Preview
Oscar G. Jimenez (SBN —
§- E
1
195433)
SELLAR HAZARD & LUCIA Fi IE
2 A Professional Law Corporation
201 North Civic Drive, Suite 145 NOV l 4 2018
w Walnut Creek, CA 94596
4
Telephone:
Facsimile -
(925) 938-1430
(925) 256-7508 wmwu‘
W ,
v
..
ofi'ficm
“m
Email: oiimenez@sellarlaw.com BY
kl:
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cross—Defendants
6 KOREA HOUSE, INC. and HYE 0. KIM
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA
9 1N AND FOR THE COUNTY 0F SANTA CLARA
10
KOREA HOUSE, INC., a California corporation; Case No.2 16CV294263
11 HYE 0. KIM, an individual
PLAINTIFFS’ LIMITED OPPOSITION TO
12 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT’S Ex PARTE APPLICATION
FOR ELISOR AND RELATED ORDERS;
13 v. AND SUPPORTING DECLARATION 0F
OSCAR G. JIMENEZ
14 JAMES YONG KANG, an individual; SARAH
WANG, individually; and DOES 1 through 20, Date: November 14, 201 8
15 inclusive, Time: 8: 15 a.m.
Dept: 6
16 Defendants. Judge: Honorable Theodore C. Zayner
/
17
Complaint April 25, 2016
18
AND RELATED CRoss-COMPLAINT. Filed:
Tnal Date: Janumy 25, 2019
19
20 TO THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
21 Plaintifis/Cross-Defendants KOREA HOUSE, INC. and HYE O. KIM (hereinafter collectively
22 referred to as “Plaintiff’) hereby jointly submit their opposition to Defendant/Cross-Defendant JAMES
23 KANG’s (“KANG”) ex parte application for Elisor and related orders in the above-referenced matter.
24 KANG is asking the Coun to appoint an Elisor to sign the Business Listing Agreement retaining
25 business/broker Thomas Kim; however, counsel for KANG failed to inform the Court, both at the time
26 of requesting the original order and in his current application, that Thomas Kim had his real estate broker
27 license REVOKED on May 26, 2009 and was DENIED reinstatement of his license by the Bureau 0f
28 Real Estate of the State of California (“BRE”) on October l4. 2014.
_ 1 _
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDAN’f’s EX’fiAfiT’E APPL FOR ELISOR AND RELATED ORDERS
II
According t0 the BRE Order Denying Reinstatement of Mr. Kim’s License:
“The burden of proving rehabilitation rests with the petitioner (Feinstein v. State Bar
(1952) 39 Cal. 2d 541). A petitioner is required to show a greater proof of honesg
and integrig than an applicant for first time licensure. The proof must be sufficient
to overcome the prior adverse judgment on the applicant’s character (Tardiflv. State Bar
(1980) 27 Cal. 3d 395).
The BRE Order signed by Commissioner Wayne S. Bell further states that:
“I have considered the petition of Respondent [Thomas Kim] and the evidence submitted
in support thereof. Respondent has failed to demonstrate to my satisfaction that
Respondent has undergone sufficient rehabilitation to warrant reinstatement 0f
Respondent’s real estate broker license at this time.”
[See Declaration 0f0scar G. Jimenez (“OGJ Decl.”), Exhibit “B”]
10
11 Therefore, Plaintiff is NOT being recalcitrant in refusing to sign the listing agreement and, in
12 fact, has “good cause” and a very reasonable explanation and reason for not wishing to retain Thomas
13 Kim in this instance, specifically related to valid concerns that Mr. Kim is not properly licensed.
14 In addition, the Court should not force Plaintiff to retain an unlicensed broker in this instance, by
15 appointing an Elisor to execute the agreement on behalf of Plaintiff, which would be a clear abuse of
16 discretion and would exceed the bounds of reason.
17 Finally, Plaintiff is in agreement that a broker should be retained to effectuate, facilitate, and
18 expedite the sale of the subject restaurant/business. In fact, a viable alternative was proposed to counsel
19 for KANG who is currently licensed, well qualified. and has never faced any disciplinary action: Ms.
20 Kumhee Lamb (BRE license No. 01989569).
21 However, KANG rejected the proposal to retain Ms. Lamb without providing any good reason
22 and insists that we retain Mr. Kim, despite his revoked license, which is the purpose of KANG’s ex parte
23 application for an Elisor and related order.
24 For purposes of the ex parte hearing, it should be noted that:
25 o Plaintiff agrees that a listing agent should be retained, just not Mr. Kim;
26 o Ms. Kumhee Lamb, a Korean speaking listing agent in good standing, should be retained in this
27 instance; and
28 o A listing agreement retaining Ms. Lamb can be executed TODAY, if so appointed by the Court.
_ 2 -
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO_DEFENDANT’SWE-X PARTE APPL FOR ELISOR AND RELATED ORDERS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR
ELISOR AND RELATED ORDERS
AWN
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
This matter involves a dispute arising out of breached business contracts relating t0 the purchase
of 50% of stock and the management of a Korean restaurant named “Jin Mi Oak” located at 2340 E1
Camino
\OOONONKII
Real, Santa Clara, California (hereinafier referred to as the “business” or “restaurant”). At the
center of the dispute is KANG’s alleged 50% ownership 0f the business.
On October 3, 201 8, a hearing occurred with the Honorable Theodore C. Zayner wherein an order
for appointment of a listing agent, specifically naming Thomas Kim, was entered. At the time of the
10
hearing, both counsel and the Court were not aware of the fact that Mr. Kim had his licensed revoked
11
and had been denied reinstatement. Counsel for KANG, James Hann, as a longtime member and
12
advocate of the Korean community, was trusted in his proposal for retaining Mr. Kim, who seemed to
13
be a logical choice since he speaks fluent Korean (required by both Plaintiff and KANG) and is familiar
14
with the Korean community and customs. (See OGJ Decl., Para. 2).
15
On October 10, 201 8, Ireceived a frantic call from my client, Hye O. Kim, stating that the locks
16
had been changed at the restaurant and that she could not enter the building t0 show the business to a
17
18
prospective buyer that day. KANG had been parading around with the Order retaining Mr. Kim, and
misrepresented to both Mr. Kim and the locksmith that he had “won the case” and that he was given the
19
right to do anything to the restaurant. The order is specific in that the broker, upon inspection of the
20
premises, has the ability to recommend renovations to the restaurant; however, this was never done. (See
21
OGJ Decl., Para. 3)
22
It should also be noted that Mr. Kim NEVER contacted Plaintiff (Hye O. Kim) regarding
23
24
retention, access to the restaurant, or for purposes of changing the locks. The only contact my client
25
received was an email, basically stating that KANG could do whatever he wanted to at the restaurant
and that the locks had been changed. (See OGJ Decl., Para. 4)
26
27
28
-3 _
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION "Tb'bEFENDANT’S Ex PARTEXWL FOR ELISOR AND RELATED ORDERS
That same day, I looked up Mr. Kim on the California BRE website and discovered that his
license was, in fact, revoked and that he had been denied reinstatement. I immediately called Mr. Hann
AWN t0 protest the retention and appointment 0f Mr. Kim in this instance. (See OGJ Decl., Para. 5)
I also immediately called and sent an email to Mr. Kim, requesting that he immediately “stand
down” and contact me directly with respect to the restaurant, that he had not been retained, and pointing
out that my client had concerns due to the current status ofhis broker’s license due to disciplinary actions.
(See
\OOONONUI
OGJ Decl., Para. 6)
I have since proposed a very viable alternative as a listing agent in this case (Kumhee Lee);
however, KANG has refused to retain Ms. Lee, but has not provided any good reason for his refusal, and
10 insists that Mr. Kim be retained in this instance, which resulted in this ex parte application for Elisor.
11 (See OGJ Decl., Para. 8)
12 II. DISCUSSION
13 A. The purpose of CCP section 128(a)(4) isto enforce an order due to a recalcitrant party.
14 Simply put, Plaintifi is NOT being recalcitrant by refusing to sign the listing agreement for the
15 retention of Mr. Kim. In fact, the case law cited by KANG (the Blueberry Properties and Rayan cases)
16 do not involve instances where the party refusing to sign an agreement is faced with the prospect of
17 retaining an unethical listing agent or similar situation.
18 In this instance, there are very serious allegations against Mr. Kim that put into question his
19 honesty and integrity, which are detailed and outlined in the BRE order denying reinstatement of Mr.
20 Kim’s license.
21 For this reason alone, the Court should not force Plaintiff to retain an unlicensed broker in this
22 instance, by appointing an Elisor to execute the agreement on behalf of Plaintiff, which would be a clear
23 abuse of discretion and would exceed the bounds of reason.
24 B. The Court has discretion to amend its prior order to conform to law and iustice.
25 In fact, CCP section 128(a)(8) allows the Court:
26
“(8) To amend and control itsprocess and orders so as t0 make them conform to law
27
andjustice.”
28
_ 4 _
PLAINTEES"ofiposlT’IbN’T’o’DEFENDANT’s Ex PARTE APPL FOR ELISOR mi) RELATED ORDERS
In this instance, the Court should amend its previous order removing Mr. Kim as the listing agent
and, instead, substituting Ms. Lee to be appointed and retained.
III. CONCLUSION
As stated, Plaintiff agrees in the joint retention of a business broker to facilitate the listing and
sale of the restaurant; this is in everyone’s best interest.
For the reasons stated above, however, Plaintiff is NOT being recalcitrant in refusing t0 sign the
listing agreement and, in fact, has “good cause” and a very reasonable explanation and reason for not
wishing to retain Thomas Kim in this instance, specifically related to valid concerns that Mr. Kim isnot
properly licensed.
10 In addition, the Court should not force Plaintiff to retain an unlicensed broker in this instance, by
11 appointing an Elisor to execute the agreement on behalf 0f Plaintiff, which would be a clear abuse 0f
12 discretion and would exceed the bounds of reason.
13 Finally, Plaintiff proposed a viable alternative as a listing agent, Ms. Kumhee Lamb (BRE license
14 No. 01989569), who iscurrently licensed and has never faced any disciplinary action.
15 For allofthese reasons, KANG’s application for an Elisor should be m4 and the Court should
16 order that Kumhee Lamb be appointed as the listing agent in this matter for purposes of selling the
17 subject restaurant/business.
18 Respectfully submitted,
19
Dated: November 14 2018 SELLAR HAZARD & LUCIA
20
‘
21
flyflt 12¢
Oscar G. Jim
,,,,
Esq.
22 ,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants
23 KOREA HOUSE, INC. and HYE O. KIM
24
25
26
27
28
_ 5 -
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION To DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPL FOR ELISOR AfiD RELATED O'REERS
DECLARATION OF OSCAR G. JIMENEZ
I,OSCAR G. JIMENEZ, declare:
1. Iam an attorney at law duly licensed and admitted to practice law before all the courts of
the State of California and am the attorney of record herein for Plaintiffs KOREA HOUSE, INC. and
HYE O. KIM in the present action, and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to
the following.
2. On October 3, 201 8, a hearing occurred with the Honorable Theodore C. Zayner wherein
an order for appointment of a listing agent, specifically naming Thomas Kim, was entered. At the time
of the hearing, both counsel and the Court were not aware of the fact that Mr. Kim had his licensed
10 revoked and had been denied reinstatement. Counsel for KANG, James Hann, as a longtime member
11 and advocate of the Korean community, was trusted in his proposal for retaining Mr. Kim, who seemed
12 t0 be a logical choice since he speaks fluent Korean (required by both Plaintiff and KANG) and is
13 familiar with the Korean community and customs.
14 3. On October 10, 2018, I received a frantic call from my client, Hye O. Kim, stating that
15 the locks had been changed at the restaurant and that she could not enter the building to show the business
16 to a prospective buyer that day. KANG had been parading around with the Order retaining Mr. Kim,
17 and misrepresented to both Mr. Kim and the locksmith that he had “won the case” and that he was given
18 the right to do anything to the restaurant. The order isspecific in that the broker, upon inspection of the
l9 premises, has the ability to recommend renovations to the restaurant; however, this was never done.
