Tentative Ruling: DO WOO KIM, ET AL. VS HYUN JONG HAN, ET AL.

• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Honorable Richard Rico                                                      Friday—January 31, 2020
Department 17                                                                               Calendar No. 5
                                            PROCEEDIL

          Park et al. v. Kim et al.
          19STCV16827 (Lead Case)
          19STCP04605 (Related Case)
          19STCP02628 (Related Case)
          19STCV44758 (Related Case)
          Motion for an Order Regarding Special Election Proceedings

                                       FENFAERHE RULING

This is a Corporations Code statutory action brought by Plaintiffs Joon Chul Park; Mary
S. Cho; Jong Soon Cho; Young Shin Yoon (collectively, “Park Plaintiffs”); and Wilton
Korean Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles (“Church”) against Defendants Do Woo
Kim, Do      Rim Kim (the “Kim Brothers”), and Hae Hwan Cho. This is one of four cases
related to    a corporate governance dispute that arose among the directors of Church. The
lead case    was initiated by the Kim Brothers; they allege that they are the true members of
Church’s     board and are correspondingly authorized to act on Church’s behalf. (Kim
Brothers’ First Amended Complaint (“KBFAC”) {ff 33, 35.) They further allege that an
opposing group of directors had a sham election on June 23, 2019 which did not lead to
the installation of a new board of directors. (KBFAC § 34.)

In response to the Kim Brothers’ lawsuit, the opposing directors of Church filed a lawsuit
against the Kim Brothers: Wilton Korean Presbyterian Church, et al. v. Do Woo Kim et
al., L.A. Superior Court Case No. 19STCP02628.! The Plaintiffs in that case (the “Han
Parties”) obtained a preliminary injunction against the Kim Brothers. Thereafter, the case
was transferred to this Department, and the Kim Brothers unsuccessfully requested a
preliminary injunction against the Han Parties in the lead case. The Kim Brothers and the
Kim Firm also filed anti-SLAPP motions as to the Han Parties’ complaint, which were
denied.

In this action, the Plaintiffs are individuals who have been members of Church for quite
some time — in one case, as early as 1979. (Park Parties’ Complaint (“PPC”) 4 2-5.) The
Park Parties are generally aligned with the Han Parties and are in fact represented by the
same counsel. The Park Parties contend that Church currently has 47 members. (PPC {|
26, Exh. 4 [list of alleged members].) With this action, the Park Plaintiffs ask the court to
exercise its powers under Corporations Code sections 9414 and 9418 to issue certain
orders regarding special election proceedings, with the goal of obtaining a clear


' The Kim Brothers brought suit in the name of Church in the lead case, and the opposing directors brought
suit in the name of Church in the related case. In order to avoid confusion, the Court omits any reference to
Church as a party, and instead refers to the individuals on each side of the controversy.
2 The Kim Brothers and the Kim Firm have appealed the anti-SLAPP rulings along with nearly every
unfavorable decision in these proceedings thus far.