Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV40599, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV40599    Hearing Date: January 31, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            After review of Plaintiff’s default judgment packet, the Court has identified the following deficiencies:

-          Plaintiffs claim that “at approximately the same time as the defamatory articles were published, Plaintiffs were in the final stages of a multi-million-dollar agreement with an affiliate of SK Telecom, part of the SK Group, one of the largest Korean Chaebols (large business conglomerates such as Samsung Group, Hyundai Motor Group, and LG Group)”. (585 Decl. ¶ 22) Plaintiffs further claim that this agreement was for $10 million, and that the SK Telecom affiliate suddenly backed away from the deal, specifically indicating that they were doing so due to the allegations in the Defamatory Articles.

However, to show this, Plaintiffs submitted a template agreement for “Investor” which in no way establishes that there were pending negotiations with SK Telecom. Indeed, the draft agreement states the parties as “Nesten Inc” and “Xxxx GROUP (Investor).” Moreover, while Plaintiffs claim that the amount was eventually negotiated to $10 million, the template agreement provides for $5 million investments, and there is no evidence to support their contention this was increased to $10 million (indeed, there is no evidence of negotiations or any draft agreement between the two parties). Finally, Plaintiffs did not submit any evidence to show that SK Telecom specifically indicated that these articles were responsible for them backing away.

Plaintiffs must submit evidence which could show: (1) that they were in negotiations with SK Group for $10 million; and (2) that SK Group saw the defamatory articles and specifically indicated that they were backing away from the deal because of them.

-          Plaintiff must set forth a summary of the case wherein all applicable legal authority is presented. This includes setting the forth the applicable defamation standard, and an application of the facts to show that each element has been met as to defamation per se. Moreover, Plaintiff must set forth legal support which could show that liability can be imposed on the publisher, the editor, and reporter of the alleged defamatory articles.