Order: INDAI SHON VS SUK JONG YOO ET AL

• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                FILED
                                                                      Superior Court of California
                     SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA                        County of Los Angeles
                         COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
                                                                           SEP 1 3 2019
                                 DEPARTMENT 71                 Sherri R.   ter, Executive Offices/Clerk of Court
                                                                By.                                  Deputy

                               mn       TIVE RULING

INDAI SHON,                                 Case No.:   BC721850

      vs.


SUK JONG YOO, an individual, et al.         Hearing Date:    September 13, 2019

Defendants Suk Jong Yoo and Mi Hye Shin’s demurrer to the first amended
complaint of Plaintiff Indai Shon is sustained with leave to amendy~ Unt                                 VY

22     AM     y7

        Defendants Suk Jong Yoo aka Andrew Lee aka Andrew Yoo (“Yoo”) and
Mi Hye Shin (“Shin”) (collectively “Defendants”) demur to the 1* (breach of
contract), 2"! (breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing), 3m
(fraud), 4" (intentional misrepresentation), 5‘ (constructive trust and restitution),
6'" (accounting), and 7" (intentional infliction of emotional distress) causes of
action in the first amended complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiff Indai Shon (“Plaintiff”).
Defendants argue Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to constitute the causes
of action. (Notice of Demurrer, pgs. 3-4; C.C.P. §430.10(e).) Defendant ACY
Global, Inc. (“ACY”) is not a party to the instant demurrer.

       Background

        The instant action is based on Defendants’ alleged failure to repay Plaintiff
funds as they agreed to under a promissory note entered into by the parties.
Plaintiff alleged that he, Defendants and ACY entered into a promissory note in
December 2006 (“Note”) pursuant to which Plaintiff provided Defendants
$280,000 in capital, and, in exchange, Defendants promised to pay Plaintiff
payments of $6,000 per month for 10 months and 50% of the profits from the
business entity using Plaintiff’s capital contribution. (FAC §f1 1-12.) Plaintiff
alleged that Defendants converted the Note into Corporate stock and thereafter
failed to make any meaningful distribution of the profits to Plaintiff, the 50%
Page 1 of 8