, 2019 at the address: 3731 Wilshire Blvd. #312, Los Angeles, CA 90010. Service was performed on a Nicholas Enriquez, an Asian male who was 29 years old, 5’5” in height, 160 lbs. in weight, with brown hair and brown eyes, and who is listed as the person in charge. The address of service is the same address listed for “Henry Min Lee,” Bar #156041, with the California State Bar. Copies of the documents were mailed to the same address as the address of service on November 15, 2019. This service was sufficient. See Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(a).

Entry of Default

Default was entered against Defendants on January 27, 2020. The declaration of mailing on the request for entry of default indicates that copies of the request were mailed to Defendants at the same address as the address of service of the Summons and SAC. This satisfies the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 587.

Supporting Documents Submitted: California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800

1. Use of JC Form CIV-100 Yes

2. Dismissal or judgment of non-parties to the judgment Yes

3. Declaration of non-military status for each defendant OK

4. Summary of the case Yes

5. 585(d) declarations/admissible evidence in support of judgment Yes

6. Exhibits (as necessary) Yes

7. Interest computation (as necessary) No

8. Memorandum of costs N/A

9. Request for attorney fees (per Local Rule 3.214) N/A

10. Proposed judgment Yes

Discussion

Principal Requested: $ 3,600,000

Total Requested: $ 3,600,000

I. Legal Standard

“Substantively, the judgment by default is said to ‘confess’ the material facts alleged by the plaintiff, i.e., the defendant’s failure to answer has the same effect as an express admission of the matters well pleaded in the complaint. [Citation.] The ‘well-pleaded allegations’ of a complaint refer to ‘all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.’ [Citations.]” Kim v. Westmore Partners, Inc., 201 Cal. App. 4th 267, 281 (2011) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and italics omitted). “Because the default confesses those properly pleaded facts, a plaintiff has no responsibility to provide the court with sufficient evidence to prove them—they are treated as true for purposes of obtaining a default judgment. [Citation.]” Id. “And if the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint do not state any proper cause of action, the default judgment in the plaintiff's favor cannot stand.” Id. at 282. “The only evidentiary facts that have a place at a prove-up hearing are those concerning the damages alleged in the complaint.” Carlsen v. Koivumaki, 227 Cal. App. 4th 879, 899-900 (2014).

II. Analysis

A. Legal Standard

“The elements of a claim for professional negligence incorporate a specific standard of care into the elements of a negligence claim. ‘The elements of a cause of action in tort for professional negligence are: (1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional’s negligence.” Burgess v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 1064, 1077 (1992). “In addressing breach of duty, the crucial inquiry is whether [the attorney’s] advice was so legally deficient when it was given that he [or she] may be found to have failed to use ‘such skill, prudence, and diligence as lawyers of ordinary skill and capacity commonly possess and exercise in the performance of the tasks which they undertake.’ ” Blanks v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 171 Cal. App. 4th 336, 357 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

“A plaintiff alleging legal malpractice in the prosecution or defense of a legal claim must prove that, but for the negligence of the attorney, a better result could have been obtained in the underlying action. [Citation.] The purpose of this methodology is to avoid damages based on pure speculation and conjecture. [Citation.]” Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe v. Superior Court, 107 Cal. App. 4th 1052, 1057 (2003).

B. Damages Relating to the Judgment against Moses Lee

With respect to Case BC390377, Plaintiff contends Defendants committed legal malpractice by: (1) accepting a reduction of the punitive damages award from $500,000 to $100,000 without Plaintiff’s consent, (2) failing to prosecute the collection action (including by failing to appear for the debtor’s examination hearing or to put a lien on Moses Lee’s recovery of $50,000), and (3) failing file a fraudulent transfer action. SAC ¶¶ 12-15. The court will address each basis for Plaintiff’s claim, in turn.

First, Plaintiff contends Defendants committed legal malpractice by accepting a reduction of the punitive damages award from $500,000 to $100,000 without Plaintiff’s consent. Hong Decl. ¶ 12.

On March 2, 2012, the jury in Case BC390377 awarded Plaintiff punitive damages of $500,000 against Moses Lee. Hong Decl. Ex. G. Judgment debtors Moses Lee and WCTU moved for new trial on the basis of excessive punitive damages, which came to hearing on May 1, 2012. The court conditionally granted the motion unless Plaintiff consented to a remittitur of the punitive damages award to $100,000 against Moses Lee and $602,250 against WCTU. BC390377 2/19/14 Remittitur at 7. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to the reduction, and the trial court denied the motion for new trial. Plaintiff now asserts Defendants made this decision without his consent. Hong Decl. ¶ 12.

