Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 21NWCV00713, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00713    Hearing Date: July 28, 2022    Dept: SEC


CASE NO.:  21NWCV00713

HEARING:  07/28/22






Plaintiff EBF HOLDINGS, LLC’s Unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant VICKY MYUNGHEE RHEE is GRANTED. The alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication is rendered MOOT.


Moving Party to give notice.


No Opposition filed as of July 26, 2022.


This action based on contractual fraud was filed by Plaintiff EBF HOLDINGS, LLC (“Plaintiff”) against Defendants GARMENTS WHOLESALE WORLDWIDE, INC. (“Corporate Defendant”) and VICKY MYUNGHEE RHEE (“Rhee”) on October 25, 2021.


Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following causes of action:

1)   Breach of Payment Rights Purchase and Sale Agreement (against Corporate Defendant only)  

2)   Fraud (against All Defendants)

3)   Negligent Misrepresentation (against All Defendants)

4)   Violation of UCL (against All Defendants)

5)   Claim and Delivery (against All Defendants) and

6)   Breach of Guaranties (against Individual Defendant)

On January 5, 2022, Default Judgment was entered in favor of the Plaintiff against the Corporate Defendant.


On January 20, 2022, Plaintiff’s unopposed Demurrer to the Rhee’s Answer was SUSTAINED without leave to amend.


On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for an Order that the Truth of the Matters Specified in the Requests for Admissions Propounded to Defendant Rhee be Deemed Admitted was GRANTED.


Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment, or alternatively summary adjudication of the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action against Defendant Rhee.


A “deemed admitted” order establishes that a nonresponding party has responded to the propounding party’s requests for admissions by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein. (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.) Party admissions are given “an unusual deference in summary judgment proceedings. An admission is binding unless there is a credible explanation for the inconsistent positions taken by a party. [Citations.]” (FPI Development Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 396.) When an admission against a party’s own interest “becomes relevant to the determination, on motion for summary judgment, of whether or not there exist triable issues of fact between the parties, it is entitled to and should receive a kind of deference not normally accorded evidentiary allegations in affidavits.” (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 22.)


As indicated above, on June 28, 2022, this Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Deem Matters in Requests for Admissions propounded onto Defendant Rhee Admitted. Thus, Rhee has admitted that:


·        Rhee executed the Purchase Agreement and a Guaranty of the Purchase Agreement.

·        The Corporate Defendant is in breach of the Purchase Agreement.

·        That when Rhee represented in writing that the Corporate Defendant’s monthly average sales for business were $77,891.00 and its annual sales were $934,692, Rhee knew this was not true.

·        That when Rhee representing in writing that the Corporate Defendant’s monthly average sales for its business were $77,891.00 and its annual sales were $934,692.00, Rhee intended to mislead Plaintiff into purchasing the Corporate Defendant’s Future Receipts for $50,000.00.

·        That when the Corporate Defendant accepted the payment of $50,000.00 for the purchase of future receivables, Rhee never intended for Plaintiff to collect the $75,000.00 in receivables.

·        That Plaintiff justifiably relied on Rhee’s representations that the Corporate Defendant’s monthly average sales for its business were $77,891.00 and its annual sales were $934,692.00 when it agreed to purchase the Corporate Defendant’s Future Receipts for $50,000.00.

·        Rhee is in breach of the Guaranty.


“A party is bound by admissions made in the course of discovery and, on motion for summary judgment, no further evidence of the matters so deemed admitted is required.” (Hejmadi v. AMFAC, Inc. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 525, 553.)


Plaintiff has met its burden of showing that Rhee cannot raise any triable issues of material facts and has no viable affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth claims. The burden shifts to Rhee, who has not opposed the Motion. The unopposed Motion is GRANTED.