Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: BC582128, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC582128    Hearing Date: March 27, 2025    Dept: 40

BC582128 Korean American Presbyterian Church et al. v. Hun Sung Park

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION, BY DEFENDANT HUN SUNG PARK

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

I.         BACKGROUND

      The third amended complaint (“TAC ") filed on October 9, 2020, alleges that Defendant, Hun Sung Park (“Park”) was a pastor of Korean American Presbyterian Church (“Plaintiff”) and served as president of nominal defendant, International Reformed University & Seminary (“IRUS”). After Park resigned as president, Park allegedly reformed IRUS’s board of directors who subsequently renounced Plaintiff’s jurisdiction over IRUS.

      Plaintiff alleges claims to (1) enforce a constructive over IRUS’s assets (2) for an accounting of IRUS, (3) declaratory relief and (4) fraud[1].

II.        MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

A.     Arguments and legal standards.

     Defendant Park argues that there is good cause to grant leave to file a second motion for summary judgment, or alternatively, for summary adjudication (“MSJ/MSA”). Defendant asserts that the first MSJ/MSA was filed on October 6, 2016. Since that time, all other parties have been dismissed, save for Plaintiff and Defendant Park. The first motion concerned issues and causes of action that are no longer alleged in the operative pleading. Plaintiff is now alleging an alternative theory of liability against Defendant.

      Defendant argues that recent revisions of Code Civ. Proc., § 437c permit a second MSJ/MSA based on good cause. A subsequent motion is not restricted to circumstances where there are new or different facts, circumstances, or law.

      Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

B.     Discussion

      On October 17, 2016, the court ruled on Defendants’ MSJ/MSA to the first amended complaint. At that time Plaintiff alleged six causes of action against Park and 11 other defendants who are no longer parties. (Mot.  Ex. A, pdf p. 12.) At that time, Plaintiff asserted claims for constructive trust, declaratory relief, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, accounting, violation of the Lanham Act, and trademark infringement. The issues to be adjudicated related to a former plaintiff’s standing to sue, and whether all claims were barred by a prior settlement agreement. (Id. at .pdf. p. 13.)

      A party shall not bring more than one summary judgment against an adverse party except upon an application and showing of good cause. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c subd. (a)(4).) A showing of new or different facts, circumstances, or law is not required in the circumstances here, because Defendant is not making a subsequent motion for summary adjudication based on previously asserted issues. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c subd. (f)(2).)

      A comparison of the prior operative pleading and motion thereon reflects that the third amended complaint is limited to the imposition of a constructive trust on IRUS, an accounting of IRUS’ assets, and for an order declaring the proper directors and officers of IRUS and how it should be operated.

C.     Conclusion

      Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion is granted.

III.       MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

A.     Background

      Defendant served requests for admission, set 5 on Plaintiff on September 9, 2024. Plaintiff failed to timely respond. Therefore, all requests should be deemed admitted, and the court should impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel.

B.     Discussion

      Where a party fails to respond to requests for admission, the court can deem the requests admitted against the non-responding party unless it finds that the non-responding party has subsequently served, before the hearing, a proposed response to the requests that substantially complies with statutory requirements. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 subd. (c).)

      There is no evidence that Plaintiff served responses prior to the hearing.

Imposition of sanctions is mandatory where a party’s failure to respond to the requests necessitates the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 subd. (c).)

      Set 5 of Defendant’s requests for admission relate to two documents. The requests were served by electronic mail on September 24, 2024. (Mot. Ex. A.) The responses were due on October 11, 2024. (Paradise-Switzer decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant sent a reminder by email and U.S.  mail to Plaintiff on December 18, 2024, but no response has been received. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.)

IV.       CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment, or alternatively, for summary adjudication is GRANTED.

        The court also grants Defendant’s motion for an order deeming admitted Defendant’s requests for admission set 5. Plaintiff’s responses thereto are deemed admitted. The court imposes sanctions of $360.00 against Plaintiff and counsel, PKIMLAW, APC, payable to Plaintiff within 10 days.