Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21AHCV00165, Date: 2024-05-08 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 21AHCV00165    Hearing Date: May 8, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

JUNG H. SON,

                    Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

YOUNG S. CHOI, et al.,

 

                    Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

     CASE NO.:  21AHCV00165

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DISMISSAL

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

May 8, 2024

 

)

 

 

On December 30, 2021, plaintiff Jung H. Son (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for breach of contract against defendants Young S. Choi (“Defendant”), Boston Asset Management, LLC, Specman Corporation, and Boston Pomello Property, LLC. On May 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint which added Hea Holdings Co., Ltd. as a plaintiff.

On May 27, 2022, a request for dismissal was filed and the clerk dismissed the action with prejudice.

On March 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to set aside the dismissal with prejudice on the grounds that the request for dismissal with prejudice was filed by his attorney, Chang Ryul Ji (“Ji”), without authorization.

On April 24, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition brief. Defendant also asserted numerous evidentiary objections to the declarations filed in support of Plaintiff’s motion. Upon review, these objections are overruled.

On May 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply brief and a supporting supplemental declaration.

An unauthorized dismissal may be vacated at any time regardless of the time limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 473. (Whittier Union High School Dist. v. Sup. Ct. (Carroll) (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 504, 509; Romadka v. Hoge (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1231.) Plaintiff declares that in May 2022, he only authorized Ji to dismiss the action without prejudice. (Son Decl., ¶ 6.) On or about July 7, 2023, he communicated with Ji via Kako Talk to file a new lawsuit against the defendants, but Ji said that he was on vacation until July 15, 2023. (Son Decl., ¶¶ 7-8.) On July 18, 2023, Plaintiff met with Frederick W. Lee, who is currently Plaintiff’s counsel of record, and Mr. Lee provided Plaintiff with a copy of the request for dismissal. (Id.) Thereafter, Plaintiff and Mr. Lee sought to move forward with a motion to set aside the dismissal and attempted to obtain a declaration from Ji. (Son Decl., ¶ 12.) Ji refused to provide a declaration unless Plaintiff agreed to release any claims for malpractice. (Son Decl., ¶ 13.) From November 2023 to February 2024, another attorney representing Plaintiff, Sam M. Muriella (“Muriella”) communicated with Ji’s attorney to obtain a declaration from Ji to support this motion. (Muriella Decl., ¶¶ 5-9.)

In opposition, Defendant argues that the motion should be denied as untimely because Plaintiff knew, as early as June 7, 2022, that the action was dismissed with prejudice. Defense counsel declares that he sent a copy of the dismissal to Peter Lee on June 2, 2022, who was purportedly acting on Plaintiff’s behalf. (Myung Decl., Ex. 1.) However, on reply, Plaintiff submits a supplemental declaration in which he states that he met with Peter Lee only on May 25, 2022, and did not have any further communications with him, nor did he retain Peter Lee as his attorney. (Son Decl., ¶¶ 4-8.) Therefore, the fact that defense counsel gave Peter Lee a copy of the dismissal is irrelevant.

In light of the foregoing, the motion to set aside the dismissal with prejudice is GRANTED and the dismissal is amended to state that it is without prejudice.

 

Dated this 8th day of May, 2024

 

 

 

 

       William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.