The defendants in Case BC390377 filed an appeal of the jury award against Moses Lee, including as to the modified amount of punitive damages. On February 19, 2014, the Court of Appeal issued a remittitur upholding the punitive damages award in the amount of $100,000. In issuing its ruling, the Court of Appeal noted that the United States Supreme Court held in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 575 (1996), that although “there are no rigid benchmarks that a punitive damages award may not surpass” “in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process.” BC390377 2/19/14 Remittitur at 9-10. Because the punitive damages award of $100,000 was a single-digit multiplier of five times the compensatory damage award, the Court of Appeal held that the judgment debtors had failed to demonstrate that the punitive damages award was excessive, and the court affirmed the judgment. Id. at 10.

In comparison, the original award of punitive damages in the amount of $500,000 was twenty-five times the amount of compensatory damages of $20,000, which was significantly higher than the single-digit ratio the Court of Appeal and the United States Supreme Court recognized as allowed under due process. See BC390377 2/19/14 Remittitur at 9-10. Plaintiff does not present any argument or legal authority to establish that the original punitive damage award of $500,000 would have been upheld by the Court of Appeal. As such, Plaintiff fails to prove he would have recovered the original jury award of $500,000 in punitive damages, but for Defendants’ agreement to accept a reduction to $100,000.

Furthermore, Plaintiff did not challenge the reduction in the punitive damages award or seek a new trial regarding that issue and instead opposed the judgment debtors’ motion for a new trial and appeal of the award of punitive damages. Plaintiff does not present any evidence he was unaware of the reduction in the punitive damages award during the pendency of the appeal, and Plaintiff does not appear to have taken any action to challenge the judgment in Case BC390377, even after being apprised of the reduction through the February 19, 2014 Remittitur. See BC390377 2/19/14 Remittitur at 7.

Plaintiff is currently attempting to recover the revised judgment of $120,000 against Moses Lee in the action styled Yong Pyo Hong v. Moses Joon Suk Lee, et al., Case BC629758 (“Case BC629758”) that is currently before Department 16 of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Plaintiff has alleged he consented to the reduction of the punitive damages award in the complaints in that case. BC629758 FAC ¶ 24; BC629758 SAC ¶ 29. Given that Plaintiff opposed Moses Lee and WCTU’s attempts to obtain a new trial on the punitive damages award, including on appeal of the judgment, and given that he has never challenged the reduced judgment or sought a new trial on this issue, Plaintiff is estopped from claiming he did not consent to the reduction of the punitive damages award.

Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate he suffered any non-speculative damages from Defendants’ agreement to reduce the punitive damages award to $100,000 or that he could have achieved a better result but for Defendants’ agreement. See Orrick, 107 Cal. App. 4th at 1057. The court will not grant default judgment on this basis.

Second, Plaintiff contends Defendants committed legal malpractice by failing to prosecute the legal collection action, including by failing to appear at the debtor’s examination hearing. Mem. at ¶ 7; Hong Decl. ¶¶ 13-14. Plaintiff points to the March 13, 2015 minute order in Case BC390377 as evidence that Defendants failed to appear at the judgment debtor examination of Moses Lee. Hong Decl. Ex. I.

The record in Case BC390377 demonstrates Plaintiff filed applications for an order for appearance and examination multiple times during 2016 and that the court set additional hearings to examine the judgment debtors. Plaintiff does not present any evidence to demonstrate he could have been able to recover the judgments but for Defendants’ failure to appear at the March 13, 2015 examination. Moreover, Plaintiff is currently engaged in litigation against the judgment debtors in Case BC629758 to recover the value of these judgments. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate he suffered any non-speculative damages due to Defendants’ conduct. See Orrick, 107 Cal. App. 4th at 1057. The court will not grant default judgment on this basis.

Third, Plaintiff contends that Defendants committed legal malpractice by failing to file a fraudulent transfer action with respect to the Commonwealth Property. Plaintiff presents evidence that Moses Lee transferred real property located at 312 S. Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90020 (“the Commonwealth Property”) to his wife through a quitclaim deed on September 19, 2007 for no value, after Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting his claims against Moses Lee and WCTU in Case BC358761. Hong Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C (Case BC358761 was dismissed on August 1, 2007, without prejudice, after the parties agreed to submit to mediation. BC358761 8/1/07 Request for Dismissal. Plaintiff subsequently reasserted his claims in Case BC390377 and obtained the judgment against Moses Lee and WCTU that forms the basis of his damages claim here.). Plaintiff additionally presents evidence that the Commonwealth Property had an assessed value above the $120,000 judgment against Moses Lee. Hong Decl. ¶ 16, Ex. D.

Plaintiff contends he discussed the fraudulent transfer with Defendants and demanded Defendants file a fraudulent transfer action on January 13, 2014, but that Defendants ignored his demand and failed and refused to file a fraudulent transfer action and/or record a lis pendens on the Commonwealth Property. Hong Decl. ¶¶ 6, 15. According to Plaintiff, Defendants’ failure to file a fraudulent transfer action constituted professional negligence, because he is now barred from filing such an action since the seven-year statute of limitations to file a fraudulent transfer action has expired and because Moses Lee does not have any assets at this time and is judgment proof. Mem. at ¶ 6; Hong Decl. ¶ 16.

Plaintiff, however, filed a fraudulent transfer action against Moses Lee and related parties on August 5, 2016 in Case BC629758, before he filed the subject action for legal malpractice. That action is currently ongoing. In the operative Second Amended Complaint in that case, Plaintiff alleges that judgment debtors, including Moses Lee, fraudulently transferred revenues and funds from WCTU to deplete the resources of WCTU and prevent Plaintiff from collecting on his judgment against Moses Lee and WCTU. BC629758 SAC ¶¶ 42-47, 61-72, 76-79. A further status conference re: Rescheduling FSC and Jury Trial is currently scheduled for October 2, 2020 before Department 16 of this court. It is, thus, speculative that Plaintiff could have obtained a better result but for Defendants’ failure to file a fraudulent transfer action.

Although Plaintiff’s operative SAC in that action no longer asserts claims for the fraudulent transfer of the Commonwealth Property, Plaintiff asserted these claims in the FAC against other parties, including Moses Lee’s son, David Lee, and Misoo Lee. BC629758 FAC ¶¶ 27-38. David Lee and Misoo Lee paid Plaintiff $185,000 for a complete release for any and all claims and for attorney’s fees. On June 22, 2018, Department 16 of this court issued an order determining the settlement to have been entered in good faith. BC629758 5/21/18 Appl. For Det. of Good Faith Settl. at 2, David Lee Decl. ¶ 2; BC629758 1/22/16 Order. David Lee and Misoo Lee were dismissed from that action on May 3, 2018. Based on this record, it appears Plaintiff was able to recover money in excess of the $120,000 judgment against Moses Lee from the transferee of the Commonwealth Property. It is, thus, speculative that Plaintiff could have obtained a better result but for Defendants’ failure to file a fraudulent transfer action.

Plaintiff did not disclose Case BC629758 in his request for default judgment or present any argument to establish that the ongoing litigation and his settlement with David Lee do not render his damages speculative with respect to the judgment against Moses Lee. As such, Plaintiff fails to meet his burden to demonstrate he could have obtained a better result with respect to this portion of his claimed damages or that he suffered any non-speculative damages from Defendants’ failure to file a fraudulent transfer action on his behalf. See Orrick, 107 Cal. App. 4th at 1057. The court will not grant default judgment on this basis.

Finally, Plaintiff contends Defendants committed negligence by failing to record a lis pendens on the Commonwealth Property. Mem. ¶ 10. “A lis pendens is a recorded document giving constructive notice that an action has been filed affecting title or right to possession of the real property described in the notice. [Citation.] A lis pendens may be filed by any party in an action who asserts a ‘real property claim.’” Kirkeby v. Superior Court, 33 Cal. 4th 642, 647 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). As Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate he suffered non-speculative damages as a result of Defendants’ failure to file a fraudulent transfer action with respect to the Commonwealth Property, Plaintiff similarly fails to demonstrate he suffered non-speculative damages from Defendants’ failure to file a lis pendens in connection with such an action. The court, therefore, will not grant default judgment on this basis.

In sum, Plaintiff fails to meet his burden to prove he could have obtained a better result but for Defendants’ negligence and to demonstrate that he sustained non-speculative damages. Therefore, the court will not grant default judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s judgment against Moses Lee.

B. Damages Relating to the Judgment against WCTU

With respect to WCTU, Plaintiff contends Defendants committed legal malpractice by failing or refusing to prosecute the collection matter and failing to appear for debtor’s examination hearings. Hong Decl. ¶ 14. Plaintiff argues WCTU had a total income of approximately $3 million from 2010 to 2014, but that the corporation is currently suspended such that it would be “almost impossible to collect on the judgment against WCTU.” Hong Decl. ¶¶ 17-18.

As discussed above with respect to the judgment against Moses Lee, Plaintiff filed multiple subsequent applications for an order for appearance and examination of WCTU’s officers, after Defendants’ non-appearance at the March 13, 2015 hearing, and the court set additional examination hearings in Case BC390377. Plaintiff is also currently engaged in litigation against WCTU in Case BC629758. As such, Plaintiff fails to establish he could have obtained a better result but for Defendants’ failure to prosecute the collection matter or to appear for the debtor’s examination proceedings, or demonstrated that he has suffered any non-speculative damages due to Defendants’ conduct. Plaintiff, thus, fails to demonstrate he is entitled to judgment against Defendants for the value of the $1,602,250 judgment against WCTU. Accordingly, the court will not grant default judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s judgment against WCTU.

III. Conclusion

The court CONTINUES the subject hearing to allow Plaintiff to present evidence and legal authority to establish he suffered non-speculative damages based on Defendants’ legal malpractice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where HENRY M LEE LAW CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer KIM HOWARD BYUNG