Hea Sook Kang vs. Soon H Kim

Opposition

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.May 25, 2016

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 LK PROFESSIONAL LAW GROUP JIYOON KIM, ESQ ELECTRONICALLY FILED Si RE Ce. Superior Court ot California, > C f TEL: 714-667-0728 PUIG BI KGanER FAX: 714-667-0758 08AT/2016 at 03:09:00 PM Clerk of the Superior Court ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS: By & Clerk, Deputy Clerk JUNG H. KIM; GTS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER Case No.: 30-2016-00854466-CJ-FR-CJC DEFENDANT JUNG H. KIM; GTS ACCOUNTANCY GROUP, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEA SOOK KANG, an individual, Plaintiffs, VS. GTS ACCOUNTANCY GROUP, INC, a os . Date: August 29, 2016 California corporation; SOON H. KIM, an Time: 2:00 PM Cae Dept: C12 individual, also known as SOO KIM, JUNG H. KIM, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants N r ” S e r ” Ma er ” S t ? ’ e r ” e e S a ” N a ” N e ” N e ” N a e ” N a ” N a e ” N a e N a e a N e a e N a te ? v e N a ” TO EACH PARTY AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Jung H. Kim; GTS Accountancy Group, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant Kim”) shall and hereby submits this opposition to Plaintiff Hea Sook Kang’s (hereinafter “Plaintiff Kang”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction as filed herein. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTRODUCTION On or about June 6, 2016, Plaintiff Hea Sook Kang (hereinafter “Plaintiff Kang”) filed a civil lawsuit against Defendants Jung H. Kim and GTS Accountancy Group, Inc (hereinafter “Defendants™) for intentionally misrepresenting the fact that Defendants were tax professionals and were proficient in business consulting. On or about June 6, 2016, Plaintiff Kang filed an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Kang alleges that Defendants committed intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, conversion, and unlawful business practices under business and professions code §17200, et seq. However, Defendants never associated or involved with Plaintiff. Thereafter, on or about June 1, 2016, Plaintiff Kang filed an Ex-Parte Application with this Court seeking a restraining order and a hearing on a preliminary injunction. As a direct and proximate result, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Ex-Parte Application and ordered to show cause on or about July 25, 2016. Plaintiff has not established the requisite elements for injunctive relief. They have completely failed to demonstrate that they will suffer any harm if a preliminary injunction does not issue. In contrast, it is the business GTS that would suffer significant harm if an injunction were to issue. Moreover, Plaintiff's have not shown any likelihood that they will prevail on the merits. Accordingly, the Court should grant defendants’ motion to dismiss and deny plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. IL ARGUMENT The standard for issuing a preliminary injunction is identical to the standard for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order. Lockheed Missile & Space Cp., Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1955). "A plaintiff must show she is likely to succeed on the merits, that she is likely to suffer irreparable harm, in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in her favor, and that an injunction is in the public's interest". Winter v, Nat'l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). "A preliminary injunction is an 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 271 28 extraordinary and drastic remedy...; it is never awarded as of right" Munaf v. Green, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2007) (citations omitted). Just as the Court stated in its July 25, 2016 Order, although Plaintiff Kang continues to state legal standard for a preliminary injunction, she fails to explain why the motion satisfies the standard and why she should receive the ‘extraordinary and drastic remedy’ of a preliminary injunction.” Plaintiff cannot show that she is likely to succeed in the merits. None of the cases Plaintiff cited are relatable to her case and therefore, her argument lacks discretion on this issue is meritless. Plaintiff also cannot show irreparable harm because the status quo is that she is in no need of a preliminary injunction which is meritless. Finally, Plaintiff cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits of either of its claims for relief. Plaintiff's motion is also unsubstantiated by any evidence of injury that it would suffer in the absence of injunctive relief. By contrast, the harm to Defendant's business "GTS" and to the public's interest, were a preliminary injunction to issue, would be considerable. Accordingly, the law, the balance of equities, and the public interest all weigh against issuing a preliminary injunction. CONCLUSION In the sum, the Plaintiff has once again failed to establish that she will be irreparably prejudiced or that she meets the requirements for the granting of the Motion. Also, Defendant is not involved or associated with Plaintiff directly or indirectly. Therefore, this Court should deny it and issue sanctions. Based on the foregoing, Defendant Kim and GTS respectfully pray for the following orders: 1). Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied. 2). Plaintiff may not file another such motion. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Respectfully submitted: GT rd 7 JTYOON KIM, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS: JUNG H. KIM & GTS ACCOUNTANCY GROUP, INC. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO: 30-2016-00854466-CJ-FR-CJC I am employed in the county of Orange, State of California. [ am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action, my business address is 2112 N. MAIN STREET #290, SANTA! ANA, CA 92706. On S—/ A=7, 4 served the foregoing documents described as: _OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION on the interested parties in this action as follows: PAK LAW CORPORATION 9465 GARDEN GROVE BLVD. STE 101 GARDEN GROVE, CA 92844 ATTN: TERRANCE J. PAK, ESQ X BY MAIL: by placing the original or X a true and correct copy thereof enclosed, in (a) sealed envelope(s) address to the party(ies) listed above or on the attached mailing list. | am readily familiar with the business's practice for collection and processing of correspondence and other materials for mailing with the United States Postal Service. On this date, I sealed the] envelope(s) containing the above materials and placed the envelopes(s) for collection and mailing on this date at the address above following our office's ordinary business practices. The envelope(s) will be deposited with the United States Postal Service on this date, in the ordinary Course of business. I declare under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, executed at SANTA ANA, California on the date set forth below. Date: g ~~ —/ £ Jocelyn Carraman PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL