Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 19STCV01929, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV01929    Hearing Date: August 26, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On December 9, 2020, CJ Freshway America Corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed its Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Minho Lim (“Lim”), Ki Soon Seo (“Seo”), N9 Int’l Trading, Inc. (“N9”), and Kaldea, Inc. (“Kaldea”) (collectively “Defendants”) alleging thirteen causes of action stemming from Defendants’ receipt of kickbacks from Plaintiff’s suppliers and customers.

            Plaintiff hired Lim as a sales associate around June 2016, and Lim’s title changed to sales coordinator around June 2017. Lim was responsible for managing Plaintiff’s sourcing and selling operations. Kaldea is a closely held corporation established by Lim’s mother, Seo. Around August 2019, Seo transferred ownership and management of Kaldea to Lim, who is Kaldea’s sole officer, owner, and employee. N9 is a closely held corporation established by Lim. Lim is the sole owner and managing agent of N9. From 2017 to 2018, N9 and Kaldea received around $500,000 from Plaintiff’s suppliers and customers. Some of the payments were reflected in invoices labeled as “Service Fees” and “Commission Fees.”

            After trial, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff on March 30, 2022. As part of enforcing the judgment, Plaintiff seeks a judgment debtor examination. On June 23, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application for order for appearance and examination of Minho Lim as owner and principal of N9 and Kaldea. However, Plaintiff has been unable to personally serve N9 and Kaldea through Lim at his registered address. As such, Plaintiff seeks permission to alternatively serve the California Secretary of State.

LEGAL STANDARD

            “If a corporation, partnership, association, trust, limited liability company, or other organization is served with an order to appear for an examination, it shall designate to appear and be examined one or more officers, directors, managing agents, or other persons who are familiar with its property and debts.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.150(a)(1).) If the order requires the appearance of a specified individual, then that individual must appear. (Id., subd. (b).) Service of orders such as an order for appearance and examination “shall be made in the same manner as a summons is served under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10) of Title 5.” (Id., § 684.110(a)(1).) Chapter 4 of Title 5 allows service upon a corporation by several methods, including any method authorized by Section 1702 of the Corporations Code. (Id., § 416.10(d).) Corporations Code section 1702, subdivision (a) provides that if an agent for service of process cannot with reasonable diligence be found at the designated address, “the court may make an order that the service be made upon the corporation by delivering by hand to the Secretary of State.”

DISCUSSION

            Here, the Court has granted Plaintiff’s applications for the appearance and examination of Minho Lim on behalf of N9 and Kaldea. (Farkas Decl., Ex. A.) However, Plaintiff cannot with reasonable diligence personally serve Lim at his listed address. Plaintiff attempted to serve the orders at 12350 Del Amo Blvd. #2004, Lakewood, CA 90715, the listed address for N9 and Kaldea. (Farkas Decl. ¶¶ 4-6.) Lim is listed as the companies’ agent for service of process at that address. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel also emailed current counsel of record for N9 and Kaldea, who refused service on the grounds that he was not authorized to accept service. (Id., ¶ 7.) Therefore, service on the Secretary of State is warranted. (See Corp. Code, § 1702(a).)  

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion for an order authorizing service on the Secretary of State is GRANTED.