20 4. Mr. Kim NEVER contacted Plaintiff (Hye O. Kim) regarding retention, access to the
21 restaurant, or for purposes of changing the locks. The only contact my client received was an email,
22 basically stating that KANG could do whatever he wanted to at the restaurant and that the locks had been
23 changed. A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
24 5. That same day, I looked up Mr. Kim on the California BRE website and discovered that
25 his license was, in fact, revoked and that he had been denied reinstatement. I immediately called Mr.
26 Hann to protest the retention and appointment of Mr. Kim in this instance. A true and correct copy of
27 the BRE order is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”.
28 ///
_6 _
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION To DEFEN’DANT’S EX'fiA’R’TE APPL FOR ELISOR AND RELATED ORDERS
fl 6. Ialso immediately called and sent an email to Mr. Kim, requesting that he immediately
“stand down” and contact me directly with respect to the restaurant, that he had not been retained, and
pointing out that my client had concerns due to the current status of his broker’s license due to
disciplinary actions. A true and correct copy of the email to Mr. Kim is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”.
7. On October 18, 201 8, I received an email from Mr. Kim requesting that the listing
fl
agreement be executed. Ipromptly forwarded this email to James Hann and informed him, once again,
\OOONONLII
that we refuse to sign the agreement and retain another broker and requested a conference call to discuss.
A true and correct copy of the email to Mr. Hann is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”.
8. I have since proposed a very viable alternative as a listing agent in this case (Kumhee
10 Lee); however, KANG has refused to retain Ms. Lee, but has not provided any good reason for his
11 refusal, and insists that Mr. Kim be retained in this instance, which resulted in this ex parte application
12 for Elisor. A true and correct copy of the BRE website is attached hereto as Exhibit “E”.
13 In I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
14 true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed this 14‘“ day of November 201 8, at
15 San Ramon, California.
16
l7
18
Oscar G. Jimenezy a
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_7 _
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION To DEFEN’I’SKNT’S EX PARTE APPL FOR ELISOR AND RELATED ORDERS
ll
EXHIBIT ”A”
,Print
Page 1 of2
Subject: FW: Please find an image for the entrance key which lpicked up from James Kang on 10-09-201 8
From: Oscar Jimenez (OJimenez@sellarlaw.com)
To: ojimenezacq@yahoo.com;
Date: Tuesday, November 13. 2018 9:01 PM
From: hye kim [mailto:hyekim629@gnail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10,2018 10:35 AM
To: Oscar Jimenez
Subject: Fwd: Please find an image for the entrance key which picked up fiom James Kang on
I 10-09-201 8
--------- Forwarded message -------
From: Thomas Kim
Date: 20185 10% 10% (4%) 2’51 9:25
Subject: Please find an image for the entrance key which I picked up fiom James Kang on 10-09-201 8
To: , hye kim
James Hann Esq
It isthe only enhance. No one else but Thomas Kim has the entrance key as of today.
Court ordered Hye 0k Kim not to interfere the sale ofthe Jin Mi Oak on 9-18-2018 as seen on
attached court order.
Nevertheless, Iwas told by James Kang that Hye Ok Kim changed the entrance key after she received
the court order dated 9-1 8-201 8. Wherefore James Kang re-changed the enhance key on October 2nd,
201 8.
Iwas also told that Hye Ok Kim has been threatening the locksmith that changed the entrance key on
10-02-201 8. Iwould not be able to market nor get an ofi‘er for the Jin Mi Oak under current
situation
that Hye 0k Kim and James Kang keep changing the enhance
key as I may not be able to show the
Jin Mi 0k to a prospective buyer nor a restaurant contmctor *Current
condition of the Jin Mi Oak is
not saleable. I was also told that Hye 0k Kim removed some
major kitchen equipment from the Jin
Mi Oak. That is why I need to bn'ng a restaurant contactor to Jin Mi Oak to get an written
estimate to
make the Jin Mi Oak to operable condition or saleable condition. Please report it to the court and warn
to every involved parties not to interfere the sale of the Jin Mi Oak by changing the entrance key
https://mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.mc=ym&reaonmyc 1 1/1 4/201 8
Punt
.
Page 2 of 2
anymore. I will be available for a conference call with you and the other lawyer representing Hye 0k
Kim on this afiemoon afier 1pm
Thomas Kim
Attachments
° new entrance key as of 10-09-2018.jpg (1.02MB)
° Court Order for S. J Korea Housepdf (197.73KB)
https://mail.yahoo.com/nco/Iaunch?.src=ym&reason=rnyc
l 1/ l 4/2018
EXHIBIT ”B”
FILED
UCT 1 4 20:4
BUREAU 0F RaAL ESTATE
By r
BEFORE THE BUREAU OF REAL ESTATE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10.
.
a: * x:
11 In the Matter of the Accusation
of
12»
THOMAS KIM, No. H-10310 SF
13
Respondent.
"14
ORDER DENYmG REINSTATEMENT OF LICENSE
15
0n April 28, 2009, a Decision was rendered by stipulation in
16
Case No.
H-10310 SF revoking the real estate broker license of Respondent but granting the right to
17 a
restricted real estate
salesperson license, effective May 26, 2009.
18
On April 18, 2014, Respondent petitioned for reinstatement of
said real estate
19
broker license, and the Attomey'
General of the State of California has been
20
given notice of the
filing of said petition.
21
The burden of proving rehabilitatién msts
with the petitioner (Feinstein v.State
22
Bar (1952) 39 Cal. 2d 541). A petitioher ts required to show greater proof of honesty and
23
integrity than an applicant for first time licensure.
The proof must be sufficient to overcome the
24
prior adverse judgment on the applicant's character
(Tardifi‘v. State Bar (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 395).
25
Ihave considered the petition of
Respondent and the evidence submitted in
25
support thereof. Respondent has failed
to demonstrate to my satisfaction that Respohdent has
27
undergone sufficient rehabilitation
to warrant the reinstatement
of Respondent's real estate
broker license at this time.
The Bure'au has developed cn'teria
in Section 291 l of Title 10, California Code of
Regulations (Regulations) to assist
in evaluating the rehabilitation
of an applicant for
reinstatement of a license. Among
the criteria relevant in this
proceeding are:
‘
Re ation 2911 'Dischar e of or na fide efforts toward dischar '
adjudicated debts or monem obligations to others.
Respondent had a Chapter 7 bankruptcy
discharge in June 2014. He has
outstanding debts to the IRS of
approximately $8, 000 and approximately
$30 000 for a student
10 loan for which Respondent
co-signed. He does not have
payment plans m place for the payment
11 of those debts.
12
Regglation 221 I(n) Change in
attitude from that which
exisfl at the time of the
13 conduct in question as evidenced
by any or all of the following:
14
(12 Testimony of applican.
15
Respondent failed to disclose to the Bureau’ s
investigator that Respondent
16 had been a defendant m two civil
cases. Respondent’s stated reason for not
disclosing one of the _
17 cases is that itdid not involve misrepresentation
or breach of fiduciary.
18
Given the violations found and the
fact that Respondent has not established that
19 Respondent has satisfied Regulations
291 I(j), and (n), Iam not satisfied that Respondent'1s
20 sufficiently rehabilitated to receive
a real estate broker license.
21
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that
Respondent's petition for
22 reinstatement of Respondent's
teal estate broker license is denied.
23
This Order shall become effective, at l2/e'clock noon on 3 1’ I
24
ms so ORDERED ,/o / 9/o?fl/(j/
25
COMMISSIONER
26
27
h)
mmmm
Department of Real Estate
Sacramento, CA 958 l 8-7007 FILED
Telephone: (916) 227-0789 m ‘
0F REAL ESWE
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 Iii
11
In tfie Matter ofthe Accusation of No. H-103 1 o SF
12
13 S IPULATION AND AGREEMENT
THOMAS KIM, IN S
VVVVVVV
LEM NT AND ORDER
14
Respondent.
15
16
17
It ishereby stipulated by and between THOMAS KIM (hercinafier Respondent)
and his attorney of record, Edgardo Gonzalez, and the Complainant, acting by and through
m
David B. Seals, Counsel for the Department of Real Estate, as follows for the purpose of settling
19
20
and disposing of the Accusation as to Respondent filed on February 2S, 2008, in this maner:
l. All issues which were to be contested and all evidence which was to be
21
presented by Complainant and Respondent at a formal hearing on the Accusation, which hearing
22
was to be held in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act
23 (APA),
24
shall instead and in place thereofbe submitted solely on the basis of the provisions of this
25
Stipulation and Agreement in Settlement.
26
m
///
27
H-10310 SF - 1 - THOMAS KIM
2. Respondent has rccéived, read and understands the Statement to Respondent,
the Discovery Provisions of the APA and the Accusation filed by the Department of Real Estate
in this procéeding.
3. A Notice of Defense was filed on February 28, 2008 by Respondent, pursuant
.to Section 11505 of the Government Code for the purpose of requesting a hearing on the
allegations in the Accusation. Respondent hereby freely and voluntarily withdraws said Notice
of Defense. Respondent acknowledges that he understands that by withdrawing said Notice of
Defense he will thereby waive his right to require the Commissioner te prove the allegations in
the Accusation at a contested hearing held in accordance with the provisions of the APA and that ‘
10
he will waive other rights afforded to him in connection with the hearing such as the right to
11 present evidence in defense of the allegations in the Accusation and the right to crossoexamine
12 witnesses.
13 4. This Stipulation is based on the factual allegations contained in the Accusation.
14 In the interests of expedience and economy, Respondent chooses not to contest these allegations,
15 but to remain silent and understands that, as a result thereof, these factual allegations, without
16 being admitted or denied, will serve as a prima facie basis for the disciplinary action stipulated to
l7 herein. The :Real Estate Commissioner shall not be required to provide further evidence to prove
18 said factual allegations.
19 understood by the parties that the Real Estate Commissioner
5. It is may adopt
20 the Stipulation and Agreement in Settlement as his decision in this matter thereby imposing the
21 penalty and sanctions on Respondent’s real estate licenses and license rights as set forth in the
22 below "Order". In the event that the Commissioner in his discretion does not adapt the
23 Stipulation and Agreement in Settlement, it shall be void and of no effect, and Respondent shall
24 retain the right to a hearing and proceeding on the Accusation under allthe provisions of the
25 APA and shall not be bound by any admission or waiver made herein.
26 6. The Order or any subsequent Order of the Real Estate Commissioner made
27 pursuant to this Stipulation and Agreement in Settlement shall not constitute-an estoppel, merger
H-10310 SF~ - 2 - THOMAS KIM
or bar to any further administrative or civil proceedings by the Department of Real Estate with
respect to any matters which were not specifically alleged to be causes for accusation in this
proceeding:
7. Respondent has received, read and understands the "Notice Concerning Costs
of Subsequent Audits". Respondent understands that by agreeing to this Stipulation and
Agreement in Settlement, the findings set forth below in the DETERMINATION 0F ISSUES
become finai, and that the Commissioner may charge Respondent for the costs of any audit for
which he is Icharged pur'suant to Section 10148 of the Business and Professidns Code (hereinafier
the “Code”). The reasonable cost of the audit which led to this disciplinary action is $2,743.00.
10
DETERMINATION 0F ISSUES
11
By reason of the foregoing stipulations, admissions and waivers and solely for the
12
purpose of settlement of the pending Accusation without a hearing, it isstipulated and agreed
l3
that the facts alleged above are grounds for the suspension or revocation of the licenses and.
14
license rights of Respondent under Section 10177(d) of the Code in conjunction with Section
15
10240 of the Code and Section 283 l; Title 10, California Code of Regulations.
16
l7
ORDER
18
Ail licenses and licensing rights of Respondent THOMAS KIM under the Real
Estate Law are revoked; provided, however, a restricted real estate salesperson license shall be
19
issued to Respondent pursuant to Section 101 56.5 of the Code if Respondent makes application
20
21
therefore and gals to the Degartment of Real Estate the aggrogriate fee for the restricted license _
within 90 days fiom the efiective date of this Decision. The restricted license issued to
22
Respondent shall be subject to allof the provisions of Section 101 56.7 of the Code and to the
23
following liinitations, conditions and restrictions imposed under authority of Section 101 56.6 of
24 i
that Coda.
