Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 24STCV26918, Date: 2024-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV26918    Hearing Date: October 17, 2024    Dept: 82

John Suh v. Hwa Chong Kang, et al., Case No. 24STCV26918

Plaintiff John Suh filed a complaint against various defendants alleging that Defendant Hwa Chong Kang executed a promissory note with the Los Angeles Korean 1st Presbyterian Church Congregation (the “church”) in the amount of $4 million and received $3.2 million.  Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and other causes of action concerning this loan.  Now, Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order on an ex parte basis to stop a trustee sale scheduled for today (October 17, 2024). 

The court elects to decide this ex parte application without holding a hearing, per Code of Civil Procedure section 166(a)(1).  The ex parte application is denied for several reasons. 

First, Plaintiff does not have standing to raise claims on behalf of the church.  The complaint was filed by John Suh as a self-represented party, though he has since retained counsel.  The church was the party to the promissory note: “On or about December 16, 2022, promissory note of $4,000,000.00 was executed between the lender and Defendant, Hwa Chong Kang (‘Kang’), and borrower and Plaintiff, LA Korean Presbyterian Church with loan maturity date of January 1, 2024, Exhibit 3.”  (Complaint ¶ 19.)  This is confirmed by the promissory note, which is attached to the complaint.  (See Complaint Exh. 3.)  However, the church is not a party to this action. 

Second, the ex parte application for a TRO is defective.  It cites no evidence, relying exclusively on the complaint.  However, the complaint is not verified so it is not admissible evidence.  Similarly, the exhibits attached to the complaint are not authenticated.  Because the ex parte application cites no admissible evidence, Plaintiff’s counsel does not demonstrate any likelihood of success on the merits.

Third, the ex parte application does not establish good cause for this exigency.  Although Plaintiff’s counsel represents that the trustee sale is today, he does not explain why Plaintiff did not seek relief sooner.  Therefore, any exigency appears to stem from Plaintiff’s negligence.

Based upon the foregoing, the court denies Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order.  The court need not address Defendant Hwa Chong Kang’s remaining arguments.  Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice.