arrow left
arrow right
  • DO WOO KIM, ET AL. VS HYUN JONG HAN, ET AL. Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • DO WOO KIM, ET AL. VS HYUN JONG HAN, ET AL. Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction) document preview
						
                                

Preview

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 10/15/2019 02:07 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by E. Gregg,Deputy Clerk David Y. Nakatsu, Esq. (State Bar No: 183050) 1 THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID Y. NAKATSU 8500 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 916 2 Beverly Hills, California 90211 Telephone:(424) 291-5944 3 LAWOFFICESDYN@GMAIL.COM 4 Jae S. Kim, Esq. (State Bar No:134336) James A. Prietto, Esq. (State Bar No: 136831) 5 LAW FIRM OF J S KIM & ASSOCIATES 6 3600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 914 Los Angeles, California 90010 7 Telephone: (213) 389-0884 Facsimile: (213) 389-0885 8 JSKIM@JSKIMLAW.COM 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, THE WILTON KOREAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN LOS ANGELES, et al. 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 12 THE WILTON KOREAN Case No: 19STCV16827 13 PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN LOS Judge: Hon. Richard E. Rico ANGELES, a Non-Profit Religious Dept. 17 14 Corporation; DO WOO KIM, an individual; DO RIM KIM, an individual; PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO 15 DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED 16 Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT 17 vs. Pending Hearing: Demurrer 18 Date: October 28, 2019 HYUN JONG HAN, an individual; YONG Time: 8:30 a.m. 19 CHUL CHO, an individual; FRANCIS Location: Dept. 17 KIM, an individual; NEE DON CHU, an 20 individual; DAE WON PARK, an individual; & DOES 1 through 50, inclusive Complaint Filed: May 14, 2019 21 Trial Date: None Defendants, 22 23 24 Plaintiffs The Wilton Korean Presbyterian Los Angeles (“CHURCH”), Do Woo Kim 25 (“WOO”) and Do Rim Kim (“RIM”) submit their Opposition to Defendants’ Notice of Demurrer 26 and Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to this honorable court. 27 // 28 // -1- PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT