Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 24STCV10484, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV10484    Hearing Date: January 7, 2025    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 1-7-25

Case #24STCV10484

Trial Date: Not Set

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Jin Soo Park, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Soon Kyong Kong

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer to the Complaint

·         1^st Cause of Action: Breach of Contract

·         2^nd Cause of Action: Fraud

·         3^rd Cause of Action: Conversion

·         4^th Cause of Action: Breach of Fiduciary Duty

·         5^th Cause of Action: Constructive Trust

·         6^th Cause of Action: Unjust Enrichment

·         7^th Cause of Action: Accounting

Motion to Strike Allegations in Support of, and Claim for, Punitive Damages

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff, Soon Kyong Kong alleges the “transfer” of $1,000,000 in funds to Defendant Jin Soo Park, pastor of World in Christ Church. Plaintiff alleges Park with his fiancée or wife, Defendant Elaine Kim, created Defendant entity, Nucreatino.Ai, Inc. for purposes of using the funds to serve church functions. Plaintiff alleges Defendants misused the funds for personal use. On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint for 1) Breach Of Contract; 2) Fraud; 3) Conversion; 4) Breach Of Fiduciary Duty; 5) Constructive Trust; 6) Unjust Enrichment; and 7) Accounting.

RULING

Demurrer: Sustained with Leave to Amend.

Defendants Jin Soo Park and Elaine Kim submit a demurrer to the entire complaint for 1) Breach Of Contract; 2) Fraud; 3) Conversion; 4) Breach Of Fiduciary Duty; 5) Constructive Trust; 6) Unjust Enrichment; and 7) Accounting. The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law . . . .” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139 [“[U]nder our liberal pleading rules, where the complaint contains substantive factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled or plaintiff given leave to amend.]

The court finds the unopposed challenges to the complaint support the basis of the demurrer, and therefore sustains the demurrer with 30 days leave to amend. Plaintiff may NOT add any new causes of action. (Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023.) Any such actions will be subject to a motion to strike.

The motion to strike is MOOT.

The court will concurrently conduct the OSC re: Sanctions, et al.

Defendants to give notice.