Response Joinder In Ex Parte Motion For Extension Case Management Conference Protective Order With Request For Judicial Notice

Response

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.December 2, 2019

N N N n BA W N 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Richard Byron Peddie, SBN 193770 lawstudios(@comcast.net Lawstudios | Richard Byron Peddie, P.C. 5051 Euclid Avenue Boulder, CO 80303-2831 Tel: 303.444.5447 Fax: 720.222.4766 Attorney for Defendant Jene Park SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CIVIL COMPLEX CENTER PDTW, LLC, a California limited liability company, et al., Plamtiffs, V. KRING & CHUNG, LLP, et al., Defendants. Case No. 30-2019-01115265-CU-BT-CXC DEFENDANT JENE PARK’S JOINDER IN EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANTS KRING & CHUNG, LLP AND KENNETH CHUNG FOR ORDERS GRANTING AN EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DISCOVERY AND FOR THE SCHEDULING OF A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE [WITH REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE] [Telephone Appearance] Hon. William D. Claster DATE: Jan. 8, 2020 TIME: 8:30 a.m. DEPT.: CX104 JENE PARK’S JOINDER IN EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANTS KRING & CHUNG, LLP AND KENNETH CHUNG FOR ORDERS GRANTING AN EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DISCOVERY AND FOR THE SCHEDULING OF A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 1 JENE PARK’S JOINDER IN EX PARTE APPLICATION OF KRING & CHUNG, LLP DEFENDANTS FOR EXTENSIONS TO RESPOND AND PROTECTIVE ORDERS N N N n BA W N 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L Introduction From the Notice of Related Case (“NORC”) filed by the undersigned in this case on Dec. 18,2019," the Court can see that it is true that “[t]his is the third lawsuit against K&C parties . . .” Ex Parte Application at 1:3. The NORC will also reveal that, for Jene Park (“Park”), and for TW and certain defendants affiliated with TW, this is literally the fourth lawsuit against them. Park, for example, was sued by Paula Thomas (“Thomas”) and PDTW, LLC (“PDTW”) - two of the plaintiffs in the case before this Court - in the Original LASC Action’ filed on Oct. 1, 2015. See NORC - ATTACHMENTS TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASES - ATTACHMENTS 3h & 4 (“NORC Attachments”) at p. 3 of 9 (see Applicants’ Exhibit C). Thomas next sued Park on June 5, 2017, in the Federal RICO Action. See NORC at 1, Item 1 (Applicant’s Exhibit C). On November 20, 2018, Thomas and Thomas Wylde Holdings, LLC (“TWH”), suing erroneously as “TW Holdings, LLC” - also a plaintiff in the case now before this Court, in Lawyer Lawsuit 11. Thus this lawsuit, referred to as “Lawyer Lawsuit III” because it is indeed the third lawsuit against the K&C parties and the Schnider parties - and the second against the Greenberg Glusker parties - also represents the fourth lawsuit against Park and others. For the same relief, for the same reasons, and adopting the same arguments, Park files this joinder to the Ex Parte Application, hoping to shed some additional light on the history of this dispute. For the most part, this will involve buttressing the K&C parties claim that Lawyer Lawsutt III is abusively filed and now being used as a position in which the Plaintiffs hope to conduct their abusive “BLITZKRIEG”. See Ex Parte Application at 3:5; see also Applicants’ Exhibit K. ' The NORC is referred to by the Applicants in their EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANTS KRING & CHUNG, LLP AND KENNETH CHUNG FOR ORDERS GRANTING AN EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DISCOVERY AND FOR THE SCHEDULING OF A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (“Ex Parte Application”) at 1 n. 1 and is attached to the Application as Exhibit C. 2 When referring to other lawsuits, and for both brevity and clarity, Park will use those same defined terms set forth in the NORC. 2 JENE PARK’S JOINDER IN EX PARTE APPLICATION OF KRING & CHUNG, LLP DEFENDANTS FOR EXTENSIONS TO RESPOND AND PROTECTIVE ORDERS N N N n BA W N 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. Additional Context The filing of Lawyer Lawsuit III and commencement of the blitzkrieg all occurred within a particular context indicating that all of it is simply a desperate measure designed to avoid negative outcomes in other matters. In particular, as noted by the K&C parties, Judge Landin in the Original LASC Action denied PDTW’s and Thomas’ motion to lift the stay in that action on Dec. 26, 2019. See Applicants’ Exhibit B. However, their motion to lift the stay was filed in response to that court’s Oct. 24, 2019, denial of a prior motion to lift the stay in that action. See Applicant’s Exhibit A - Docket from Original LASC Action (docket indicates a “Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: BANKRUPTCY); see also Declaration of Richard Byron Peddie (“Peddie Decl”) 9 2 - annexed and incorporated - Declarations & Exhibits Package (“D&E”) Bates 00002. Just five days after having that motion denied, on Oct. 29, 2019, Thomas and PDTW filed that additional motion to lift the stay which was heard on Dec. 19, 2019, and again denied on Dec. 26. See Applicant’s Exhibit A (Original LASC docket entries for Oct. 29, Dec. 19, and Dec. 26, 2019; see also Applicant’s Exhibit B). All of these mitiatives also happened within the context of frenetic activity elsewhere. Examination of the docket in the Federal RICO Action will reveal that on Oct. 28, 2019, Judge Kronstadt denied Thomas’ “Seventh Ex Parte Application to Lift Stay.” See Applicant’s Exhibit H (docket in Federal RICO Action - see entry for Oct. 24, 2019 - denial of Thomas’ “Seventh Ex Parte Application to Lift Stay”). At approximately the very same time, Thomas and/or PDTW began inundating the U.S. Bankruptcy Court with various motions in the PDTW Bankruptcy. An examination of the docket in that case will reveal the following filings and results: * Oct. 28, 2019, “Motion RE: Objection to Claim No. 9”. See Exhibit A, annexed and incorporated (excerpts from docket in PDTW Bankruptcy) - docket entries 377-389 for Oct. 28, 2019 concerning motion to disallow claim and myriad exhibits) (D&E Bates 00007 - 00010); * Oct. 28, 2019, “Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Violating Rule 11”. Id. (Oct. 28, 3 JENE PARK’S JOINDER IN EX PARTE APPLICATION OF KRING & CHUNG, LLP DEFENDANTS FOR EXTENSIONS TO RESPOND AND PROTECTIVE ORDERS N N N n BA W N 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2019 docket entries at nos. 390-402 & 404-405 - motion for FRCP Rule 11 sanctions and myriad exhibits)(D&E Bates 00010 - 00013); * Oct. 29, 2019, re-filing of “Motion RE: Objection to Claim No. 9”. Id. (docket entries nos. 407-408)(D&E Bates 00013); * Oct. 30, 2019, re-filing of FRCP Rule 11 motion as “Motion for Monetary Sanctions under Rule 11”. Id. (docket entries 412-413)(D&E Bates 00014); * Nov. 11, 2019, reply n Motion for Monetary Sanctions under Rule 11. Id. (docket no. 417) (D&E Bates 00015); * Nov. 11, 2019, reply in Motion to Disallow Claims /sic/ No. 9. Id. (docket no. 418)(D&E Bates 00015); * Nov. 12, 2019, Dimitrios Biller declaration filed in support of FRCP Rule 11 motion. /d. (docket no. 419)(D&E Bates 00015); * Nov. 18, 2019, “Declaration re 21 Days Service Before Filing Rule 11 Motion”. /d. (docket no. 426)(D&E Bates 00016); * Nov. 21, 2019, “Motion for Contempt Against Thomas Wyldes /sic/, Richard Peddie, David Schnider, and Jene Park” and related materials. /d. (docket nos. 427-437) (D&E Bates 00016 - 00018); * Dec. 1, 2019, refiling of “Motion for Contempt agaisnt /sic/ Peddie, Schnider, Park and TW. Id. (docket no. 440)(D&E Bates 00019); * Dec. 3-4, 2019, second refiling of contempt motion, now styled as “Motion for Contempt violating 18 U.S.C. 157, 26 U.S.C. 7206 and 26 U.S.C. 402” and related materials filed over a two day period. Id. (docket nos. 443-450)(D&E Bates 00020 - 00021); * Dec. 5, 2019, new FRCP Rule 11 motion, styled as “Motion for monetary sanctions in the amount of $800,000”. Id. (docket nos. 451-461)(D&E Bates 00021 - 00022); * Dec. 11, 2019, “Notice Objectoin [sic] to the Opposition to Motion for OSC”. Id. (docket no. 464)(D&E Bates 00023); 4 JENE PARK’S JOINDER IN EX PARTE APPLICATION OF KRING & CHUNG, LLP DEFENDANTS FOR EXTENSIONS TO RESPOND AND PROTECTIVE ORDERS N N N n BA W N 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 * Dec. 11, 2019, “Declaration re: Biller Re Notice of Fraud on the Judicial System”. /d. (docket no. 465-467)(D&E Bates 00023 - 00024); and * Dec. 12, 2019, “Reply [in] Motion for Contempt”. Id. (docket no. 468)(D&E Bates 00024). An examination of this docket will reveal that literally thousands of pages of documents were filed between Oct. 28 and Dec. 12, 2019, as part of what already was a blitzkrieg. Literally none of this frenetic activity led to anything, as the docket will also reveal that all such motions were denied. Yet even this does not give the complete context. On Nov. 1, 2019, the undersigned’s attorneys argued the undersigned’s fee motion after the successful appeal of his anti- SLAPP motion in Lawyer Lawsuit I. On Nov. 12, 2019, Judge Scheper awarded the undersigned approximately $132K in attorneys’ fees against Thomas for the motion and the appeal. See Applicants’ Exhibit D - docket in Lawyer Lawsuit I - entries for Sept. 9, 2019 (remittitur received from Court of Appeal, indicating reversal and remand with instructions), Nov. 1, 2019 (minute order re hearing of fee motion), Nov. 12, 2019 (entries related to attorney fee award). An examination of that same docket will reveal that on Dec. 9, 2019, Thomas filed an untimely motion for reconsideration of the fee award. Id. This has forced the undersigned to incur yet more attorneys’ fees opposing frivolous initiatives brought by one or more of the Plaintiffs before this Court now. It may well be that the blitzkrieg - which actually seems to have begun in late October, and of which Lawyer Lawsuit III is part - was prompted by Plaintiffs’ almost certain knowledge that one of them would be, and then was, subject to a substantial damages award for conduct thus far in this ever-ballooning dispute.’ 3 The undersigned does not know the exact number of small damages awards for costs various parties have already received against certain Plaintiffs after securing dismissals with prejudice in the other matters before the Los Angeles Superior Court. At least eight such awards cost awards have been secured by TW-affiliated defendants in these actions, however, and various other parties have also filed for costs in these other actions. 5 JENE PARK’S JOINDER IN EX PARTE APPLICATION OF KRING & CHUNG, LLP DEFENDANTS FOR EXTENSIONS TO RESPOND AND PROTECTIVE ORDERS N N N n BA W N 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. The Improper Amendment/Multiplication of Actions Issue & Forum Shopping Exhibit G to the Ex Parte Application is the order Applicants obtained on April 25, 2019 in Lawyer Lawsuit II in which their demurrer to all claims against them was sustained, but terminating sanctions were awarded against Thomas and TWH. See Applicants’ Exhibit G. That very same order resolves a number of issues that are now likely res judicata. For example, that order (“April 25 Order”) holds that one plaintiff to this action - Thomas Wylde Holdings, LLC - has zero capacity to sue. April 25 Order at 5-6 (Applicants’ Exhibit H). Should that issue not be resolved now in this Court, as a matter of res judicata? After all, even after the April 25, 2019 Order, TWH, marionetted about by Thomas, continued to make filings in the Original LASC Action in an attempt to intervene in that case. See Applicants’ Exhibit A - docket entries after April 25, 2019, and through June 7, 2019, in which TWH unsuccessfully seeks leave to file a complaint-in-intervention in the Original LASC Action). And, indeed, one basis for Judge Landin’s holding in the Original LASC Action was that TWH no longer exists. See Peddie Decl. § 2 and Exhibit B, annexed and incorporated - June 7, 2019 “RULING RE: Motion to allow TW Holdings, LLC to file a complaint-in-intervention; Motion to lift the stay” at p. 2 (D&E Bates 00029) If one of three of the Plaintiffs in fact does not exist, should that not be settled now, before the parties and yet another court - this Court - is forced to wade once again through thousands of additional pages filed on behalf of the non-existent entity, or the parties be subject to harassing discovery propounded by the non-existent entity, all when that entity has already been told twice that it has no capacity to sue? In the April 25, 2019 Order, Judge Scheper also found that the entire case against Applicants - i.e., Lawyer Lawsuit II - was abusive, inasmuch as it was an improper end-run around proper amendment of the claims in Lawyer Lawsuit I. See id. at 12-13. By all appearances, Lawyer Lawsuit III involves the same end-run, this time with forum-shopping as Plaintiffs attempt to repackage their claims and re-present them in another county. Should that not also be examined before this blitzkrieg is allowed to wreak havoc in this Court as much as it has 6 JENE PARK’S JOINDER IN EX PARTE APPLICATION OF KRING & CHUNG, LLP DEFENDANTS FOR EXTENSIONS TO RESPOND AND PROTECTIVE ORDERS N N N n BA W N 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 in others? Jene Park and John Hanna, as well as former TW employees Meldy Rafols and Yoonsung Bae, all successfully demurred to all claims brought against them in Lawyer Lawsuit II, securing dismissals with prejudice mvolving important rulings on key issues, including statute of limitations issues. Given that Park and Hanna are sued again - here for the fourth time in Lawyer Lawsuit III - shouldn’t those rulings be considered for their preclusive effect before this chaos is allowed to continue? See Peddie Decl. | 5-6; see also Exhibits C & D, annexed and incorporated (demurrers sustained for Park and Hanna, respectively). Shouldn’t the fact that Plaintiff Thomas has a pending claim against the law firm of Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP (“Greenberg Glusker”) in Lawyer Lawsuit II, and ordered off to arbitration be taken into account? Shouldn’t Thomas’ recent, sudden dismissal of David Schnider and affiliated defendants in Lawyer Lawsuit I be examined carefully to see if we are not, indeed, in the presence of a bizarre sort of after-the-fact forum shopping combined with yet another end-run around the proscription against filing additional lawsuits? See Peddie Decl. 9 8-9. The Complaint asserts a right to injunctive relief under both trademark and copyright law, apparently claiming joint ownership. See Complaint 4 450. This is asserted notwithstanding Thomas’ arguments in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for nearly two years against PDTW having any interest whatsoever. This is asserted despite jurisdictional bars to seeking relief for copyright mfringement in state court. And, finally, this is asserted despite also the holdings of both Dept. 30 of the Los Angeles Superior Court and Dept. 51 that Thomas had not only lost all IP rights to TW, but also knew it by April 1, 2015. See June 7, 2019 “RULING RE: Motion to allow TW Holdings, LLC to file a complaint-in-intervention; Motion to lift the stay at” p. 2-3 (D&E Bates 00029 - 00030); see also Exhibit C - July 9, 2019 order sustaining Park’s demurrer in Lawyer Lawsuit [Tat p. 11 of 11 (D&E Bates 00042)(“As the alleged conduct occurred in 2014 and early 2015 and Plamtiff’s damages were realized no later than April 1, 2015 when she was terminated and lost her IP rights, Plaintiff's own pleadings demonstrate she knew of the predicate facts as 7 JENE PARK’S JOINDER IN EX PARTE APPLICATION OF KRING & CHUNG, LLP DEFENDANTS FOR EXTENSIONS TO RESPOND AND PROTECTIVE ORDERS N N N n BA W N 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 early as April 1, 2015. The statute of limitations would have expired no later than April 1, 2017. Plamtiff did not file this action until November 20, 2018, or over one year after her claims would have expired.”); see also Exhibit D - July 25, 2019 order sustaining Hanna’s demurrer in Lawyer Lawsuit IT at p. 1 of 9 (D&E Bates 00044) and at p. 8 of 9 (D&E Bates 0005 1)(similar). Given the holdings that TWH does not exist and Thomas does not own the subject IP, shouldn’t this be considered before all parties - and this Court - are put through yet another costly, tedious, patently abusive blitzkrieg? After all, PDTW, which was at best only ever a mere licensee, never had standing to pursue these claims even before Thomas sold the IP to TW. Nova Wines, Inc. v. Adler Fels Winery LLC, 467 F.Supp.2d 965, 974 (N.D. Cal 2006)(mere licensee lacks standing to pursue Lanham Act claim). IV. Conclusion A review of those exhibits filed by Applicants consisting of court dockets, as well as those dockets filed now by Park, will reveal that many thousands of pages have been filed by these litigants over the last six months. Unless reined in, it will happen all over again here. Defendant Jene Park prays that this Court grant the relief requested, asking only that it be extended to all named parties. * kk ok Xx REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE: The movant requests that the Court take judicial notice of its own records in this case, and, in addition, the following under EviD. CODE § 453: The docket in the PDTW Bankruptcy, excerpts of which are annexed hereto as Exhibits A - D, consisting of a publicly-available docket printout from proceedings in In re PDTW, LLC, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California - Riverside Division Case No 6:16-bk015889-SY (Hon. ScoTT H. YUN, presiding)(filed June 30, 2016), and then records ofthe Los Angeles Superior Court.. 8 JENE PARK’S JOINDER IN EX PARTE APPLICATION OF KRING & CHUNG, LLP DEFENDANTS FOR EXTENSIONS TO RESPOND AND PROTECTIVE ORDERS N N N n BA W N 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Respectfully submitted, Jan. 7, 2020: 9 Lawstudios | Richard Byron Peddie, P.C. TER re -- By: Richard Byron Peddie 5051 Euclid Avenue Boulder, CO 80303-2831 Tel: 303.444.5447 Fax: 720.635.9222 Attorney for Plaintiff Thomas Wylde, LLC JENE PARK’S JOINDER IN EX PARTE APPLICATION OF KRING & CHUNG, LLP DEFENDANTS FOR EXTENSIONS TO RESPOND AND PROTECTIVE ORDERS N N N n BA W N 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY OF BOULDER I, the undersigned, am employed in the County of Boulder, State of Colorado. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is: 5051 Euclid Avenue, Boulder, Colorado 80303-2831. On Jan. 7, 2019, I served true copies of the foregoing document(s) described as: DEFENDANT JENE PARK’S JOINDER IN EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANTS KRING & CHUNG, LLP AND KENNETH CHUNG FOR ORDERS GRANTING AN EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DISCOVERY AND FOR THE SCHEDULING OF A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE with ALL DECLARATIONS & EXHIBITS on all interested parties in this action, addressed as follows: Dimitrios P. Biller, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff LDT Consulting, Inc. 15113 W. Sunset Blvd. - Suite 9 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 Tel.: 310.459.9870 E-mail: biller ldtconsulting(@verizon.net Glen R. Olson Attorneys for Defendants Kring & Chung Jonathan Rizzardi LLP, Kenneth Chung, Laura Hess, Allyson Long & Levit LLP Thompson, Laura Booth 465 California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Tel: (415) 397-2222 Fax: (415) 397-6392 Email: golson@longlevit.com Email: jrizzardi@longlevit.com Kevin Herbert Brogan Attorneys for Greenberg Glusker, Andrew Elissa L. Gysi Apfelberg, Olivia Goodkin, Lee Dresie, and Hill, Farrer & Burrill LLP Joanna Blythe One California Plaza, 37" Floor 300 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, California 90071-3147 Tel: 213.620.0460 Fax Number: 213.624.4840 Email: kbrogan@hillfarrer.com Email: egysi@hillfarrer.com J. Andrew Wright Attorneys for Defendants KF Professional Chapman Glucksman Dean, Group, Inc. Norman Ko, and Joseph Foster Roeb & Barger, APC 11900 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Tel: (310) 207-7722 Fax: (310) 207-6550 Email: awright@cgdrblaw.com 10 JENE PARK’S JOINDER IN EX PARTE APPLICATION OF KRING & CHUNG, LLP DEFENDANTS FOR EXTENSIONS TO RESPOND AND PROTECTIVE ORDERS N N N n BA W N 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Robert Scott Silver Attorneys for David Schnider, Law Offices of Jennifer Newcomb David Schnider, Nolan Heimann LLP Kaufiman Dolowich Voluck LLP 11755 Wilshire Blvd. - Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: 310.775.6511 Fax: 310.575.9720 Email: rsilver@kdvlaw.com Email: jtraylor@kdvlaw.com Michael B. Wilk Attorneys for Defendants Kyu Hong Kim, Lewis Brisbois CPA, Inc. and Kyu Hong Kim 633 West 5th Street Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: 213-580-7991 Fax: 213-250-7900 Email: Michael Wilk(@Jlewisbrisbois.com o BY U.S. MAIL: The documents were placed in sealed, addressed envelopes on the above date and placed for collection and mailing at my place of business. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Boulder, Colorado, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [> BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic service, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic service addresses: TO THE E-MAIL ADDRESSES LISTED ABOVE BY OVERNIGHT COURIER: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on Jan. 7, 2020, at Boulder, Colorado. HSE ie - Richard Byron Peddie 11 JENE PARK’S JOINDER IN EX PARTE APPLICATION OF KRING & CHUNG, LLP DEFENDANTS FOR EXTENSIONS TO RESPOND AND PROTECTIVE ORDERS ~N O N n n BA W N 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Richard Byron Peddie, SBN 193770 lawstudios(@ comcast.net Lawstudios | Richard Byron Peddie, P.C. 5051 Euclid Avenue Boulder, CO 80303-2831 Tel: 303.444.5447 Fax: 720.222.4766 Attorney for Defendant Jene Park SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CIVIL COMPLEX CENTER PDTW, LLC, a California limited lability Case No. 30-2019-01115265-CU-BT-CXC company, et al., DECLARATION OF RICHARD BYRON Plaintiffs, PEDDIE ISO: DEFENDANT JENE PARK’S JOINDER IN EX PARTE APPLICATION OF V. DEFENDANTS KRING & CHUNG, LLP AND KENNETH CHUNG FOR ORDERS KRING & CHUNG, LLP, et al., GRANTING AN EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT, Defendants. FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DISCOVERY AND FOR THE SCHEDULING OF A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE [Telephone Appearance] Hon. William D. Claster DATE: Jan. 8, 2020 TIME: 8:30 a.m. DEPT.: CX104 DECLARATION OF RICHARD BYRON PEDDIE ISO: JENE PARK’S JOINDER IN EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANTS KRING & CHUNG, LLP AND KENNETH CHUNG FOR ORDERS GRANTING AN EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DISCOVERY AND FOR THE SCHEDULING OF A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD BYRON PEDDIE ISO JOINDER IN EX PARTE APPLICATION OF KRING & CHUNG, LLP Park _Joinder 00001 ~N O N n n BA W N 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, Richard Byron Peddie, upon my oath, swear that if called to testify, I could and would testify as follows: I. I am counsel to Jene Park in this action. I also represent Thomas Wylde, LLC (“TW”), and various parties named in other lawsuits filed by one or more of the plaintiffs in this action. These include - using the definitions I used in filing the Notice of Related Case in this action on Dec. 18, 2019: the Original LASC Action, the Federal RICO Action, the PDTW Bankruptcy, the Adversary Proceedings, and Lawyer Lawsuit II. On Oct. 24, 2019, Judge Dennis J. Landin denied a motion brought by Plamtiffs to this action, PDTW, LLC (“PDTW”) and Paula Thomas (“Thomas”), to lift the stay in that case. That motion was obviously before their Oct. 29, 2019 motion for the same relief, denied on Dec. 26, 2019. Exhibit A, annexed and incorporated, is a true and correct copy of the docket from the PDTW Bankruptcy that I generated on Dec. 22, 2019. I have included excerpts to include only the first pages and then relevant activity since late October 0f2019. Exhibit B, annexed and incorporated is a true and correct copy of Judge Landin’s ruling in the Original LASC Action denying Thomas Wylde Holdings, LLC’s request for leave to file a complaint-in-intervention in that action. During the summer of 2019, Jene Park, Meldy Rafols, Yoonsung Bae, and John Hanna all successfully demurred to all claims brought against them in Lawyer Lawsuit II, securing dismissals, with prejudice, or all claims brought against them. Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the July 9, 2019 ruling in Jene Park’s demurrer in Lawyer Lawsuit II. Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the July 25, 2019 ruling in John Hanna’s demurrer in Lawyer Lawsuit II. In Lawyer Lawsuit II, Greenberg Glusker successfully enforced an arbitration clause in their fee agreement with Thomas. The claims against them remain pending, but the parties to those claims have been ordered to arbitrate them. I know this because I am counsel of 2 DECLARATION OF RICHARD BYRON PEDDIE ISO JOINDER IN EX PARTE APPLICATION OF KRING & CHUNG, LLP Park _Joinder 00002 ~N O N n n BA W N 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 record to Jene Park, John Hanna, Meldy Rafols, and Yoonsung Bae in Lawyer Lawsuit II. g. In Lawyer Lawsuit I, Thomas recently dismissed her claims against David Schnider in Lawyer Lawsuit I. I know this because I am a defendant in Lawyer Lawsuit I. Applicants’ Exhibit D has a docket entry for Nov. 7, 2019. That docket entry is Thomas’ request to dismiss the claims asserted against the Schnider defendants without prejudice. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on Jan. 7, 2020, at Boulder, Colorado. ESE Fe - Richard Byron Peddie 3 DECLARATION OF RICHARD BYRON PEDDIE ISO JOINDER IN EX PARTE APPLICATION OF KRING & CHUNG, LLP Park _Joinder 00003 Exhibit A Park _Joinder 00004 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cacb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... DEFER U.S. Bankruptcy Court Central District of California (Riverside) Bankruptcy Petition #: 6:16-bk-15889-SY Assigned to: Scott H. Yun Chapter 7 Voluntary Asset Debtor PDTW, LLC 2514 S. Toledo Avenue Palm Springs, CA 92264 RIVERSIDE-CA Tax ID / EIN: 20-4937773 Trustee Larry D Simons (TR) 3610 Central Avenue, Suite 400 Riverside, CA 92506 (951) 686-6300 1 of 126 Date filed: 06/30/2016 341 meeting: 10/11/2016 Deadline for filing claims: 01/03/2017 Deadline for filing claims 12/27/2016 (govt.): represented by Misty A Perry Isaacson Pagter and Perry Isaacson, APLC 525 N Cabrillo Park Dr Ste 104 Santa Ana, CA 92701 714-541-6072 Fax : 714-541-6897 Email: misty@ppilawyers.com represented by Jessica L Bagdanov Brutzkus Gubner Rozansky Seror Weber LLP 21650 Oxnard St Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818-827-9212 Fax : 818-827-9099 Email: jbagdanov@bg.law Reagan E Boyce Chamblee Ryan PC 2777 N. Stemmons Fwy Suite 1157 Dallas, TX 75207 2149052003 Fax : 2149051213 Email: rboyce@cr.law Nancy H Zamora 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park _Joinder 00005 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cach.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... Zamora & Hoffmeier 633 W 5th St, Ste.2600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-488-9411 Fax : 213-488-9418 Email: zamora3@aol.com U.S. Trustee United States Trustee (RS) 3801 University Avenue, Suite 720 Riverside, CA 92501-3200 (951) 276-6990 Counter-Claimant Thomas Wylde, LLC Thomas Wylde, LLC 235 W 31st Street Los Angeles, CA 90007 3105595549 Counter-Defendant Larry D Simons (TR) 3610 Central Avenue, Suite 400 Riverside, CA 92506 (951) 686-6300 Filing Date # Docket Text 1 Chapter 7 Voluntary Petition for Non- (9 pgs; 3 docs) Individuals . Fee Amount $335 Filed by PDTW, LLC Schedule A/B: Property (Form 106A/B or 206A/B) due 07/14/2016. Schedule D: Creditors Who Have Claims Secured by Property (Form 106D or 206D) due 07/14/2016. Schedule E/F: Creditors Who Have Unsecured Claims (Form 106E/F or 206E/F) due 07/14/2016. Schedule G: Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases (Form 106G or 206G) due 07/14/2016. Schedule H: Your 06/30/2016 Codebtors (Form 106H or 206H) due 20f 126 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park _Joinder 00006 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cacb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... service Filed by Trustee Larry D Simons (TR). (Simons (TR), Larry) (Entered: 08/29/2019) 10/02/2019 374 (13 pgs) Declaration That No Party Requested a Hearing on Motion (LBR 9013-1(0)(3)) with proof of service Filed by Trustee Larry D Simons (TR) (RE: related document(s)373 Notice of Motion and Motion Under LBR 2016-2 For Approval of Cash Disbursements by the Trustee; Opportunity to Request Hearing; and Declaration of Trustee with proof of service). (Simons (TR), Larry) (Entered: 10/02/2019) 10/08/2019 375 (1 pg) Order Granting Motion For Approval of Cash Disbursements by the Trustee Under LBR 2016-2 (BNC-PDF) (Related Doc # 373) Signed on 10/8/2019 (Mason, Shari) (Entered: 10/08/2019) 10/10/2019 376 (3 pgs) BNC Certificate of Notice - PDF Document. (RE: related document(s)375 Order on Motion For Approval of Cash Disbursements by the Trustee Under LBR 2016-2 (BNC-PDF)) No. of Notices: 1. Notice Date 10/10/2019. (Admin.) (Entered: 10/10/2019) 10/28/2019 107 of 126 377 (52 pgs) Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 9 by Claimant Thomas Wyldes, LLC with request for valuation of security, payment of fully secured claims, and modification of undersecured claims.. Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (Biller, Dimitrios) WARNING: See docket entry no. 403 for corrective actions. Modified on 10/28/2019 (Potier, Cynthia). (Entered: 10/28/2019) 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park _Joinder 00007 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cacb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... 10/28/2019 378 (139 pgs) Exhibit No. 1 through 6 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)377 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 9 by Claimant Thomas Wyldes, LLC with request for valuation of security, payment of fully secured claims, and modification of undersecured claims.. ). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 10/28/2019 379 (171 pgs) Exhibit No. 7, Part 1 Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (RE: related document(s)377 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 9 by Claimant Thomas Wyldes, LLC with request for valuation of security, payment of fully secured claims, and modification of undersecured claims.. ). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 10/28/2019 380 (190 pgs) Exhibit No. 7, Part 2 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)377 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 9 by Claimant Thomas Wyldes, LLC with request for valuation of security, payment of fully secured claims, and modification of undersecured claims.. ). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 10/28/2019 381 (119 pgs) Exhibit No. 8 through 11, Part 1 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)377 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 9 by Claimant Thomas Wyldes, LLC with request for valuation of security, payment of fully secured claims, and modification of undersecured claims.. ). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 10/28/2019 108 of 126 382 (147 pgs) Exhibit No. 11, Part 2 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)377 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 9 by Claimant Thomas Wyldes, LLC with request for valuation of security, payment of fully secured claims, 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park _Joinder 00008 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cacb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... and modification of undersecured claims.. ). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 10/28/2019 383 (143 pgs) Exhibit No. 12 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)377 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 9 by Claimant Thomas Wyldes, LLC with request for valuation of security, payment of fully secured claims, and modification of undersecured claims.. ). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 10/28/2019 384 (176 pgs) Exhibit No. 13 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)377 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 9 by Claimant Thomas Wyldes, LLC with request for valuation of security, payment of fully secured claims, and modification of undersecured claims.. ). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 10/28/2019 385 (210 pgs) Exhibit 14 and 15 Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (RE: related document(s)377 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 9 by Claimant Thomas Wyldes, LLC with request for valuation of security, payment of fully secured claims, and modification of undersecured claims.. ). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 10/28/2019 386 (124 pgs) Exhibit No. 16 to No. 17, Part 1 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)377 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 9 by Claimant Thomas Wyldes, LLC with request for valuation of security, payment of fully secured claims, and modification of undersecured claims.. ). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 10/28/2019 109 of 126 387 (155 pgs) Exhibit No. 17, Part 2 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)377 Motion RE: Objection to 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park _Joinder 00009 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cacb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... Claim Number 9 by Claimant Thomas Wyldes, LLC with request for valuation of security, payment of fully secured claims, and modification of undersecured claims.. ). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 388 (151 pgs) 10/28/2019 Exhibit No. 17, Part 3 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)377 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 9 by Claimant Thomas Wyldes, LLC with request for valuation of security, payment of fully secured claims, and modification of undersecured claims.. ). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 389 (197 pgs) 10/28/2019 Exhibit Nos. 18-20 Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (RE: related document(s)377 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 9 by Claimant Thomas Wyldes, LLC with request for valuation of security, payment of fully secured claims, and modification of undersecured claims.. ). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 390 (36 pgs) 10/28/2019 Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Violating Rule 11 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 391 (25 pgs) 10/28/2019 Declaration re: Dimitrios P. Biller in Support of Rule 11 Motoin Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)390 Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Violating Rule 11). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 392 (139 pgs) 10/28/2019 110 of 126 Exhibit No. 1 -11 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)390 Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Violating Rule 11). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park _Joinder 00010 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cacb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... 10/28/2019 393 (125 pgs) Exhibit Nos. 12-14 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)390 Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Violating Rule 11). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 10/28/2019 394 (204 pgs) Exhibit No. 15 Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (RE: related document(s)390 Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Violating Rule 11). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 10/28/2019 395 (25 pgs) Exhibit No. 16 - No. 20 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)390 Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Violating Rule 11). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 10/28/2019 396 (281 pgs) Exhibit No. 22 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)390 Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Violating Rule 11). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 10/28/2019 397 (123 pgs) Exhibit Nos. 23-25 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)390 Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Violating Rule 11). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 10/28/2019 398 (188 pgs) Exhibit No. 26 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)390 Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Violating Rule 11). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 111 of 126 10/28/2019 399 (188 pgs) Exhibit No. 26 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)390 Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Violating Rule 11). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park _Joinder 00011 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cacb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... 10/28/2019 400 (69 pgs) Exhibit NO. 27 through No. 32 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)390 Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Violating Rule 11). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 10/28/2019 401 (153 pgs) Exhibit No. 33 - No. 34 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)390 Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Violating Rule 11). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 10/28/2019 402 (153 pgs) Exhibit No. 33 and 34 Filed by Debtor PDTW, LLC (RE: related document(s)390 Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Violating Rule 11). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 10/28/2019 403 Notice to Filer of Error and/or Deficient Document Incorrect docket event was used to file this document. THE FILER IS INSTRUCTED TO VOLUNTARY DISMISS THIS MOTION BY USING EVENT CODE, i.e. BANKRUPTCY >BK- OTHER>VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF MOTION AND RE-FILE THE DOCUMENT USING THE CORRECT DOCKET EVENT, i.e. BANKRUPTCY>BK- MOTIONS/APPLICATIONS>DISALLOW CLAIMS(MOTION) OR ALLOW CLAIMS(MOTION) AND REIATE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION. (RE: related document(s)377 Motion RE: Objection to Claim filed by Creditor Paula Thomas) (Potier, Cynthia) Modified on 10/28/2019 (Entered: 10/28/2019) 10/28/2019 112 of 126 404 (93 pgs) Exhibit No. 35 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)390 Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Violating Rule 11). (Biller, Dimitrios) 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park _Joinder 00012 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cach.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... (Entered: 10/28/2019) 405 Exhibit No. 36 to No. 35 Filed by Creditor (253 pgs) Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)390 Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Violating Rule 11). (Biller, 10/28/2019 Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/28/2019) 406 Voluntary Dismissal of Motion to (4 pgs) Voluntarily withdrawal "Objections to Claim No. 9" Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)377 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 9 by Claimant Thomas Wyldes, LLC with request for valuation of security, payment of fully secured claims, and modification of undersecured claims.. ). (Biller, 10/29/2019 Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/29/2019) 407 Motion to Disallow Claims No. 9 by (52 pgs) Thomas Wylde Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/29/2019 10/29/2019) 408 Motion to Disallow Claims No. 9 by (52 pgs) Thomas Wylde Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (Biller, Dimitrios) WARNING: See docket entry no. 409 for corrective actions. Modified on 10/29/2019 (Potier, 10/29/2019 Cynthia). (Entered: 10/29/2019) 409 Notice to Filer of Error and/or Deficient Document Incorrect PDF was attached to the docket entry. THE FILER IS INSTRUCTED TO VOLUNTARY DISMISS THIS MOTION BY USING EVENT CODE, i.e. BANKRUPTCY >BK- OTHER>VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL, BECAUSE THIS IS A DUPLICATE ENTRY. (RE: related document(s)408 Motion to Disallow Claims filed by 10/29/2019 Creditor Paula Thomas) (Potier, Cynthia) 113 of 126 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park_Joinder 00013 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cacb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... (Entered: 10/29/2019) 410 10/29/2019 Hearing Set (RE: related document(s)407 Motion to Disallow Claims filed by Creditor Paula Thomas) The Hearing date is set for 11/21/2019 at 09:30 AM at Crtrm 302, 3420 Twelfth St., Riverside, CA 92501. The case judge is Scott H. Yun (Potier, Cynthia) (Entered: 10/29/2019) 411 (4 pgs) 10/30/2019 Voluntary Dismissal of Motion Docket 409 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)408 Motion to Disallow Claims No. 9 by Thomas Wylde). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/30/2019) 412 (34 pgs) 10/30/2019 Motion for Monetary Sanctions under Rule 11 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/30/2019) 413 (5 pgs) 10/30/2019 Proof of service for Motion for Sanctions under Rule 11 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)390 Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Violating Rule 11). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 10/30/2019) 414 10/30/2019 Hearing Set (RE: related document(s)412 Generic Motion filed by Creditor Paula Thomas) The Hearing date is set for 11/21/2019 at 09:30 AM at Crtrm 302, 3420 Twelfth St., Riverside, CA 92501. The case judge is Scott H. Yun (Potier, Cynthia) (Entered: 10/30/2019) 4158 (43 pgs; 2 docs) 11/07/2019 114 of 126 Opposition to (related document(s): 407 Motion to Disallow Claims No. 9 by Thomas Wylde filed by Creditor Paula Thomas) Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Declarations & Exhibits Package) (Peddie, Richard) (Entered: 11/07/2019) 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park _Joinder 00014 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cacb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... 11/07/2019 416 (51 pgs; 2 docs) Opposition to (related document(s): 412 Motion for Monetary Sanctions under Rule 11 filed by Creditor Paula Thomas) Filed by Interested Party Jene Park, Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Declarations & Exhibits Package) (Peddie, Richard) (Entered: 11/07/2019) 11/11/2019 417 (127 pgs) Reply to (related document(s): 412 Motion for Monetary Sanctions under Rule 11 filed by Creditor Paula Thomas) Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 11/11/2019) LI 1142018 418 (136 pgs) Reply to (related document(s): 407 Motion to Disallow Claims No. 9 by Thomas Wylde filed by Creditor Paula Thomas) Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 11/11/2019) 11/12/2019 419 (15 pgs) Declaration re: Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)412 Motion for Monetary Sanctions under Rule 11). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 11/12/2019) 11/12/2019 420 (11 pgs) Reply to (related document(s): 418 Reply filed by Creditor Paula Thomas) Surreply to Paula Thomas' Reply in Motion to Disallow TW's Claim No. 9 Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (Peddie, Richard) (Entered: 11/12/2019) 11/14/2019 421 (11 pgs) Reply to (related document(s): 418 Reply filed by Creditor Paula Thomas) Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 11/14/2019) 11/14/2019 115 of 126 422 (2 pgs) Order Denying Motion To Disallow Claim #9 (BNC-PDF) (Related Doc # 407) - - It is Ordered that Paula Thomas' motion to disallow Claim #9, which is currently set 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park _Joinder 00015 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cacb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... for November 21, 2019 at 9:30 am, is denied without prejudice and the hearing is vacated. Signed on 11/14/2019. (Potier, Cynthia) (Entered: 11/14/2019) 11/15/2019 423 (2 pgs) Order Denying Motion for Sanctions (BNC-PDF) (Related Doc # 412) - It is Ordered that Thomas' motion for sanctions, which is currently set for November 21, 2019 at 9:30 am, is denied without prejudice and the hearing is vacated. Signed on 11/15/2019 (Potier, Cynthia) (Entered: 11/15/2019) 11/16/2019 424 (4 pgs) BNC Certificate of Notice - PDF Document. (RE: related document(s)422 Order on Motion To Disallow Claims (BNC-PDF)) No. of Notices: 1. Notice Date 11/16/2019. (Admin.) (Entered: 11/16/2019) 11/17/2019 425 (4 pgs) BNC Certificate of Notice - PDF Document. (RE: related document(s)423 Order on Generic Motion (BNC-PDF)) No. of Notices: 1. Notice Date 11/17/2019. (Admin.) (Entered: 11/17/2019) 11/18/2019 426 (5 pgs) Declaration re: 21 Days Service Before Filing Rule 11 Motion Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)423 Order on Generic Motion (BNC-PDF)). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 11/18/2019) 11/21/2019 116 of 126 427 (37 pgs) Motion For Contempt Against Thomas Wyldes, Richard Peddie, David Schnider, and Jene Park Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (Biller, Dimitrios) WARNING: See docket entry no. 438 for corrective actions. Modified on 11/22/2019 (Potier, Cynthia). (Entered: 11/21/2019) 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park_Joinder 00016 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cacb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... 11/21/2019 428 (150 pgs) Declaration re: Motion for Contempt Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)427 Motion For Contempt Against Thomas Wyldes, Richard Peddie, David Schnider, and Jene Park). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 11/21/2019) L121 2018 429 (299 pgs) Declaration re: Dimitrios Biller, Exhibits 1-6 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)427 Motion For Contempt Against Thomas Wyldes, Richard Peddie, David Schnider, and Jene Park). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 11/21/2019) 11/21/2019 430 (319 pgs) Exhibit Number 7 Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (RE: related document(s)427 Motion For Contempt Against Thomas Wyldes, Richard Peddie, David Schnider, and Jene Park). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 11/21/2019) L121 2018 431 (300 pgs) Exhibit Numbers 8-14 Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (RE: related document(s)427 Motion For Contempt Against Thomas Wyldes, Richard Peddie, David Schnider, and Jene Park). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 11/21/2019) 11/21/2019 432 (198 pgs) Exhibit Numbers 8-14 Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (RE: related document(s)427 Motion For Contempt Against Thomas Wyldes, Richard Peddie, David Schnider, and Jene Park). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 11/21/2019) 11/21/2019 117 of 126 433 (198 pgs) Exhibit Numbers 15-20 Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (RE: related document(s)427 Motion For Contempt Against Thomas Wyldes, Richard Peddie, David Schnider, and Jene Park). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 11/21/2019) 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park _Joinder 00017 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cacb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... 11/21/2019 4.94 (158 pgs) Exhibit Numbers 20 -25 Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (RE: related document(s)427 Motion For Contempt Against Thomas Wyldes, Richard Peddie, David Schnider, and Jene Park). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 11/21/2019) 11/21/2019 435 (247 pgs) Exhibit Numbers 26-30 Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (RE: related document(s)427 Motion For Contempt Against Thomas Wyldes, Richard Peddie, David Schnider, and Jene Park). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 11/21/2019) 11/22/2019 436 (65 pgs) Errata Regarding Proof of Service, Exhibit 21 and Exhibit 30 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)427 Motion For Contempt Against Thomas Wyldes, Richard Peddie, David Schnider, and Jene Park). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 11/22/2019) 11/22/2019 437 (5 pgs) Proof of service regarding all pleadings, declarations and exhibits related to motion for contempt Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)427 Motion For Contempt Against Thomas Wyldes, Richard Peddie, David Schnider, and Jene Park). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 11/22/2019) 11/22/2019 118 of 126 438 Notice to Filer of Error and/or Deficient Document Incorrect hearing date was selected. THE HEARING DATE LISTED ON THE MOTION IS PASSED. THE FILER IS INSTRUCTED TO FILE VOLUNTARY DISMISS THIS MOTION BY USING EVENT CODE, i.e. BANKRUPTCY>BK- OTHER>VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF MOTION AND REFER BACK TO THE ORDER REJECTION NOTICE. (RE: 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park_Joinder 00018 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cacb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... related document(s)427 Motion for Contempt filed by Creditor Paula Thomas) (Potier, Cynthia) (Entered: 11/22/2019) 12/01/2019 439 (4 pgs) Withdrawal re: Motion for Contempt, Docket No. 427 Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (related document(s)427 Motion for Contempt filed by Creditor Paula Thomas). (Biller, Dimitrios) WARNING: See docket entry no. 441 for corrective action. Incorrect event code used. Modified on 12/2/2019 (Mason, Shari). (Entered: 12/01/2019) 12/01/2019 440 (37 pgs) Motion For Contempt agaisnt Peddie, Schnider, Park and TW Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/01/2019) 12/02/2019 441 Notice to Filer of Error and/or Deficient Document Incorrect docket event was used to file this document. THE FILER IS INSTRUCTED TO RE-FILE THE DOCUMENT USING THE CORRECT DOCKET EVENT. AS STATED IN THE PREVIOUS NOTICE TO FILER, THE CORRECT EVENT CODE IS BK > OTHER > VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF MOTION. (RE: related document(s)439 Withdrawal re: filed by Counter-Claimant Thomas Wylde, LLC, Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC) (Mason, Shari) (Entered: 12/02/2019) 12/03/2019 119 of 126 442 (7 pgs) Voluntary Dismissal of Motion DOCKET NO. 440 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)440 Motion For Contempt agaisnt Peddie, Schnider, Park and TW). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/03/2019) 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park_Joinder 00019 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cacb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... 12/03/2019 443 (37 pgs) Motion For Contempt violating 18 U.S.C 157,26 U.S.C. 7206 and 26 USC 402 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/03/2019) 12/03/2019 ddd (268 pgs) Declaration re: Exhibits 1 through 6 in support of Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)443 Motion For Contempt violating 18 U.S.C 157, 26 U.S.C. 7206 and 26 USC 402). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/03/2019) 12/03/2019 445 (167 pgs) Exhibit 8 -14 Exhibit in support of Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)443 Motion For Contempt violating 18 U.S.C 157, 26 U.S.C. 7206 and 26 USC 402). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/03/2019) 12/03/2019 446 (178 pgs) Exhibit 15 through 20 in support of Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)443 Motion For Contempt violating 18 U.S.C 157, 26 U.S.C. 7206 and 26 USC 402). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/03/2019) 12/04/2019 ad? (142 pgs) Motion For Contempt Notice of Motion for Contempt Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/04/2019) 12/04/2019 448 (154 pgs) Exhibit Nos. 21 through 25 Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (RE: related document(s)440 Motion For Contempt agaisnt Peddie, Schnider, Park and TW). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/04/2019) 12/04/2019 120 of 126 449 (5 pgs) Errata mistakenlying naming Billler as counsel for PDTW Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)444 Declaration). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/04/2019) 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park_Joinder 00020 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cacb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... 12/04/2019 450 (245 pgs) Exhibit 26 thorugh 30 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)443 Motion For Contempt violating 18 U.S.C 157, 26 U.S.C. 7206 and 26 USC 402). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/04/2019) 12/05/2019 451 (35 pgs) Motion for monetary sanctions in the amount of $800,000 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/05/2019) 12/05/2019 452 (6 pgs) Notice of Hearing Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (RE: related document(s)451 Motion for monetary sanctions in the amount of $800,000 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/05/2019) 12/05/2019 453 (167 pgs) Declaration re: Dimitrios Biller and exhibits Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (RE: related document(s)451 Motion for monetary sanctions in the amount of $800,000). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/05/2019) 12/05/2019 454 (204 pgs) Exhibit 15 in support of motion for sanctions Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (RE: related document(s)451 Motion for monetary sanctions in the amount of $800,000). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/05/2019) 12/05/2019 121 of 126 455 (25 pgs) Exhibit numbers 16-21 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)451 Motion for monetary sanctions in the amount of $800,000). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/05/2019) 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park _Joinder 00021 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cach.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... 456 Exhibit numbers 22-25 Filed by (280 pgs) Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)451 Motion for monetary sanctions in the amount of $800,000). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/05/2019 12/05/2019) 457 Exhibit number 26 Filed by Creditor (188 pgs) Thomas Wylde, LLC (RE: related document(s)451 Motion for monetary sanctions in the amount of $800,000). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/05/2019 12/05/2019) 458 Exhibit numbers 27-32 Filed by (69 pgs) Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)451 Motion for monetary sanctions in the amount of $800,000). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/05/2019 12/05/2019) 459 Exhibit numbers 33 and 34 Filed by (153 pgs) Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (RE: related document(s)451 Motion for monetary sanctions in the amount of $800,000). (Biller, Dimitrios) 12/05/2019 (Entered: 12/05/2019) 460 Exhibit number 35 Filed by Creditor (93 pgs) Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)451 Motion for monetary sanctions in the amount of $800,000). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/05/2019 12/05/2019) 461 Exhibit number 36-39 Filed by (253 pgs) Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)451 Motion for monetary sanctions in the amount of $800,000). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/05/2019 12/05/2019) 122 of 126 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park _Joinder 00022 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cach.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... 462 Hearing Set (RE: related document(s)451 Generic Motion filed by Creditor Paula Thomas) The Hearing date is set for 1/9/2020 at 09:30 AM at Crtrm 302, 3420 Twelfth St., Riverside, CA 92501. The case judge is Scott H. Yun (Potier, Cynthia) 12/06/2019 (Entered: 12/06/2019) 463 Opposition to (related document(s): (69 pgs; 2 docs) | 443 Motion For Contempt violating 18 US.C 157,26 U.S.C. 7206 and 26 USC 402 filed by Creditor Paula Thomas, 447 Motion For Contempt Notice of Motion for Contempt filed by Creditor Paula Thomas) Filed by Interested Party Jene Park, Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Declarations & Exhibits Package) (Peddie, Richard) (Entered: 12/11/2019 12/11/2019) 464 Notice Objectoin to the Opposition to (6 pgs) Motion for OSC Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (RE: related document(s)463 Opposition to (related document(s): 443 Motion For Contempt violating 18 U.S.C 157, 26 U.S.C. 7206 and 26 USC 402 filed by Creditor Paula Thomas, 447 Motion For Contempt Notice of Motion for Contempt filed by Creditor Paula Thomas) Filed by Interested Party Jene Park, Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Declarations & Exhibits Package)). (Biller, 12/11/2019 Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/11/2019) 465 Declaration re: Biller Re Notice of (145 pgs) Fraud On Judiciary and Judicial System Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (RE: related 12/11/2019 123 of 126 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park_Joinder 00023 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cacb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... document(s)447 Motion For Contempt Notice of Motion for Contempt). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/11/2019) 121122019 466 (141 pgs) Exhibit number 7 and 9 attached to Decl. of Biller Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)465 Declaration). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/12/2019) 12/12/2019 467 (136 pgs) Exhibit number 9 though 12 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (RE: related document(s)465 Declaration). (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/12/2019) 12/12/2019 468 (23 pgs) Reply to (related document(s): 447 Motion For Contempt Notice of Motion for Contempt filed by Creditor Paula Thomas) Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas (Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered: 12/12/2019) 12/18/2019 469 (20 pgs) Notice of Related Cases Filed in Compliance with State Court Procedural Requirements Filed by Creditor Thomas Wylde, LLC (RE: related document(s)443 Motion For Contempt violating 18 U.S.C 157, 26 U.S.C. 7206 and 26 USC 402 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas, 447 Motion For Contempt Notice of Motion for Contempt Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas, 451 Motion for monetary sanctions in the amount of $800,000 Filed by Creditor Paula Thomas). (Peddie, Richard) (Entered: 12/18/2019) 12/18/2019 124 of 126 470 (3 pgs) Order Denying Paula Thomas' Motion For Contempt Against Thomas Wylde, LLC, Richard Peddie, David Schnider 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park _Joinder 00024 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) https://ecf.cach.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... and Jene Park (BNC-PDF) (Related Doc # 443) Signed on 12/18/2019 (Potier, Cynthia) (Entered: 12/18/2019) 471 Order Denying Paula Thomas' Motion (3 pgs) for Monetary Sanctions Under Rule 11 (BNC-PDF) (Related Doc # 451) - It is Ordered that the Motion is denied and the hearing currently set for January 9, 2020 at 9:30 am is vacated. Signed on 12/18/2019 (Potier, Cynthia) (Entered: 12/18/2019 12/18/2019) 472 Notice to professionals to file (2 pgs) application for compensation with proof of service Filed by Trustee Larry D Simons (TR). (Simons (TR), 12/20/2019 Larry) (Entered: 12/20/2019) 473 BNC Certificate of Notice - PDF (5 pgs) Document. (RE: related document(s)470 Order on Motion for Contempt (BNC-PDF)) No. of Notices: 1. Notice Date 12/20/2019. (Admin.) 12/20/2019 (Entered: 12/20/2019) 474 BNC Certificate of Notice - PDF (5 pgs) Document. (RE: related document(s)471 Order on Generic Motion (BNC-PDF)) No. of Notices: 1. Notice Date 12/20/2019. (Admin.) 12/20/2019 (Entered: 12/20/2019) PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt 125 of 126 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Park _Joinder 00025 CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v5.2.1 - LIVE) 126 of 126 https://ecf.cacb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2... 12/22/2019 12:55:16 PACER Login: callixus:2784340:0 Client Code: 00150-0010C Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 6:16- bk-15889-SY Fil or Ent: filed From: 1/1/2016 To: 12/23/2019 Doc From: 0 Doc To: 99999999 Term: included Format: html Page counts for documents: included Billable Pages: Cost: 3.00 12/22/19, 1:56 PM Exhibit B Park _Joinder 00028 Superior Court of California FILED Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 51 JUN 07 2019 County of Los Angeles oer R. E58 ih yi Jilicer/Clerk PAULA THOMAS, et al., Case No.: BC596495 Deputy Plaintiffs, Hearing Date: 6/7/19 V. Trial Date: Not Set THOMAS WYLDE, LLC, et al., RULING RE: Defendants. Motion to allow TW Holdings, LLC to file a complaint-in-intervention; Motion to lift the stay Background: On October 1, 2015, Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Paula Thomas, et al. filed the Complaint, and on January 29, 2016, the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). On March 9, 2016, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Thomas Wylde LLC, et al. (“TW?) filed the Cross-Complaint., and on January 10, 2017, the operative Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SACC”). On September 29, 2017, the Court stayed the proceedings between the parties due to PDTW’s bankruptcy. On April 5, 2018, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Paula Thomas (“Thomas”) dismissed all of her claims in the FAC with prejudice. On April 15, 2019, Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants filed the instant motions to allow TW Holdings, LLC to file a complaint-in-intervention and to lift the stay. The Court considered the moving and opposition papers and oral argument and rules as follows. Intervention Standard: For mandatory intervention, the court “shall” permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if “[t]he person seeking intervention [1] claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and [2] that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person’s ability to protect that interest, unless that person’s interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387(d)(1)(B).) Whether the petitioner has an interest in the matter in litigation is a question of fact that must be determined by the court before leave to file is granted. (Muller v. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal. App.2d 511, 515; In re Yokohama Special Bank (1948) 86 Cal. App.2d 545.) The burden rests on the one seeking to intervene to show that this is a proper case for intervention. (Muller, 174 Cal. App.2d 515.) Park_Joinder 00028 387(d)(1)(B).) Whether the petitioner has an interest in the matter in litigation is a question of fact that must be determined by the court before leave to file is granted. (Muller v. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal. App.2d 511, 515; In re Yokohama Special Bank (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 545.) The burden rests on the one seeking to intervene to show that this is a proper case for intervention. (Muller, 174 Cal.App.2d 515.) For permissive intervention, the court has “discretion to permit a nonparty to intervene where: (1) the proper procedures have been followed, (2) the nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the action, (3) the intervention will not enlarge the issues in the litigation, and (4) the reasons for the intervention outweigh any opposition by the parties presently in the action...” Chavez v. Netflix (2008) 162 Cal. App.4th 43, 51. Intervention Analysis: Intervenor TW Holdings, LLC (“Intervenor”) moves for leave to file a complaint-in-intervention in this case. Intervenor moves for both mandatory and permissive intervention on the ground that Intervenor has an interest in certain intellectual property (“IP”), which allegedly is the subject of the dispute in this action. First, whether Intervenor has capacity to sue is dispositive in this case, since a limited liability company (“LLC”) cannot maintain or defend a civil action in a California court absent its capacity to sue. Cal. Corp. Code § 17701.05. As an initial matter, Intervenor fails to correctly identify itself in its motion. As TW points out in Opposition, the existent California limited liability company “TW Holdings, LLC” is not related to this matter at all, and what once was owned and later dissolved by Thomas was called “Thomas Wylde Holdings, LLC.” Intervenor does not present any statement as to the entity’s identity and its relationship with the parties. More importantly, Intervenor was dissolved and cancelled on January 27, 2015 (Opp., Ex. D) and currently does not exist as an entity to have the capacity to sue. Intervenor argues that pursuant to Corporation Code §§ 17707.06(a), (c), a dissolved LLC can revive its capacity to sue. Although a limited liability company that has filed a certificate of cancellation can continue to exist “for the purpose of winding up its affairs, prosecuting and defending actions by or against it in order to collect and discharge obligations, disposing of and conveying its property, and collecting and dividing assets,” that code provision does not apply here. Cal. Corp. Code §§ 17707.06. The present action does not concern winding up of a limited liability company or the following disposition of property. In fact, Intervenor was already wound up more than four years ago with its certification of cancellation and instruments to assign its IP signed by Thomas. It is simply not allowed to suddenly revive a dissolved company in order to inject new arguments into the original FAC. Even if Intervenor could have standing to sue in the present case, Intervenor still fails to satisfy requirements for mandatory or permissive intervention pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 387. As to mandatory intervention, the Court finds that ownership of the said IP is not the subject of this action and the disposition of the action does not impair or impede Intervenor’s ability to protect that interest, if any. While the operative SACC does allege that TW owns the IP, its ownership was never put at issue, especially considering that the Intervenor’s certification of cancellation and instruments to assign its IP were signed by Thomas. Therefore, Intervenor fails 2 Park_Joinder 00029 to show that it has direct interest in this action, thus failing the test for mandatory intervention. Also, as to permissive intervention, the Court finds that Intervenor not only does not have direct interest in this case, as discussed above, but also enlarges the issues in the litigation. Intervenor is barred from bringing claims that were not raised by the original parties. Here, Intervenor attempts to raise the issue of who owns the IP and even whether the dissolved LLC was fraudulently cancelled by TW. These claims were not brought in the SACC, and therefore Intervenor fails the test for permissive intervention as well. For the foregoing reasons, TW Holding, LLC’s motion for an order to allow complaint-in- intervention against Cross-Complainants is DENIED. Motion to Lift the Stay: The Court stayed this proceeding on September 28, 2017 based on PDTW’s bankruptcy. The Court notes that PDTW is the only real party left as Plaintift/Cross-Defendant, since Thomas voluntarily dismissed her action with prejudice and TW Holdings, LLC’s motion to intervene has been denied. In light of this, the instant motion and the accompanying memorandum are not only unclear as to who is bringing this motion, but also do not present any change of circumstances or persuasive legal authority which warrants the lift of the stay. Therefore, Cross-Defendant’s motion to lift the stay is DENIED. Conclusion TW Holding, LLC’s motion for an order to allow complaint-in-intervention against Cross- Complainants is DENIED Cross-Defendant’s motion to lift the stay is DENIED. Cross-Complainants to give notice. Dated JUN 0 7 2019 Pennis Landin Superior Court Judge Park _Joinder 00030 Exhibit C Park _Joinder 00031 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 18STCV05667 ily PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG A Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: W. Wilcox Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson for A. Rising ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: P. Mapstead Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): Dimitrios P. Biller For Defendant(s): Richard Peddie NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Ruling on Submitted Matter Pursuant to Government Code sections 68086, 70044, California Rules of Court, rule 2.956, and the stipulation of appearing parties, Wil S. Wilcox, CSR #9178, certified shorthand reporter is appointed as an official Court reporter pro tempore in these proceedings, and is ordered to comply with the terms of the Court Reporter Agreement. The Order is signed and filed this date. A copy of the Ruling is given to counsel who are present for the demurrer hearings set for this date. Matter has already been called for hearing. Counsel are heard regarding leave to amend. The Court, having taken the matter under submission on 06/12/2019, now rules as follows: Thomas, et.al. vs. Kring & Chung, et. al., Case No. 18STCV05667 Ruling re: Defendant’s Demurrer to Complaint Defendant demurs to the second, fifth, eighth, ninth and tenth through thirteenth causes of action. The demurrer is sustained. Statute of Limitations Defendant Park demurs to Plaintiff's negligence-based causes of action, namely, the second, eighth, and thirteenth causes of action, on the ground that they are time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The problem with this argument, as will be discussed in further detail below, is that Plaintiff does not allege any negligent conduct by Park. Rather, Park is only alleged to have engaged in intentional conduct. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Park Minute Order Page 1 of 11 Park _Joinder 00032 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 18STCV05667 Jul 952809, PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG 4:15PM Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: W. Wilcox Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson for A. Rising ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: P. Mapstead Deputy Sheriff: None intentionally engaged in a scheme to terminate Plaintiff, falsely claiming that Plaintiff abandoned her post; defraud Plaintiff out of her IP; and to use the company (TW) as a front to launder money and commit tax evasion. (Complaint. 44 248, 252, 262-263, 267, 272, 292-293, 297-299; see id. at 99 294-295.) Nevertheless, to the extent Park’s alleged conduct were to form the basis for a negligence claim, the Court finds that such a claim would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations for negligence, which is two years. (CCP § 335.1.) A cause of action accrues when the wrongful act is done or the wrongful result occurs, “regardless of the plaintiff’s ignorance of the cause of action.” (Utility Audit Co. v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 950, 962 [emphasis added]; See Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 397.) Here, Plaintiff alleges that Park engaged an attorney on behalf of TW without authorization and instructed the attorney to draft a letter terminating Plaintiff and falsely claiming that Plaintiff abandoned her post without good cause. (Complaint 99 248, 256, 262-263.) The termination letter was allegedly drafted on May 14, 2015. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that Park embezzled funds, inappropriately used TW’s funds without authorization, and used TW as a front for money laundering and to commit tax evasion. (Id. at 9 248, 252, 256, 262-263, 267, 272, 292-293, 297- 299; see id. at 4 294-295.) As a result, Plaintiff claims she was damaged by her termination on April 1, 2015. (See Complaint 9 27, 108.) The Complaint also alleges that Park’s conduct reduced revenues and caused Plaintiff further damage by forcing Thomas’ related company, PDTW, to go into bankruptcy, which occurred in summer 2016. (Complaint 9 298-299; Opposition, p. 10 [“from the first day in bankruptcy on July 29, 20167].) Plaintiff’s allegedly wrongful termination in April 2015, which was purportedly caused by the conduct of Defendant Park, triggered the statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s negligence claims at least as early as April 1, 2015. Similarly, PDTW’s filing for bankruptcy in the summer of 2016 triggered the statute of limitations on Plaintiff’s negligence claims at the latest in June/July 2016. The Complaint in the instant action was filed on November 20, 2018, more than two years later. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the statute of limitations does not apply, citing the delayed discovery rule. (Opposition, pp. 18-19.) However, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to support application of the discovery rule. “In order to rely on the discovery rule for delayed accrual of a cause of action, ‘[a] plaintiff whose complaint shows on its face that his claim would be barred without the benefit of the discovery rule must specifically plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) Minute Order Page 2 of 11 Park _Joinder 00033 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 July 9, 2019 18STCV05667 Luly 1d 2019 PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG 4:15PM Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: W. Wilcox Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson for A. Rising ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: P. Mapstead Deputy Sheriff: None the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.” (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 808, quoting McKelvey v. Boeing North American, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 151, 160). Under the discovery rule, it is the discovery of facts, not their legal significance, which starts the commencement of the statute of limitations. (Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1113.) While the discovery rule is addressed in the complaint, the complaint only addresses the discovery rule with respect to Plaintiff’s legal malpractice claims and other defendants, namely the Greenberg Defendants. (See Complaint | 185-199.) That section of the complaint names Defendant Park only once in connection with violating subpoenas.” (Id. at q 189.) Moreover, Plaintiff’s own allegations establish that she cannot plead delayed discovery because she was on inquiry notice of the Defendant Park’s wrongdoing. “The discovery rule only delays accrual until the plaintiff has, or should have, inquiry notice of the cause of action.” (Fox, supra, 13 Cal.4th (2005) 797, 807.) “Under this rule constructive and presumed notice or knowledge are equivalent to knowledge. So, when the plaintiff has notice or information of circumstances to put a reasonable person on inquiry, or has the opportunity to obtain knowledge from sources open to [her] investigation (such as public records or corporation books), the statute commences to run.” (Parsons v. Tickner (1995) 31 Cal. App.4th 1513, 1525 [citation omitted] [referring to discovery rule articulated in Code Civ. Proc., § 338].) The Complaint alleges that the Kim Defendants' actions caused Plaintiff to be terminated, allowed Defendant Park to embezzle and launder money, and “caused Plaintiff greater financial harm because PDTW was forced into bankruptcy; PDTW business operations came to an end and did not generate any revenue;” (Complaint 99 248, 252, 256, 262-263, 267, 272, 292-293, 297-299.) Exhibits attached to the Complaint demonstrate, however, that Plaintiff and TW were already suing Jene Park for misappropriating funds from TW pursuant to their Complaint filed October 1, 2015. (Complaint, p. 31; Exh.25, p. 17:7; RIN Exh. D.) Moreover, as an owner of PDTW, Plaintiff was aware of this damage at least as early as July 2016 when PDTW filed for bankruptcy protection. (See Complaint 9 297; Opposition, p. 10.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ own pleadings demonstrate that Plaintiff knew the predicate facts as early as October 1, 2015, when she brought suit against Jene Park, and by no later than July, 2016, when PDTW filed for bankruptcy, for the reasons noted above. Thus, Plaintiff had to bring her claims no later than July 29, 2018. (Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1; Opp., p. 10.) Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff’s negligence-based claims are time-barred and therefore sustains the demurrer to the second, eighth, and thirteenth causes of action without Minute Order Page 3 of 11 Park _Joinder 00034 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 July 9, 2019 18STCV 05667 Tul 19 2010 PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG 4:15PM Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: W. Wilcox Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson for A. Rising ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: P. Mapstead Deputy Sheriff: None leave to amend. Failure to Plead Negligence Defendant Park demurs to the second cause of action on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for negligence against Defendant Park. As discussed above, the allegations of negligent conduct primarily target other defendants, not Jene Park. Plaintiff’s second cause of action for negligence is found in Section XVII of the Complaint and is asserted against against all attorney defendants and their firms, all “CPA/Accounting Defendants” and their firms, as well as John Hanna, Jene Park, and Meldy Rafols. (Complaint at pp. 70:19-71:5, 264:20-265:1.) Section XVII is broken up into various subsections. Subsections XVII(A)-(B) address the alleged duty of care and liability of the Schnider Defendants. (Complaint 99 247-255.) The remaining parts of the second cause of action found in Subsections (C)-(F) likewise target only other defendants. (See, Complaint 9 256-273 [Subsection XVII(C) (Richard Peddie and his firm targeted, in derogation of the stay in place during the pending anti- SLAPP appeal of the related case)], 9 274-290 [Subsection XVII(D) (Kring & Chung, LLP and its attorney defendants targeted in claim brought solely by TW Holdings, LLC)], 99 291-296 [Subsection XVII(E) (KF Professional, Inc., Norman Ko, and Joseph Foster targeted)], 99 297- 300 [Subsection XVII(F) [Kyu Hong Kim, CPA, Inc. and Kyu Hong Kim targeted)].) Though Defendant Park is mentioned throughout, Plaintiff does not allege any negligent conduct by Park. Rather, Park is only alleged to have engaged in intentional conduct or intentional torts. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Park engaged an attorney on behalf of TW without authorization and instructed the attorney to draft a letter terminating Plaintiff and falsely claiming that Plaintiff abandoned her post without good cause. (Complaint 9 248, 256, 262- 263.) Plaintiff also alleges that Park intentionally embezzled funds, used TW as a front for money laundering, and provided false financial information to accountants who agreed to help her launder money through TW and commit tax evasion. (Id. at 9 248, 252, 256, 262-263, 267, 272, 292-293, 297-299; see id. at 99 294-295.) Defendant further contends that Plaintiff’s negligence-based causes of action fail because Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendant owed her a duty of care. “The existence of a duty is the threshold element of a negligence cause of action.” (Friedman v. Merck & Co. (2003) 107 Cal. App.4th 454, 463). “ “Where there is no legal duty, the issue of professional negligence cannot be pled because with the absence of a breach of duty, an essential element of the cause of action for professional negligence is missing.” ”” (Giacometti v. Aulla, LLC (2010) 187 Minute Order Page 4 of 11 Park _Joinder 00035 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 July 9, 2019 18STCV05667 : PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG 4:15PM Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: W. Wilcox Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson for A. Rising ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: P. Mapstead Deputy Sheriff: None Cal.App.4th 1133, 1137 [citing Major Clients Agency v. Diemer (1998) 67 Cal. App.4th 1116, 1132.) “The existence and scope of a duty are questions of law for the court's determination.” (Ericson v. Federal Express Corp. (2008) 162 Cal. App.4th 1291, 1300). Specifically, Defendant argues that she has held various positions in companies in which Plaintiff worked or had ownership interests, but that Plaintiff was never directly Defendant’s employer or client. Thus, Defendant had no duty of care to Plaintiff. In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Park retained attorney Richard Peddie-who ultimately drafted the termination letter-in violation of TW’s operating agreement, that Park and Peddie had a longstanding personal and professional relationship, that Park hired Peddie knowing that he would be loyal to her and not TW or its members, and that Peddie violated Rules of Professional conduct. (Opposition, p. 14; Complaint 9 248, 256, 262.) Thus, any negligence in Peddie’s representation of TW which led to Plaintiff’s damages-e.g., her termination from TW-is imputed to Park, who hired him. (Opposition, pp. 14-15.) To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to make out a claim for negligent hiring, such a claim would be time-barred. As discussed above, Plaintiff was terminated in April 2015. As such, she was at least on inquiry notice as of April 1, 2015. Moreover, Plaintiff cannot now plead around her allegations of intentional conduct to assert negligent hiring. Plaintiff has alleged that Park instructed Peddie to draft the termination letter and acted intentionally as part of a larger conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff out of her position and intellectual property. (See Complaint 9 294-295.) Accordingly, the Court sustains the demurrer to Plaintiff’s negligence-based causes of action, namely the second, eighth, and thirteenth causes of action without leave to amend. Fifth Cause of Action - Abuse of Process “[Albuse of process arises when one uses the court’s process for a purpose other than that for which the process was designed.” (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1056.) “Process is action taken pursuant to judicial authority. It is not action taken without reference to the power of the court.” (Adams v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 521, 530.) Examples of process include service, attachment, and injunction. (Gaab & Reese, Cal. Practice Guide: Trial Claims and Defenses (The Rutter Group 2018) 9 4:3.) The elements of an abuse of process cause of action are: (1) an ulterior motive by the person using the process; and (2) a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding. (See Rusheen, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1057.) Minute Order Page Sof 11 Park _Joinder 00036 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 July 9, 2019 18STCV05667 : PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG 4:15PM Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: W. Wilcox Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson for A. Rising ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: P. Mapstead Deputy Sheriff: None Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Park participated in the destruction or concealment of computers, ESI, or other evidence. (Complaint 9 6, 24, 43, 170, 348, 351, 352 & 355.) As to this concealment or destruction of evidence, it is clear that what Plaintiff is referring to is her discovery disputes in other cases. (See Complaint, p. 371:12-19.) These allegations do not establish that Defendant Park invoked or obtained process for a purpose other than that for which the process was designed. (See Adams, supra, 2 Cal. App.4th at p. 531.) At most, these allegations suggest a violation of civil discovery rules. Such a violation, on its own, does not constitute an abuse of process. (Flores v. Emerich & Fike (E.D. Cal. 2006) 416 F.Supp.2d 885, 907 [holding that attorneys engaged in spoliation and concealment of evidence did not establish that firm and attorneys willfully misused power of court, but rather at most suggested violation of civil discovery rules, and therefore allegations did not establish prima facie claim of abuse of process against firm and attorneys, warranting striking of abuse of process claim].) “Moreover, there were adequate remedies to enforce the discovery rules in the prior case.” (Id. [holding that “[i]t is impermissible to sue for prior violations of discovery rules in a subsequent lawsuit™].) Based on the foregoing, the Court sustains the demurrer to the fifth cause of action without leave to amend. Eighth Cause of Action - Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Defendant argues that “Negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort . . .” and that Plaintiff’s negligent infliction cause of action is predicated on Plaintiff’s negligence claim. (Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol (2010) 181 Cal. App.4th 856, 875- 876.) As discussed above, Plaintiff does not allege a cognizable claim for negligence. Moreover, Defendant contends that to the extent the claim can be viewed as a sort of placeholder to seek damages under the negligence claim, it still fails. The California Supreme Court has disallowed damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress in direct victim cases in all but three types of situations: “(1) situations involving the negligent mishandling of corpses; (2) the negligent misdiagnosis of a disease that could potentially harm another; and (3) the negligent breach of a duty arising out of a preexisting relationship.” (See Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 879; Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1980) 27 Cal.3d 916, 928; Potter v. Firestone Tire Rubber Co. 6 Cal.4th 965, 984-985 (1993).) In her opposition, Plaintiff does not address the merits of Defendant Park’s arguments with respect to the eighth cause of action. A party’s failure to file opposition can be considered as an Minute Order Page 6 of 11 Park _Joinder 00037 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 July 9, 2019 18STCV05667 Fry £92619 PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG 4:15PM Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: W. Wilcox Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson for A. Rising ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: P. Mapstead Deputy Sheriff: None admission that the motion is meritorious. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal. App.4th 1403, 1410.) Accordingly, the Court sustains the demurrer to the eighth cause of action without leave to amend. Ninth Cause of Action - Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 A private party has standing to bring a UCL claim if he or she has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s unfair competition. (See Law Offices of Mathew Higbee v. Expungement Assistance Services (2013) 214 Cal. App.4th 544, 555-56.) “[A]n identifiable trifle [of injury] is enough for standing . . .” (Id. at 561.) Defendant Park demurs to the ninth cause of action on the ground that “Plaintiff has no standing, whether as a consumer or as a competing business vis-a-vis Park under California UCL law.” (Demurrer, p. 21.) Moreover, Plaintiff’s cause of action under the UCL appears to be predicated upon “numerous laws and rules that Defendants have violated,” however none of the Penal Code and Rules of Professional Conduct violations are pled to have been violated by Defendant Park, only the other defendants. (Complaint § 422.) Moreover, although Plaintiff alleges statutory violations, those violations are not separately pled apart from the conduct that comprises Plaintiff’s negligence claims-which, as discussed above, fail. "Because the underlying causes of action fail, the derivative UCL . . . claim [ ] also fail[s]." (Price v. Starbucks Corp. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1136, 1147.) Plaintiff does not address the Defendant’s arguments with respect to Plaintiff’s UCL claim in her opposition. A party’s failure to oppose a motion can be considered as an admission that the motion is meritorious. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Accordingly, the Court sustains the demurrer to the ninth cause of action without leave to amend. Tenth Cause of Action - Defamation Per Quod Defendant demurs to the tenth cause of action on the ground that the Complaint fails to state any defamation claim as it fails to identify any defamatory utterance made by Park as a matter of law. The elements of a claim for defamation (whether libel or slander) are: (1) intentional publication Minute Order Page 7 of 11 Park _Joinder 00038 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 July 9, 2019 18STCV05667 : PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG 4:15PM Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: W. Wilcox Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson for A. Rising ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: P. Mapstead Deputy Sheriff: None by defendant of statement of fact; (2) that is false; (3) defamatory; (4) unprivileged; and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damages. (Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal. App.4th 1354, 1369; see Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720.) Publication, which may be written (libel) or oral (slander), is defined as a communication to some third person who understands both the defamatory meaning of the statement and its application to the person to whom reference is made. (Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal. App.4th 637, 645; Civil Code §§ 45, 46.) Publication need not be to the public or a large group; communication to a single individual is sufficient. (Ibid; Cunningham v. Simpson (1969) 1 Cal.3d 301, 306.) The Complaint generally alleges that “Defendants fabricated many statements in the draft termination letter contained in the May 5/6 2015 e-mail that Schnider drafted and the May 14, 2015 termination letter that Peddie and his firm drafted” and that “Defendants conspired to fabricate” the “grounds for termination” in the May 14, 2015 letter whose “words came from ... Peddie.” (Complaint, pp. 462-463 at qq 425, 424.) Plaintiff further alleges that these false statements resulted in her termination and her being denied her severance package. (Ibid.) As an initial matter, there are no allegations that Defendant Park drafted or published the letter or the e-mail at issue. Further, even if there were allegations directed at Park in relation to the May 2015 termination letter, they would be time-barred. A claim for defamation must be brought within one year of accrual of the cause of action. See Code Civ. Proc., § 340(c); Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1237.) A cause of action for defamation accrues at the time the defamatory statement is published. (Shivley, at p. 1242- 1243.) Because Plaintiff did not commence this action until November 20, 2018, that part of her defamation cause of action that is based upon the May 14, 2015 letter to Plaintiff’s counsel is time-barred. In opposition, Plaintiff argues this Court has no jurisdiction over the claims against Peddie for the defamatory statements in the termination letter because those claims were raised in related action BC679247. (Opposition, p. 17.) This argument is nonsensical given Plaintiff raises those same allegations in the instant Complaint. (See Complaint, pp. 462-463.) The only statements actually alleged to have been made by Defendant Park and not involving the May 14, 2015 letter are stated in paragraph 436 of the Complaint. Those statements include the following: “Park completed 37 collections for Thomas Wylde” (Complaint § 436(a)); “that Thomas Wylde went bankrupt” (Id. § 436(b)); “that [Park] was always the creator of Thomas Wylde collections and [Plaintiff Paula Thomas] was only the stylist” (Id. 9 436(c)); “that Thomas Wylde was [Park’s] ‘DNA’” (Id. § 436(d)); and that “[Plaintiff] got paid sick leave and was unable to design anymore” (Id. 9 436(1)). Minute Order Page 8 of 11 Park _Joinder 00039 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 July 9, 2019 18STCV05667 : PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG 4:15PM Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: W. Wilcox Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson for A. Rising ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: P. Mapstead Deputy Sheriff: None The Court notes that none of these statements are defamatory on their face. The “fact that a statement is not defamatory on its face requires only that the plaintiff plead and prove the defamatory meaning and special damages.” (Savage v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1993) 21 Cal. App. 4th 434, 447.) Pleading libel or defamation per quod requires alleging that people had special knowledge of facts from which they could discern that statements were defamatory. (Palm Springs Tennis Club v. Rangel (1999) 73 Cal. App. 4th 1, 7.) Plaintiff has not done so. Indeed, Plaintiff has failed to state any facts alleging publication. Plaintiff fails to allege when Park made these allegedly defamatory statements, by what means, where, and to whom. The allegations are devoid of context. Plaintiff asserts a brief, four-line argument, without any citation to authority, that Defendant has the burden of proof on when the defamatory statements were published, not Plaintiff. As an initial matter, a “point which is merely suggested by [a party’s] counsel, with no supporting argument or authority, is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion.” (Do It Urself Moving & Storage v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkin & Berns (1992) 7 Cal. App.4th 27, 35; Schaeffer Land Trust v. San Jose City Council (1989) 215 Cal. App.3d 612, 619, tn 2.) In any event, publication is an element Plaintiff must prove, which necessarily includes when the publication was made and to whom. (See Wong, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th 1354; Smith, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 645.) In light of the above, the Court sustains the demurrer to the tenth cause of action with leave to amend. Eleventh through Thirteenth Causes of Action: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relationships; Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage Defendant Park demurs to the eleventh through thirteenth causes of action on the ground that they are barred by the statute of limitations, given that all of the alleged interferences “date back to 2014 and early 2015.” (Demurrer, p. 24.) The statute of limitations for claims of interference with contractual relations and intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage is two years. (Code Civ. Proc. § 339; Augusta v. United Service Automobile Assn. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 4, 10; see Edwards v. Fresno Community Hosp. (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 702, 706.) “Generally speaking, a cause of action accrues [and the statute of limitations begins to run] at ‘the time when the cause of action Minute Order Page 9 of 11 Park _Joinder 00040 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 July 9, 2019 18STCV05667 = PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG 4:15PM Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: W. Wilcox Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson for A. Rising ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: P. Mapstead Deputy Sheriff: None is complete with all of its elements’ [Citations.]” (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 806-807.) The elements for the tort of intentional interference with the performance of a contract are: “(1) a valid contract between plaintiff and another party; (2) defendant’s knowledge of the contract; (3) defendant’s intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage.” (Asahi Kasei Pharma Corporation v. Actelion Ltd. (2013) 222 Cal. App.4th 945, 958.) A cause of action for interference with contractual relations does not lie against a party to the contract. (See Dryden v. Tri-Valley Growers (1977) 65 Cal. App.3d 990, 999.) The elements of the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage are * * “(1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1153.) As part of the third element of the tort, “a plaintiff must [also] plead and prove that the defendant’s acts are wrongful apart from the interference itself.” (Id. at p. 1154.)] “The tort of negligent interference with prospective economic advantage is established where a plaintiff demonstrates that (1) an economic relationship existed between the plaintiff and a third party which contained a reasonably probable future economic benefit or advantage to [the] plaintiff; (2) the defendant knew of the existence of the relationship and was aware or should have been aware that if it did not act with due care its actions would interfere with this relationship and cause [the] plaintiff to lose in whole or in part the probable future economic benefit or advantage of the relationship; (3) the defendant was negligent; and (4) such negligence caused damage to [the] plaintiff in that the relationship was actually interfered with or disrupted and [the] plaintiff lost in whole or in part the economic benefits or advantage reasonably expected from the relationship.” (North American Chemical Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 764, 786.) As with the intentional tort, the defendant's conduct must be independently wrongful apart from the interference itself. (Lange v. TIG Ins. Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1187.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Park, among others, interfered with Plaintiff’s contractual relationships and prospective economic advantages relating to her employment and the licensing of her intellectual property (“IP”). (Complaint 9 438-335.) Plaintiff also alleges that she was Minute Order Page 10 of 11 Park _Joinder 00041 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 July 9, 2019 18STCV05667 Tull 19 2010 PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG 4:15PM Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: W. Wilcox Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson for A. Rising ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: P. Mapstead Deputy Sheriff: None injured as a result of that interference. Specifically, Defendant’s interference resulted in her termination and the loss of her IP. (See Complaint 9 19, 439.) The conduct constituting the alleged interferences date back to 2013, 2014, and early 2015. (See Complaint 9 19-20, 23, 438-440, 442, 444; See generally, Complaint at pp. 264-299, 459-460.) As the alleged conduct occurred in 2014 and early 2015 and Plaintiff's damages were realized no later than April 1, 2015 when she was terminated and lost her IP rights, Plaintiff’s own pleadings demonstrate she knew of the predicate facts as early as April 1, 2015. The statute of limitations would have expired no later than April 1, 2017. Plaintiff did not file this action until November 20, 2018, or over one year after her claims would have expired. Accordingly, the Court sustains the demurrer to the eleventh through thirteenth causes of action without leave to amend. Defendant's counsel's spoken motion to dismiss Jene Park is granted. Order of Dismissal is prepared by the Court, signed, filed and incorporated herein by reference. Defendant's counsel to give notice. Minute Order Page 11 of 11 Park _Joinder 00042 Exhibit D Park _Joinder 00043 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 18STCV05667 July 25,2019 PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG 10:46 AM Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: None Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances For Defendant(s): No Appearances NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Court Order The Court, having taken the matter under submission on 07/09/2019, now rules as follows: Thomas, et.al. vs. Kring & Chung, et. al., Case No. 18STCV05667 Ruling re: Defendants’ Demurrers to Complaint Defendant Hanna demurs to the second, fifth, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth causes of action. The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. Statute of Limitations re Negligence Defendant Hanna demurs to Plaintiff’s negligence-based causes of action, namely, the second and eighth causes of action, on the ground that they are time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Specifically, Defendant asserts that “this Court has already ruled in this case, any negligence claim based upon acts or omissions occurring on or before April 1, 2015 is barred by the statute of limitations: As the alleged negligent conduct occurred in 2014 and Plaintiff’s damages were realized no later than April 1, 2015 when she was terminated and lost her IP rights, the statute of limitations would have expired no later than April 1, 2017. Plaintiff did not file this action until November 19, 2018, or over one (1) year after her claims would have expired. April 10, 2019 Ruling re: Defendants” Demurrer to Complaint; Motion to Strike at 3 (demurrer of KF Professional Group, Norman Ko, and Joseph Foster).” (Hanna Demurrer, at 14.) Plaintiff argues that she has pled facts that she did not learn of all the Defendants wrongs until August 18, 2017. Specifically, defendant Meldy Rafols did not produce the tax returns for TW Minute Order Page 1 of 9 Park _Joinder 00044 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 18STCV05667 July 25,2019 PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG 10:46 AM Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: None Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None and the $4.4 million fraudulent QuickBooks report until August 18, 2017. (Complaint, Pg. 39, In. 20 -Pg. 41, In.14) The problem with this argument is that the allegations of negligence only target other defendants, not Hanna. Plaintiff’s second cause of action for negligence is found in Section XVII of the Complaint and is asserted against Ms. Bae, against all attorney defendants and their firms, all “CPA/Accounting Defendants” and their firms, as well as John Hanna, Jene Park, and Meldy Rafols. (Complaint at pp. 70:19-71:5, 264:20-265:1.) Section XVII is broken up into various subsections. Subsections XVII(A)-(B) address the alleged duty of care and liability of the Schnider Defendants. (Complaint 9 247-255.) The remaining parts of the second cause of action found in Subsections (C)-(F) likewise target only other defendants. (See, Complaint 9 256-273 [Subsection XVII(C) (Richard Peddie and his firm targeted, in derogation of the stay in place during the pending anti-SLAPP appeal of the related case)], 9 274-290 [Subsection XVII(D) (Kring & Chung, LLP and its attorney defendants targeted in claim brought solely by TW Holdings, LLC)], 99 291-296 [Subsection XVII(E) (KF Professional, Inc., Norman Ko, and Joseph Foster targeted)], 99 297-300 [Subsection XVII(F) [Kyu Hong Kim, CPA, Inc. and Kyu Hong Kim targeted)].) As Defendant points out there are no allegations of negligence by him. Thus, as currently plead, it is not possible for the Court to determine when Defendant’s own negligent conduct occurred, what damages stemmed from any alleged conduct, and by corollary when the statute of limitations would have expired as to Hanna. Thus, insofar as the demurrer to the second and eighth causes of action is based on the ground that those claims are time-barred, it is overruled. Second Cause of Action - Negligence Defendant demurs to the second cause of action on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for negligence against him. As discussed above, the allegations of negligence only target other defendants, not Hanna. Defendant further contends that Plaintiff’s negligence-based causes of action fail because Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendant owed her a duty of care. “The existence of a duty is the threshold element of a negligence cause of action.” (Friedman v. Merck & Co. (2003) 107 Cal. App.4th 454, 463). “ “Where there is no legal duty, the issue of professional negligence cannot be pled because with the absence of a breach of duty, an essential element of the cause of action for professional negligence is missing.” >” (Giacometti v. Aulla, LLC (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1137 [citing Major Clients Agency v. Diemer (1998) 67 Cal. App.4th 1116, 1132.) “The existence and scope of a duty are questions of law for the court's determination.” Minute Order Page 2 of 9 Park _Joinder 00045 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 18STCV05667 July 25,2019 PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG 10:46 AM Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: None Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None (Ericson v. Federal Express Corp. (2008) 162 Cal. App.4th 1291, 1300). In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the complaint sufficiently alleges facts to constitute negligence. Plaintiff alleges that “[a]ll Defendants had a duty of care to Plaintiff to not stop business operations of PDTW because such actions would cause reasonably foreseeable harm to Plaintiff and only Plaintiff.” (Complaint 99 24, 252, 348.) Defendant contends that the allegations are insufficient to establish a duty to Plaintiff because there is no authority for the proposition that one owes a duty to an equity owner of an entity “to not stop the business operations” of that entity because doing so arguably causes indirect, downstream harm to the equity owner. The Court agrees. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for negligence against Defendant Hanna and therefore sustains the demurrer to the second of action. Eighth Cause of Action - Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Defendant argues that “Negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort . . .” and that Plaintiff’s negligent infliction cause of action is predicated on Plaintiff’s negligence claim. (Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol (2010) 181 Cal. App.4th 856, 875- 876.) As discussed above, Plaintiff does not allege a cognizable claim for negligence. Plaintiff’s opposition does not address Defendant’s position on the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. Accordingly, the Court sustains the demurrer to the eighth cause of action. Fifth Cause of Action - Abuse of Process “[Albuse of process arises when one uses the court’s process for a purpose other than that for which the process was designed.” (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1056.) “Process is action taken pursuant to judicial authority. It is not action taken without reference to the power of the court.” (Adams v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 521, 530.) Examples of process include service, attachment, and injunction. (Gaab & Reese, Cal. Practice Guide: Trial Claims and Defenses (The Rutter Group 2018) 9 4:3.) The elements of an abuse of process cause of action are: (1) an ulterior motive by the person using the process; and (2) a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding. (See Rusheen, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1057.) Minute Order Page 3 of 9 Park _Joinder 00046 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 18STCV05667 July 25,2019 PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG 10:46 AM Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: None Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None Defendant argues that there are no allegations that Hanna took any action pursuant to judicial authority. Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have been involved in a three-year conspiracy to conceal and destroy evidence in order to prevent Plaintiff from using the judicial system to protect herself. (Complaint 4 352.) As to this concealment or destruction of evidence, it is clear that what Plaintiff is referring to is her discovery disputes in other cases. (See Complaint, p. 371:12-19.) These allegations do not establish that Defendant invoked or obtained process for a purpose other than that for which the process was designed. (See Adams, supra, 2 Cal. App.4th at p. 531.) At most, these allegations suggest a violation of civil discovery rules. Courts have held that such a violation, on its own, does not constitute an abuse of process. (Flores v. Emerich & Fike (E.D. Cal. 2006) 416 F.Supp.2d 885, 907 [holding that attorneys engaged in spoliation and concealment of evidence did not establish that firm and attorneys willfully misused power of court, but rather at most suggested violation of civil discovery rules, and therefore allegations did not establish prima facie claim of abuse of process against firm and attorneys, warranting striking of abuse of process claim].) “Moreover, there were adequate remedies to enforce the discovery rules in the prior case.” (Id. [holding that “[i]t is impermissible to sue for prior violations of discovery rules in a subsequent lawsuit”].) Based on the foregoing, the Court sustains the demurrer to the fifth cause of action. Ninth Cause of Action - Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 A private party has standing to bring a UCL claim if he or she has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s unfair competition. (See Law Offices of Mathew Higbee v. Expungement Assistance Services (2013) 214 Cal. App.4th 544, 555-56.) “[A]n identifiable trifle [of injury] is enough for standing . . ..” (Id. at 561.) Defendant demurs to the ninth cause of action on the ground that “Plaintiff has no standing, whether as a consumer or as a competing business vis-a-vis [ Defendants] under California UCL law.” (Hanna Demurrer, at 22; Rafols Demurrer, at 19.) Moreover, although Plaintiff alleges statutory violations, those violations are not separately pled apart from the conduct that comprises Plaintiffs negligence claims-which, as discussed above, fail. (Complaint 9 422.) Plaintiff does not address this cause of action in opposition. Minute Order Page 4 of 9 Park _Joinder 00047 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 18STCV05667 July 25,2019 PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG 10:46 AM Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: None Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None Accordingly, the Court sustains the demurrer to the ninth cause of action. Tenth Cause of Action - Defamation Per Quod (mis-numbered Ninth cause of action in the complaint) The elements of a claim for defamation (whether libel or slander) are: (1) intentional publication by defendant of statement of fact; (2) that is false; (3) defamatory; (4) unprivileged; and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damages. (Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal. App.4th 1354, 1369; see Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720.) Publication, which may be written (libel) or oral (slander), is defined as a communication to some third person who understands both the defamatory meaning of the statement and its application to the person to whom reference is made. (Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal. App.4th 637, 645; Civil Code §§ 45, 46.) Publication need not be to the public or a large group; communication to a single individual is sufficient. (Ibid; Cunningham v. Simpson (1969) 1 Cal.3d 301, 306.) The Complaint generally alleges that “Defendants fabricated many statements in the draft termination letter contained in the May 5/6 2015 e-mail that Schnider drafted and the May 14, 2015 termination letter that Peddie and his firm drafted” and that “Defendants conspired to fabricate” the “grounds for termination” in the May 14, 2015 letter whose “words came from ... Peddie.” (Complaint, pp. 462-463 at qq 425, 424.) Plaintiff further alleges that these false statements resulted in her termination and her being denied her severance package. (Ibid.) Hanna argues that to the extent the claim is based on a May 14, 2015 letter, that claims was the subject of a prior case that Plaintiff dismissed. Thus, he argues that res judicata applies. Further, Hanna argues the claim is time barred to the extent it is based on the May 2015 letter. Plaintiff has not alleged tolling and has not argued tolling in her opposition. A claim for defamation must be brought within one year of accrual of the cause of action. See Code Civ. Proc., § 340(c); Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1237.) A cause of action for defamation accrues at the time the defamatory statement is published. (Shivley, at p. 1242- 1243.) Because Plaintiff did not commence this action until November 20, 2018, that part of her defamation cause of action that is based upon the May 14, 2015 letter to Plaintiff’s counsel is time-barred. Hanna points out that at the end of this cause of action Plaintiff alleges Hanna “published the following statement in public to third persons who did not know the statements were false, and the false statements were damaging to Plaintiff’s reputation, works, designs, brand name Minute Order Page 5 of 9 Park _Joinder 00048 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 18STCV05667 July 25,2019 PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG 10:46 AM Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: None Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None THOMAS WYLDE: . .. John Hanna falsely stated that: “Paula Thomas went stomping out of the office one day slamming the door and she never came back;” Paula Thomas asked her daughter to carry her children because she was not able to do it because of disease; Paul Thomas was not able to run the company, design new collections and continue to work as a designer; John Hanna and Park falsely stated that Paula Thomas got paid sick leave and was unable to design anymore; Hanna falsely stated that Paula Thomas lost her skills to be a Chief Creative Director, and Jene Park can do a better job.” (Complaint §436(f)-(j).) 36(1)). The Court notes that none of these statements are defamatory on their face. The “fact that a statement is not defamatory on its face requires only that the plaintiff plead and prove the defamatory meaning and special damages.” (Savage v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1993) 21 Cal. App. 4th 434, 447.) Pleading libel or defamation per quod requires alleging that people had special knowledge of facts from which they could discern that statements were defamatory. (Palm Springs Tennis Club v. Rangel (1999) 73 Cal. App. 4th 1, 7.) Plaintiff has not done so. Indeed, Plaintiff has failed to state any facts alleging publication. Plaintiff fails to allege when Hanna made these allegedly defamatory statements, by what means, where, and to whom. The allegations are devoid of context. Accordingly, the Court sustains the demurrer to the tenth cause of action. Eleventh through Thirteenth Causes of Action: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relationships; Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (mis-numbered Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth causes of action in the complaint) Defendant Hanna demurs to the eleventh through thirteenth causes of action on the ground that they are barred by the statute of limitations, given that all of the alleged interferences “date back to 2014 and early 2015.” (Demurrer, p. 24.) The statute of limitations for claims of interference with contractual relations and intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage is two years. (Code Civ. Proc. § 339; Augusta v. United Service Automobile Assn. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 4, 10; see Edwards v. Fresno Community Hosp. (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 702, 706.) “Generally speaking, a cause of action accrues [and the statute of limitations begins to run] at ‘the time when the cause of action is complete with all of its elements’ [Citations.]” (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 806-807.) Minute Order Page 6 of 9 Park _Joinder 00049 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 18STCV05667 July 25,2019 PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG 10:46 AM Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: None Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None The elements for the tort of intentional interference with the performance of a contract are: “(1) a valid contract between plaintiff and another party; (2) defendant’s knowledge of the contract; (3) defendant’s intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage.” (Asahi Kasei Pharma Corporation v. Actelion Ltd. (2013) 222 Cal. App.4th 945, 958.) A cause of action for interference with contractual relations does not lie against a party to the contract. (See Dryden v. Tri-Valley Growers (1977) 65 Cal. App.3d 990, 999.) The elements of the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage are * * “(1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1153.) As part of the third element of the tort, “a plaintiff must [also] plead and prove that the defendant’s acts are wrongful apart from the interference itself.” (Id. at p. 1154.) “The tort of negligent interference with prospective economic advantage is established where a plaintiff demonstrates that (1) an economic relationship existed between the plaintiff and a third party which contained a reasonably probable future economic benefit or advantage to [the] plaintiff; (2) the defendant knew of the existence of the relationship and was aware or should have been aware that if it did not act with due care its actions would interfere with this relationship and cause [the] plaintiff to lose in whole or in part the probable future economic benefit or advantage of the relationship; (3) the defendant was negligent; and (4) such negligence caused damage to [the] plaintiff in that the relationship was actually interfered with or disrupted and [the] plaintiff lost in whole or in part the economic benefits or advantage reasonably expected from the relationship.” (North American Chemical Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal. App.4th 764, 786.) As with the intentional tort, the defendant's conduct must be independently wrongful apart from the interference itself. (Lange v. TIG Ins. Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1187.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hanna, among others, interfered with Plaintiff’s contractual relationships and prospective economic advantages relating to her employment and the licensing of her intellectual property (“IP”). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges interference with a July 18, 2014 contract (9 438; Ex. 30) and licensing agreements for trademarks and copyrights executed in September 2013 (9 439). Plaintiff alleges generally that Defendant Hanna interfered with her economic relationships with TW Holdings, PDTW and TW. (9 442, 444). Plaintiff also alleges Minute Order Page 7 of 9 Park _Joinder 00050 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 18STCV05667 July 25,2019 PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG 10:46 AM Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: None Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None that she was injured as a result of that interference. Specifically, Defendant’s interference resulted in her termination and the loss of her IP. (See Complaint 9 19, 439.) The conduct constituting the alleged interferences date back to 2013, 2014, and early 2015. (See Complaint 9 19-20, 23, 438-440, 442, 444; See generally, Complaint at pp. 264-299, 459-460.) As the alleged conduct occurred in 2014 and early 2015 and Plaintiff's damages were realized no later than April 1, 2015 when she was terminated and lost her IP rights, Plaintiff’s own pleadings demonstrate she knew of the predicate facts as early as April 1, 2015. The statute of limitations would have expired no later than April 1, 2017. Plaintiff did not file this action until November 20, 2018, or over one year after her claims would have expired. Accordingly, the Court sustains the demurrer to the eleventh through thirteenth causes of action. Leave to Amend Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given. (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal. App.4th 1217, 1227.) A court is not to deny leave to amend where there is any reasonable possibility that a plaintiff can state a good cause of action. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349. Leave to amend “should be denied where the facts are not in dispute and the nature of the claim is clear, but no liability exists under substantive law.” (Lawrence v. Bank of America (1985) 163 Cal. App.3d 431, 436.) The burden of showing that a reasonable possibility exists that amendment can cure the defects remains with the plaintiff. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court will rewrite a complaint. (Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries, Inc. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1153.) Where the plaintiff offers no allegations to support the possibility of amendment and no legal authority showing the viability of new causes of action, there is no basis for finding an abuse of discretion in sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians’ Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 29, 43-44.) Here, Plaintiff has not requested leave to amend in her opposition and has not suggested any basis for amendment that would cure the defects described above. Therefore leave to amend will not be granted. Clerk to give notice. Minute Order Page 8 of 9 Park _Joinder 00051 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 30 18STCV05667 July 25,2019 PAULA THOMAS, et al. vs KRING & CHUNG 10:46 AM Judge: Honorable Barbara M. Scheper CSR: None Judicial Assistant: C. Wilson ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None Certificate of Mailing is attached. Minute Order Page 9 of 9 Park _Joinder 00052