25 I
26
1. The restricted salesperson license issued to Respondent may be sumded prior
to hearing by Order of the Real Estate Commissioner in the event of Respondent’s conviction or
27
H-10310 SF;
Preview
Oscar G. Jimenez (SBN — §- E 1 195433) SELLAR HAZARD & LUCIA Fi IE 2 A Professional Law Corporation 201 North Civic Drive, Suite 145 NOV l 4 2018 w Walnut Creek, CA 94596 4 Telephone: Facsimile - (925) 938-1430 (925) 256-7508 wmwu‘ W , v .. ofi'ficm “m Email: oiimenez@sellarlaw.com BY kl: Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cross—Defendants 6 KOREA HOUSE, INC. and HYE 0. KIM 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA 9 1N AND FOR THE COUNTY 0F SANTA CLARA 10 KOREA HOUSE, INC., a California corporation; Case No.2 16CV294263 11 HYE 0. KIM, an individual PLAINTIFFS’ LIMITED OPPOSITION TO 12 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT’S Ex PARTE APPLICATION FOR ELISOR AND RELATED ORDERS; 13 v. AND SUPPORTING DECLARATION 0F OSCAR G. JIMENEZ 14 JAMES YONG KANG, an individual; SARAH WANG, individually; and DOES 1 through 20, Date: November 14, 201 8 15 inclusive, Time: 8: 15 a.m. Dept: 6 16 Defendants. Judge: Honorable Theodore C. Zayner / 17 Complaint April 25, 2016 18 AND RELATED CRoss-COMPLAINT. Filed: Tnal Date: Janumy 25, 2019 19 20 TO THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 21 Plaintifis/Cross-Defendants KOREA HOUSE, INC. and HYE O. KIM (hereinafter collectively 22 referred to as “Plaintiff’) hereby jointly submit their opposition to Defendant/Cross-Defendant JAMES 23 KANG’s (“KANG”) ex parte application for Elisor and related orders in the above-referenced matter. 24 KANG is asking the Coun to appoint an Elisor to sign the Business Listing Agreement retaining 25 business/broker Thomas Kim; however, counsel for KANG failed to inform the Court, both at the time 26 of requesting the original order and in his current application, that Thomas Kim had his real estate broker 27 license REVOKED on May 26, 2009 and was DENIED reinstatement of his license by the Bureau 0f 28 Real Estate of the State of California (“BRE”) on October l4. 2014. _ 1 _ PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDAN’f’s EX’fiAfiT’E APPL FOR ELISOR AND RELATED ORDERS II According t0 the BRE Order Denying Reinstatement of Mr. Kim’s License: “The burden of proving rehabilitation rests with the petitioner (Feinstein v. State Bar (1952) 39 Cal. 2d 541). A petitioner is required to show a greater proof of honesg and integrig than an applicant for first time licensure. The proof must be sufficient to overcome the prior adverse judgment on the applicant’s character (Tardiflv. State Bar (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 395). The BRE Order signed by Commissioner Wayne S. Bell further states that: “I have considered the petition of Respondent [Thomas Kim] and the evidence submitted in support thereof. Respondent has failed to demonstrate to my satisfaction that Respondent has undergone sufficient rehabilitation to warrant reinstatement 0f Respondent’s real estate broker license at this time.” [See Declaration 0f0scar G. Jimenez (“OGJ Decl.”), Exhibit “B”] 10 11 Therefore, Plaintiff is NOT being recalcitrant in refusing to sign the listing agreement and, in 12 fact, has “good cause” and a very reasonable explanation and reason for not wishing to retain Thomas 13 Kim in this instance, specifically related to valid concerns that Mr. Kim is not properly licensed. 14 In addition, the Court should not force Plaintiff to retain an unlicensed broker in this instance, by 15 appointing an Elisor to execute the agreement on behalf of Plaintiff, which would be a clear abuse of 16 discretion and would exceed the bounds of reason. 17 Finally, Plaintiff is in agreement that a broker should be retained to effectuate, facilitate, and 18 expedite the sale of the subject restaurant/business. In fact, a viable alternative was proposed to counsel 19 for KANG who is currently licensed, well qualified. and has never faced any disciplinary action: Ms. 20 Kumhee Lamb (BRE license No. 01989569). 21 However, KANG rejected the proposal to retain Ms. Lamb without providing any good reason 22 and insists that we retain Mr. Kim, despite his revoked license, which is the purpose of KANG’s ex parte 23 application for an Elisor and related order. 24 For purposes of the ex parte hearing, it should be noted that: 25 o Plaintiff agrees that a listing agent should be retained, just not Mr. Kim; 26 o Ms. Kumhee Lamb, a Korean speaking listing agent in good standing, should be retained in this 27 instance; and 28 o A listing agreement retaining Ms. Lamb can be executed TODAY, if so appointed by the Court. _ 2 - PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO_DEFENDANT’SWE-X PARTE APPL FOR ELISOR AND RELATED ORDERS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR ELISOR AND RELATED ORDERS AWN I. STATEMENT OF FACTS This matter involves a dispute arising out of breached business contracts relating t0 the purchase of 50% of stock and the management of a Korean restaurant named “Jin Mi Oak” located at 2340 E1 Camino \OOONONKII Real, Santa Clara, California (hereinafier referred to as the “business” or “restaurant”). At the center of the dispute is KANG’s alleged 50% ownership 0f the business. On October 3, 201 8, a hearing occurred with the Honorable Theodore C. Zayner wherein an order for appointment of a listing agent, specifically naming Thomas Kim, was entered. At the time of the 10 hearing, both counsel and the Court were not aware of the fact that Mr. Kim had his licensed revoked 11 and had been denied reinstatement. Counsel for KANG, James Hann, as a longtime member and 12 advocate of the Korean community, was trusted in his proposal for retaining Mr. Kim, who seemed to 13 be a logical choice since he speaks fluent Korean (required by both Plaintiff and KANG) and is familiar 14 with the Korean community and customs. (See OGJ Decl., Para. 2). 15 On October 10, 201 8, Ireceived a frantic call from my client, Hye O. Kim, stating that the locks 16 had been changed at the restaurant and that she could not enter the building t0 show the business to a 17 18 prospective buyer that day. KANG had been parading around with the Order retaining Mr. Kim, and misrepresented to both Mr. Kim and the locksmith that he had “won the case” and that he was given the 19 right to do anything to the restaurant. The order is specific in that the broker, upon inspection of the 20 premises, has the ability to recommend renovations to the restaurant; however, this was never done. (See 21 OGJ Decl., Para. 3) 22 It should also be noted that Mr. Kim NEVER contacted Plaintiff (Hye O. Kim) regarding 23 24 retention, access to the restaurant, or for purposes of changing the locks. The only contact my client 25 received was an email, basically stating that KANG could do whatever he wanted to at the restaurant and that the locks had been changed. (See OGJ Decl., Para. 4) 26 27 28 -3 _ PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION "Tb'bEFENDANT’S Ex PARTEXWL FOR ELISOR AND RELATED ORDERS That same day, I looked up Mr. Kim on the California BRE website and discovered that his license was, in fact, revoked and that he had been denied reinstatement. I immediately called Mr. Hann AWN t0 protest the retention and appointment 0f Mr. Kim in this instance. (See OGJ Decl., Para. 5) I also immediately called and sent an email to Mr. Kim, requesting that he immediately “stand down” and contact me directly with respect to the restaurant, that he had not been retained, and pointing out that my client had concerns due to the current status ofhis broker’s license due to disciplinary actions. (See \OOONONUI OGJ Decl., Para. 6) I have since proposed a very viable alternative as a listing agent in this case (Kumhee Lee); however, KANG has refused to retain Ms. Lee, but has not provided any good reason for his refusal, and 10 insists that Mr. Kim be retained in this instance, which resulted in this ex parte application for Elisor. 11 (See OGJ Decl., Para. 8) 12 II. DISCUSSION 13 A. The purpose of CCP section 128(a)(4) isto enforce an order due to a recalcitrant party. 14 Simply put, Plaintifi is NOT being recalcitrant by refusing to sign the listing agreement for the 15 retention of Mr. Kim. In fact, the case law cited by KANG (the Blueberry Properties and Rayan cases) 16 do not involve instances where the party refusing to sign an agreement is faced with the prospect of 17 retaining an unethical listing agent or similar situation. 18 In this instance, there are very serious allegations against Mr. Kim that put into question his 19 honesty and integrity, which are detailed and outlined in the BRE order denying reinstatement of Mr. 20 Kim’s license. 21 For this reason alone, the Court should not force Plaintiff to retain an unlicensed broker in this 22 instance, by appointing an Elisor to execute the agreement on behalf of Plaintiff, which would be a clear 23 abuse of discretion and would exceed the bounds of reason. 24 B. The Court has discretion to amend its prior order to conform to law and iustice. 25 In fact, CCP section 128(a)(8) allows the Court: 26 “(8) To amend and control itsprocess and orders so as t0 make them conform to law 27 andjustice.” 28 _ 4 _ PLAINTEES"ofiposlT’IbN’T’o’DEFENDANT’s Ex PARTE APPL FOR ELISOR mi) RELATED ORDERS In this instance, the Court should amend its previous order removing Mr. Kim as the listing agent and, instead, substituting Ms. Lee to be appointed and retained. III. CONCLUSION As stated, Plaintiff agrees in the joint retention of a business broker to facilitate the listing and sale of the restaurant; this is in everyone’s best interest. For the reasons stated above, however, Plaintiff is NOT being recalcitrant in refusing t0 sign the listing agreement and, in fact, has “good cause” and a very reasonable explanation and reason for not wishing to retain Thomas Kim in this instance, specifically related to valid concerns that Mr. Kim isnot properly licensed. 10 In addition, the Court should not force Plaintiff to retain an unlicensed broker in this instance, by 11 appointing an Elisor to execute the agreement on behalf 0f Plaintiff, which would be a clear abuse 0f 12 discretion and would exceed the bounds of reason. 13 Finally, Plaintiff proposed a viable alternative as a listing agent, Ms. Kumhee Lamb (BRE license 14 No. 01989569), who iscurrently licensed and has never faced any disciplinary action. 15 For allofthese reasons, KANG’s application for an Elisor should be m4 and the Court should 16 order that Kumhee Lamb be appointed as the listing agent in this matter for purposes of selling the 17 subject restaurant/business. 18 Respectfully submitted, 19 Dated: November 14 2018 SELLAR HAZARD & LUCIA 20 ‘ 21 flyflt 12¢ Oscar G. Jim ,,,, Esq. 22 , Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants 23 KOREA HOUSE, INC. and HYE O. KIM 24 25 26 27 28 _ 5 - PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION To DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPL FOR ELISOR AfiD RELATED O'REERS DECLARATION OF OSCAR G. JIMENEZ I,OSCAR G. JIMENEZ, declare: 1. Iam an attorney at law duly licensed and admitted to practice law before all the courts of the State of California and am the attorney of record herein for Plaintiffs KOREA HOUSE, INC. and HYE O. KIM in the present action, and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the following. 2. On October 3, 201 8, a hearing occurred with the Honorable Theodore C. Zayner wherein an order for appointment of a listing agent, specifically naming Thomas Kim, was entered. At the time of the hearing, both counsel and the Court were not aware of the fact that Mr. Kim had his licensed 10 revoked and had been denied reinstatement. Counsel for KANG, James Hann, as a longtime member 11 and advocate of the Korean community, was trusted in his proposal for retaining Mr. Kim, who seemed 12 t0 be a logical choice since he speaks fluent Korean (required by both Plaintiff and KANG) and is 13 familiar with the Korean community and customs. 14 3. On October 10, 2018, I received a frantic call from my client, Hye O. Kim, stating that 15 the locks had been changed at the restaurant and that she could not enter the building to show the business 16 to a prospective buyer that day. KANG had been parading around with the Order retaining Mr. Kim, 17 and misrepresented to both Mr. Kim and the locksmith that he had “won the case” and that he was given 18 the right to do anything to the restaurant. The order isspecific in that the broker, upon inspection of the l9 premises, has the ability to recommend renovations to the restaurant; however, this was never done. 20 4. Mr. Kim NEVER contacted Plaintiff (Hye O. Kim) regarding retention, access to the 21 restaurant, or for purposes of changing the locks. The only contact my client received was an email, 22 basically stating that KANG could do whatever he wanted to at the restaurant and that the locks had been 23 changed. A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 24 5. That same day, I looked up Mr. Kim on the California BRE website and discovered that 25 his license was, in fact, revoked and that he had been denied reinstatement. I immediately called Mr. 26 Hann to protest the retention and appointment of Mr. Kim in this instance. A true and correct copy of 27 the BRE order is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. 