Korea Trade Insurance Corporation vs. Chong Woen Lee

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.April 28, 2017

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 401 WEST A STREET SUITE 1150 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 TEL: 619.544.6400 FAX: 619.696.0323 ANTON N. HANDAL (Bar No. 113812) anton.handal@gmlaw.com TODD J. LANGFORD (Bar No. 254517) todd.langford@gmlaw.com LAUREN G. KANE (Bar No. 286212) lauren.kane@gmlaw.com GREENSPOON MARDER LLP One Columbia Place 401 West A Street, Suite 1150 San Diego, California 92101 Tel: 619.544.6400 Fax: 619.696.0323 Attorneys for Defendant MICHAEL & KAINSAN CAPITAL, LLC Attorneys for Intervenor H&W LAW FIRMS GROUP SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO NORTHERN DIVISION KOREA TRADE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Korean Corporation, Plaintiff, Vv. CHONG WOEN LEE, an individual; MICHAEL & KAINSAN CAPITAL, LLC, a Delaware company; BH REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT LLC, a Delaware company; AJG HOLDINGS LLC, a California company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 37-2017-00015411-CU-OR-NC INTERVENOR H&W LAW FIRMS GROUP’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO ITS FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE ITS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION AS TO DEFENDANT CHONG WOEN LEE Date: July 13, 2018 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: N-31 Judge: Hon. Timothy M. Casserly Complaint Filed: April 28, 2017 H&W LAW FIRMS GROUP, a Taiwanese Company; and Shin Hung Mai, an Individual, Intervenors. NOTICE OFMOTIONAND MOTION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 401 WEST A STREET SUITE 1150 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 TEL: 619.544.6400 FAX: 619.696.0323 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT ON July 13th, 2018 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department N-31 of this Court located at 325 South Melrose Dr., Vista, CA 92081, Intervenor H&W Law Firms Group will and does hereby move this Court for an order entering judgment on the pleadings in favor of Intervenor and against defendant Chong Woen Lee on Intervenor’s first cause of action for breach of contract for an amount of no less than $3,842,750.00 USD, as alleged in its Complaint in Intervenor filed November 14, 2017. Intervenor H&W Law Firms Group will and does hereby move this Court to dismiss without prejudice Intervenor’s second cause of action for declaratory relief and third cause of action to quiet title as to defendant Chong Woen Lee only. This Motion is based on Code of Civil Procedure §§438, 430.80, and 581, and all other applicable law, on the grounds that the Complaint states facts sufficient to constitute causes of action against the Defendant Chong Woen Lee, and that Chong Woen Lee’s Answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the Complaint in Intervenor, warranting judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor. This Motion is further based upon the Court’s file in this matter, the pleadings and records on file herein, this Notice of Motion, and the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, along with such other and further oral and documentary evidence as my be presented at the hearing thereon. DATED: May &, 2018 Respectfully submitted, GREENSPOON MARDER LLP By: TeoLag) Anton N. Handa’ Todd J. Langford Lauren G. Kane Attorneys for Plaintiff NOTICE OFMOTIONAND MOTION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 401 WEST A STREET SUITE 1150 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 TEL: 619.544.6400 FAX: 619.696.0323 ANTON N. HANDAL (Bar No. 113812) anton.handal@gmlaw.com TODD J. LANGFORD (Bar No. 254517) todd.langford@gmlaw.com LAUREN G. KANE (Bar No. 286212) lauren.kane@gmlaw.com GREENSPOON MARDER LLP One Columbia Place 401 West A Street, Suite 1150 San Diego, California 92101 Tel: 619.544.6400 Fax: 619.696.0323 Attorneys for Defendant MICHAEL & KAINSAN CAPITAL, LLC Attorneys for Intervenor H&W LAW FIRMS GROUP SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO NORTHERN DIVISION KOREA TRADE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Korean Corporation, Plaintiff, Vv. CHONG WOEN LEE, an individual; MICHAEL & KAINSAN CAPITAL, LLC, a Delaware company; BH REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT LLC, a Delaware company; AJG HOLDINGS LLC, a California company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF INTERVENOR’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Date: July 13, 2018 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: N-31 Judge: Hon. Timothy M. Casserly Complaint Filed: April 28, 2017 H&W LAW FIRMS GROUP, a Taiwanese Company; and Shin Hung Mai, an Individual, Intervenors. MEMORANDUM OFPOINTSAND AUTHORITIES Case No.: 37-2017-00015411-CU-OR-NC 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 401 WEST A STREET SUITE 1150 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 TEL: 619.544.6400 FAX: 619.696.0323 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION On November 14, 2017, Intervenor H&W Law Firms Group (“HW Law Firms”) filed a complaint in intervention (“Intervenor Complaint”) against Defendant Chong Woen Lee (“CW LEE”), Defendant BG Real Estate Investment LLC, Defendant AJG Holdings LLC, Defendant JLAG Investment LLC, and Plaintiff Korea Trade Insurance Corporation (“K-sure”). K-sure answered the Intervenor Complaint on or about December 18, 2017. CW Lee, represented in pro per, answered the Intervenor Complaint on or about April 23, 2017 (“CW Lee Answer”), in which CW Lee admitted to several key allegations in the Intervenor Complaint. Moreover, CW Lee failed to deny other allegations in the complaint, did not submit a general denial pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30(d), and put forth no affirmative defenses. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.20(a), the uncontroverted allegations in the Intervenor Complaint must be taken as true. HW Law Firms is dismissing its second cause of action for declaratory relief and third cause of action to quiettitle as to defendant Chong Woen Lee pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §581. Thus, as admitted or otherwise uncontroverted by CW Lee, HW Law Firms’ is entitled to Judgment on the Pleadings for HW Law Firms’ first cause of action for breach of contract against CW Lee and should be awarded a sum of no less than $3,842,750. II. BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT FACTS The operative pleading for this motion for judgment on the pleadings is HW Law Firms’ Intervenor Complaint filed on November 14, 2017." The Intervenor Complaint alleges that CW Lee owes HW Law Firms $3,842,750 pursuant to a promissory note executed by CW Lee on or about January 13, 2017 (“Promissory Note”). Intervenor Complaint at 418. HW Law Firms performed all of its duties and obligations under the Promissory Note. /d. at 17. CW Lee has not paid HW Law Firms any sum of money toward the amount owed under ' HW Law Firms was permitted tofile its Intervenor Complaint pursuantto this Court’s Minute Order dated October 27, 2017. MEMORANDUM OFPOINTSAND AUTHORITIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 401 WEST A STREET SUITE 1150 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 TEL: 619.544.6400 FAX: 619.696.0323 the Promissory Note. /d. at 18. CW Lee admitted these allegations are true. CW Lee Answer at 41. Accordingly, HW Law Firmsis entitled to a Judgment on the Pleadings in the amount admitted: $3,842,750. III. LEGAL STANDARD “A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at thetrial itself... Such motion may be made on the same ground as those supporting a general demurrer, i.e., that the pleading at issue fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a legally cognizable claim or defense.” Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650 [122 Cal.Rptr.2d 747], as modified (Aug. 7, 2002). A plaintiff may move for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that “the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint...” See Code Civ. Proc. §438(c)(1)(A) which states in pertinent part: (c)(1) The motion provided for in this section may only be made on one of the following grounds: (A) If the moving party is a plaintiff, that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. Formal notice is not even required since “a motion for judgment on the pleadings can be made orally.” Kortmeyer v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1293 [12 Cal.Rptr.2d 71]. The grounds for a general demurrer, and those supporting a motion for judgment on the pleadings, are never waived and can be asserted at anytime. See Code Civ. Proc. §430.80 (stating that the party against whom an answer has been filed waives objection for failure to demurrer “unless it is an objection that the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.”); ? The motion for judgment on the pleadings was codified in Code of Civil Procedure §438 in or about 1994 however,this codification did not supplant the nonstatutory motion, which remains a viable procedure for judgment on the same general grounds set forth in the statute. See Code Civ. Proc. §438; See also Stoops, supra, 100 Cal.App.4th at p. 650 (citing pre-Code Civ. Proc., § 438 case); Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 7(I)-C (The Rutter Group) 2015 97:277. MEMORANDUM OFPOINTSAND AUTHORITIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 401 WEST A STREET SUITE 1150 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 TEL: 619.544.6400 FAX: 619.696.0323 see also Lucas v. County ofLos Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 277, 284-285 (granting in limine motion for judgment was proper exercise of court’s discretion to controllitigation). Under Code of Civil Procedure §431.20(a), “[e]very material allegation of the complaint or cross-complaint, not controverted by the answer, shall, for purposes ofthe action, be taken as true.” In light of this statute, the Supreme Court in City and County ofSan Francisco v. Staude, held that judgment on the pleadings was appropriate in the absence of an effective answer on the following grounds: “the complaint herein is sufficient in all respects, and the answer does not deny any of the material allegations thereof. ..it follows that the motion for judgment on the pleadings was properly granted by the court.” (1891) 92 Cal. 560. “When allegations in a complaint are admitted by the answer, (a) no evidence need be offered in their support, (b) evidence is not admissible to prove their untruth, (c¢) no finding thereon is necessary, [and] (d) a finding contrary thereto is error.” Sande v. Sande (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 324, 327. In light ofthe fact that the Answer filed by Lee does not controvert the allegation of H&W’s Complaint that Lee was legally obligated to HW Law Firms in the amount of $3,842,750, judgment should be entered in favor ofHW Law Firms and against CW Lee in that amount. The instant motion for judgment on the pleadings is procedurally timely and correct in light of the record. CW Lee admitted that he is in breach of the promissory note and that he owes $3,842,750 to HW Law Firms. IV. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGSIS APPROPRIATE A. HW Law Firms’ Breach of Contract Claim is Properly Pled “The standard elements of a claim for breach of contract are: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) damage to plaintiff therefrom.” Wall St. Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal. App. 4th 1171, 1178 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Here HW Law Firms alleged in 9 9 if the Complaint that there was a contract (the Promissory Note). Intervenor Complaint at 9. HW Law Firms alleged in 9 17 that it performed all duties and obligations required under the Promissory Note, except for those that have been excused by CW Lee’s conduct. Id. at 17. MEMORANDUM OFPOINTSAND AUTHORITIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 401 WEST A STREET SUITE 1150 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 TEL: 619.544.6400 FAX: 619.696.0323 HW Law Firms alleged in § 18 of the Complaint that CW Lee breached the Promissory Note at least for failing to pay HW Law Firms the sums owed pursuant to the Promissory Note and not providing property as security for the amount owed under the Promissory Note. Id. at 918. HW Law Firms alleged in q 19 of the Complaint that it is damaged in an amount of no less than $3,842,750 because ofCW Lee’s breach. /d. at 19. Accordingly, HW Law Firms has properly pleaded an action for breach of contract against CW Lee in the amount of no less than $3,842,750. B. CW Lee’s Answer Does Not Deny Liability to HW Law Firms for $3,843,750 CW Lee, in his Answer admitted the truth of the pertinent allegations made by HW Law Firmsin their First Cause of Action for breach of contract cause of action. CW Lee admitted that he signed the Promissory Note. CW Lee Answer at § 1; that HW Law Firms performed all duties and obligations required under the Promissory Note.; Id.; and that he is in breach ofhis Promissory Note by not paying HW Law Firms the $3,842,750 due under the Promissory Note. ld. CW Lee went on to admit that HW Law Firms is damaged in the amount of the $3,842,750 due under the Promissory Note. CW Lee has therefore admitted or otherwise left uncontroverted all elements ofHW Law Firms claim for breach of contract under the Promissory note in the amount of $3,842,750. C. Judgment In The Amount of $3,842,750 Should be Entered Forthwith Against CW Lee. In his rambling Answer to HW Law Firms’ Complaint CW Lee admits that he owes but failed to pay HW Law Firms $3,842,750 as required under the terms of his promissory note. Where a complaint alleges facts showing indebtedness due to plaintiff, and a defendant expressly admits that he has not paid his indebtedness to plaintiff, judgement on the pleadings is appropriate. Adjustment Corp. v. Hollywood Hardware & Paint Co. (1939) 35 Cal. App. 2d 566, 569. The First Cause of action is only against CW Lee as he is the only party to the promissory note. Moreover, the Intervenor Complaint as it currently stands against CW Lee only alleges MEMORANDUM OFPOINTSAND AUTHORITIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 401 WEST A STREET SUITE 1150 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 TEL: 619.544.6400 FAX: 619.696.0323 money damages against. It does not seek any other relief against CW Lee in connection with the Rambla Property inasmuch as he does not own an interest in that property; which is the subject of the quiettitle action. Accordingly, he has no interest in that property to quiet leaving the only claim against him one for money. 3 All that remains in the case against CW Lee is his admitted indebtedness to HW Law Firms. As such Judgment on the Pleadings for PlaintiffHW Law Firms’ against CW Lee without leave to amend should be entered forthwith in the amount of $3,842,750 pursuant to §438(h)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. V. DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF INTERVENOR’S SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION IS APPROPRIATE Intervenor may dismiss any cause of action asserted in its complaint without prejudice as to any defendant prior to the actual commencement oftrial. Code Civ. Proc. §581. Accordingly, HW Law Firms is dismissing its second cause of action for declaratory relief and third cause ofaction to quiettitle as to defendant Chong Woen Lee only pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §581. VI. CONCLUSION Forthe reasons stated above, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter Judgment against CW Lee and in HW Law Firms’ favor on the Intervenor Complaint in and for an amount of no less than $3,842,750. GREENSPOON MARDER LLP DATED: May 8, 2018 Anton N. Handal Todd J. Langfor Lauren G. Kane Attorneys for Plaintiff 3 For clarity, Plaintiff has moved for dismissal of all other claims against CW Lee under the cross-complaint. MEMORANDUM OFPOINTSAND AUTHORITIES