28 /// _6 _ PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION To DEFEN’DANT’S EX'fiA’R’TE APPL FOR ELISOR AND RELATED ORDERS fl 6. Ialso immediately called and sent an email to Mr. Kim, requesting that he immediately “stand down” and contact me directly with respect to the restaurant, that he had not been retained, and pointing out that my client had concerns due to the current status of his broker’s license due to disciplinary actions. A true and correct copy of the email to Mr. Kim is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”. 7. On October 18, 201 8, I received an email from Mr. Kim requesting that the listing fl agreement be executed. Ipromptly forwarded this email to James Hann and informed him, once again, \OOONONLII that we refuse to sign the agreement and retain another broker and requested a conference call to discuss. A true and correct copy of the email to Mr. Hann is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”. 8. I have since proposed a very viable alternative as a listing agent in this case (Kumhee 10 Lee); however, KANG has refused to retain Ms. Lee, but has not provided any good reason for his 11 refusal, and insists that Mr. Kim be retained in this instance, which resulted in this ex parte application 12 for Elisor. A true and correct copy of the BRE website is attached hereto as Exhibit “E”. 13 In I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 14 true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed this 14‘“ day of November 201 8, at 15 San Ramon, California. 16 l7 18 Oscar G. Jimenezy a 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _7 _ PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION To DEFEN’I’SKNT’S EX PARTE APPL FOR ELISOR AND RELATED ORDERS ll EXHIBIT ”A” ,Print Page 1 of2 Subject: FW: Please find an image for the entrance key which lpicked up from James Kang on 10-09-201 8 From: Oscar Jimenez (OJimenez@sellarlaw.com) To: ojimenezacq@yahoo.com; Date: Tuesday, November 13. 2018 9:01 PM From: hye kim [mailto:hyekim629@gnail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 10,2018 10:35 AM To: Oscar Jimenez Subject: Fwd: Please find an image for the entrance key which picked up fiom James Kang on I 10-09-201 8 --------- Forwarded message ------- From: Thomas Kim Date: 20185 10% 10% (4%) 2’51 9:25 Subject: Please find an image for the entrance key which I picked up fiom James Kang on 10-09-201 8 To: , hye kim James Hann Esq It isthe only enhance. No one else but Thomas Kim has the entrance key as of today. Court ordered Hye 0k Kim not to interfere the sale ofthe Jin Mi Oak on 9-18-2018 as seen on attached court order. Nevertheless, Iwas told by James Kang that Hye Ok Kim changed the entrance key after she received the court order dated 9-1 8-201 8. Wherefore James Kang re-changed the enhance key on October 2nd, 201 8. Iwas also told that Hye Ok Kim has been threatening the locksmith that changed the entrance key on 10-02-201 8. Iwould not be able to market nor get an ofi‘er for the Jin Mi Oak under current situation that Hye 0k Kim and James Kang keep changing the enhance key as I may not be able to show the Jin Mi 0k to a prospective buyer nor a restaurant contmctor *Current condition of the Jin Mi Oak is not saleable. I was also told that Hye 0k Kim removed some major kitchen equipment from the Jin Mi Oak. That is why I need to bn'ng a restaurant contactor to Jin Mi Oak to get an written estimate to make the Jin Mi Oak to operable condition or saleable condition. Please report it to the court and warn to every involved parties not to interfere the sale of the Jin Mi Oak by changing the entrance key https://mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.mc=ym&reaonmyc 1 1/1 4/201 8 Punt . Page 2 of 2 anymore. I will be available for a conference call with you and the other lawyer representing Hye 0k Kim on this afiemoon afier 1pm Thomas Kim Attachments ° new entrance key as of 10-09-2018.jpg (1.02MB) ° Court Order for S. J Korea Housepdf (197.73KB) https://mail.yahoo.com/nco/Iaunch?.src=ym&reason=rnyc l 1/ l 4/2018 EXHIBIT ”B” FILED UCT 1 4 20:4 BUREAU 0F RaAL ESTATE By r BEFORE THE BUREAU OF REAL ESTATE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10. . a: * x: 11 In the Matter of the Accusation of 12» THOMAS KIM, No. H-10310 SF 13 Respondent. "14 ORDER DENYmG REINSTATEMENT OF LICENSE 15 0n April 28, 2009, a Decision was rendered by stipulation in 16 Case No. H-10310 SF revoking the real estate broker license of Respondent but granting the right to 17 a restricted real estate salesperson license, effective May 26, 2009. 18 On April 18, 2014, Respondent petitioned for reinstatement of said real estate 19 broker license, and the Attomey' General of the State of California has been 20 given notice of the filing of said petition. 21 The burden of proving rehabilitatién msts with the petitioner (Feinstein v.State 22 Bar (1952) 39 Cal. 2d 541). A petitioher ts required to show greater proof of honesty and 23 integrity than an applicant for first time licensure. The proof must be sufficient to overcome the 24 prior adverse judgment on the applicant's character (Tardifi‘v. State Bar (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 395). 25 Ihave considered the petition of Respondent and the evidence submitted in 25 support thereof. Respondent has failed to demonstrate to my satisfaction that Respohdent has 27 undergone sufficient rehabilitation to warrant the reinstatement of Respondent's real estate broker license at this time. The Bure'au has developed cn'teria in Section 291 l of Title 10, California Code of Regulations (Regulations) to assist in evaluating the rehabilitation of an applicant for reinstatement of a license. Among the criteria relevant in this proceeding are: ‘ Re ation 2911 'Dischar e of or na fide efforts toward dischar ' adjudicated debts or monem obligations to others. Respondent had a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in June 2014. He has outstanding debts to the IRS of approximately $8, 000 and approximately $30 000 for a student 10 loan for which Respondent co-signed. He does not have payment plans m place for the payment 11 of those debts. 12 Regglation 221 I(n) Change in attitude from that which exisfl at the time of the 13 conduct in question as evidenced by any or all of the following: 14 (12 Testimony of applican. 15 Respondent failed to disclose to the Bureau’ s investigator that Respondent 16 had been a defendant m two civil cases. Respondent’s stated reason for not disclosing one of the _ 17 cases is that itdid not involve misrepresentation or breach of fiduciary. 18 Given the violations found and the fact that Respondent has not established that 19 Respondent has satisfied Regulations 291 I(j), and (n), Iam not satisfied that Respondent'1s 20 sufficiently rehabilitated to receive a real estate broker license. 21 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Respondent's petition for 22 reinstatement of Respondent's teal estate broker license is denied. 23 This Order shall become effective, at l2/e'clock noon on 3 1’ I 24 ms so ORDERED ,/o / 9/o?fl/(j/ 25 COMMISSIONER 26 27 h) mmmm Department of Real Estate Sacramento, CA 958 l 8-7007 FILED Telephone: (916) 227-0789 m ‘ 0F REAL ESWE BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 Iii 11 In tfie Matter ofthe Accusation of No. H-103 1 o SF 12 13 S IPULATION AND AGREEMENT THOMAS KIM, IN S VVVVVVV LEM NT AND ORDER 14 Respondent. 15 16 17 It ishereby stipulated by and between THOMAS KIM (hercinafier Respondent) and his attorney of record, Edgardo Gonzalez, and the Complainant, acting by and through m David B. Seals, Counsel for the Department of Real Estate, as follows for the purpose of settling 19 20 and disposing of the Accusation as to Respondent filed on February 2S, 2008, in this maner: l. All issues which were to be contested and all evidence which was to be 21 presented by Complainant and Respondent at a formal hearing on the Accusation, which hearing 22 was to be held in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act 23 (APA), 24 shall instead and in place thereofbe submitted solely on the basis of the provisions of this 25 Stipulation and Agreement in Settlement. 26 m /// 27 H-10310 SF - 1 - THOMAS KIM 2. Respondent has rccéived, read and understands the Statement to Respondent, the Discovery Provisions of the APA and the Accusation filed by the Department of Real Estate in this procéeding. 3. A Notice of Defense was filed on February 28, 2008 by Respondent, pursuant .to Section 11505 of the Government Code for the purpose of requesting a hearing on the allegations in the Accusation. Respondent hereby freely and voluntarily withdraws said Notice of Defense. Respondent acknowledges that he understands that by withdrawing said Notice of Defense he will thereby waive his right to require the Commissioner te prove the allegations in the Accusation at a contested hearing held in accordance with the provisions of the APA and that ‘ 10 he will waive other rights afforded to him in connection with the hearing such as the right to 11 present evidence in defense of the allegations in the Accusation and the right to crossoexamine 12 witnesses. 13 4. This Stipulation is based on the factual allegations contained in the Accusation. 14 In the interests of expedience and economy, Respondent chooses not to contest these allegations, 15 but to remain silent and understands that, as a result thereof, these factual allegations, without 16 being admitted or denied, will serve as a prima facie basis for the disciplinary action stipulated to l7 herein. The :Real Estate Commissioner shall not be required to provide further evidence to prove 18 said factual allegations. 19 understood by the parties that the Real Estate Commissioner 5. It is may adopt 20 the Stipulation and Agreement in Settlement as his decision in this matter thereby imposing the 21 penalty and sanctions on Respondent’s real estate licenses and license rights as set forth in the 22 below "Order". In the event that the Commissioner in his discretion does not adapt the 23 Stipulation and Agreement in Settlement, it shall be void and of no effect, and Respondent shall 24 retain the right to a hearing and proceeding on the Accusation under allthe provisions of the 25 APA and shall not be bound by any admission or waiver made herein. 26 6. The Order or any subsequent Order of the Real Estate Commissioner made 27 pursuant to this Stipulation and Agreement in Settlement shall not constitute-an estoppel, merger H-10310 SF~ - 2 - THOMAS KIM or bar to any further administrative or civil proceedings by the Department of Real Estate with respect to any matters which were not specifically alleged to be causes for accusation in this proceeding: 7. Respondent has received, read and understands the "Notice Concerning Costs of Subsequent Audits". Respondent understands that by agreeing to this Stipulation and Agreement in Settlement, the findings set forth below in the DETERMINATION 0F ISSUES become finai, and that the Commissioner may charge Respondent for the costs of any audit for which he is Icharged pur'suant to Section 10148 of the Business and Professidns Code (hereinafier the “Code”). The reasonable cost of the audit which led to this disciplinary action is $2,743.00. 10 DETERMINATION 0F ISSUES 11 By reason of the foregoing stipulations, admissions and waivers and solely for the 12 purpose of settlement of the pending Accusation without a hearing, it isstipulated and agreed l3 that the facts alleged above are grounds for the suspension or revocation of the licenses and. 14 license rights of Respondent under Section 10177(d) of the Code in conjunction with Section 15 10240 of the Code and Section 283 l; Title 10, California Code of Regulations. 16 l7 ORDER 18 Ail licenses and licensing rights of Respondent THOMAS KIM under the Real Estate Law are revoked; provided, however, a restricted real estate salesperson license shall be 19 issued to Respondent pursuant to Section 101 56.5 of the Code if Respondent makes application 20 21 therefore and gals to the Degartment of Real Estate the aggrogriate fee for the restricted license _ within 90 days fiom the efiective date of this Decision. The restricted license issued to 22 Respondent shall be subject to allof the provisions of Section 101 56.7 of the Code and to the 23 following liinitations, conditions and restrictions imposed under authority of Section 101 56.6 of 24 i that Coda. 25 I 26 1. The restricted salesperson license issued to Respondent may be sumded prior to hearing by Order of the Real Estate Commissioner in the event of Respondent’s conviction or 27 H-10310 SF;