Motion to Compel in BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, et al vs. JIMMY CHO, et al| Trellis.Law

On April 19, 2021 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Bng Management Group, Llc, Pk Restaurant Group Inc, and Cho, Jimmy, Giant Blue Inc, Tozee Construction Inc, for CNTR CNSMR COM DEBT in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
9/10/2021 7:27 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Martin Reyes DEPUTY

CAUSE NO. DC-21-04907

PK RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC §
§
Plaintiffs,

Vv. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

TOZEE CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
GIANT BLUE, INC.,AND JIMMY CHO,
INDIVIDUALLY

Defendants. 101ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION FOR
ORDER OF PROTECTION AND EXTEND TIME & MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION
TO COMPEL, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO
ABATE MOTION TO COMPEL

TO THE HONORABLE COURT

Defendants in the above styled and numbered cause (“Movants”) in the above numbered

and styled action, brings this DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO

COMPEL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ORDER OF PROTECTION AND EXTEND TIME

TO RESPOND & MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO COMPEL, AND IN THE

ALTERNATIVE, OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO ABATE MOTION TO COMPEL, and

would show the court the following:

I
PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1 Plaintiffs filed suit in this matter on April 19, 2021.

2 Defendants filed their original answers on May 26, 2021

MOTION FOR ORDER OF PROTECTION
Page 1 of 6
3 Plaintiffs served their initial disclosures on or about June 25, 2021 without including a

required certificate of service date, EXHIBIT C.

4 Plaintiffs propounded their discovery on July 6, 2021.

5 Defendants responded on August 5, 2021.

6 An Email to lead counsel Song by lease counsel Chu was sent on September 9, 2021.

EXHIBIT D. Mr. Song did not respond nor call William Chu.
7
It is presently September 10, 2021.

IL.
SYNOPSIS

8 When Plaintiffs propounded discovery to Defendants in this Matter, additional time to

respond was timely requested and denied by Defendants. EXHIBIT A.

9 Defendants were forced to respond as best as possible with as best information as existed

at that time without the additional time.

10. Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel without a certificate of conference in violation of the

local rules.

11. It is not know what Counsel for Plaintiffs told the Clerk’s office that set their motion for a

hearing without a certificate of conference on file. However, it is the experience of Counsel for

Defendants that the clerks in Dallas County, Texas ask if the movant has a certificate of conference

on file before setting a hearing.

12. Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel without conferencing pursuant to Rule 215 so that

Counsel for Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendant could review each and every objection.

13. Counsel for Plaintiffs have failed to state their individual basis why each individual

objection is incorrect.

MOTION FOR ORDER OF PROTECTION
Page 2 of6
14. Neither of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s two emails request a time to be set up to properly

conference over Defendant’s objections. EXHIBIT B.

ls Plaintiffs Motion to Compel is not proper.

iil.
ARGUMENT

16. Defendants move this Court to strike Plaintiffs motion because (1) it was filed without a

certificate of conference, (2) it was set for a hearing without a conference, and (3) it was set for a

hearing without Plaintiff attempted to event set a date for a conference.

17. The Dallas County local rules require a good faith conference on nearly all non-dispositive

motions.

18. Texas law requires that the sides, in a motion to compel discovery, to confer regarding each

issue, that has not occurred in this issue.

19. Additionally, Defendants asked in good faith for an extension for the discovery responses

and Plaintiffs refused without having to first prove to them why a week would suffice.

20. Ultimately, Plaintiffs requested a large amount of information and a need for additional

time to respond with documents and responses is necessary.

21. However, Plaintiffs refuse to provide that additional time.

22. Defendants need additional time because their requests ask for nearly every document,

without proper specificity, that occurred between the parties, including the Defendant’s

Contractors.

23. However, the inability to respond by Defendants has been exacerbated by Plaintiff's own

failure to identify any human being fact witnesses in their own disclosures. EXHIBIT C.

24. Defendants have amended to answer many of Plaintiff's interrogatory questions, have

produced discovery, and produced documents pursuant to initial disclosures.

MOTION FOR ORDER OF PROTECTION
Page 3 of6
25. Plaintiff have not produced ANY documents pursuant to initial disclosures and have not

identified ANY human beings that work for either Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendants know of at

least:

Kevin Ok, believed to be the President or CEO of BNG

David Anh, a Project Manager of BNG

Cc Daniel Seo, a Project Manager of BNG

d Shim Kang, believed to be President of CEO of WnB.

However, Plaintiff intentionally omits all of their own fact witnesses, fact witnesses that have

direct interaction with agents of Giant Blue, Inc. and Tozee Construction, Inc.

26. Thus, Defendants move this Court to:

a, Strike Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel because

Plaintiff failed to attempt to have a meaningful conference on its problems

with Defendant’s objections;

IL Plaintiff's motion did not have a certificate of conference when their set

their motion;

iii. Plaintiff filed the his motion without a certificate of conference; and

lV, Plaintiffs’ emails to Defendants were NOT a discussion of Plaintiffs’

problems with Defendants’ Objections, which are attached hereto ad

EXHIBIT B;

b. GRANT Defendants’ Motion for Order of Protection and Motion to Extend because

i! Defendants need additional time to respond;

MOTION FOR ORDER OF PROTECTION
Page 4 of 6
ii. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is a near complete falsehood and extensive amount of

time has been needed to verify and examine the claims Plaintiffs have made

and understand the nature of Plaintiffs’ claims;

iii. Defendants have been requested to gather a rather voluminous amount of

records that take time to produce; and

Iv. This Matter is only a few months old and only two months have expired

since the initial discovery requests were made, thus additional time to

prepare documents, takes time and Counsel for Plaintiffs refuses to provide

additional time;

GRANT Defendants’ motion to abate in the alternative because Plaitniffs have

violated the local rules and Texas rules because of the manner in which they have

set this motion to compel and so as to give Defendants and additional time to fully

and completely respond.

27. Thus, good cause exists to GRANT the relief herein.

IV.
ATTORNEY’S FEES

28. Pursuant to Rule 215 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, any other rule, the local rules,

and/or its inherent powers, this Court should award Defendants with reasonable attorneys fees that

it took to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel because it was done improperly, because

attempts by Defendants’ Counsel, William Chu, to confer with Talim Song prior to filing this

motion were had, but not responded to.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Premises Considered, Defendants pray that this Court GRANTS Defendants’
Motion and ORDERS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Struck, ORDERS Protection from Plaintiffs’
compel requests, ORDERS an Extension of Defendants’ response date to a date this Court sees fit,

MOTION FOR ORDER OF PROTECTION
Page 5 of6
and GRANTS any relief in the alternative and ORDERS Plaintiffs to pay Defendants’ attorney’s
fees.

/s/ William Chu
William Chu
SBN: 04241000
wmchulaw@aol.com
LAw OFFICES OF WILLIAM CHU
4455 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1008
Dallas, Texas 75244
(T) 972-392-9888
(F) 972-392-9889
ATTORNEY FOR
DEFENDANTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 21a, the undersigned certifies that a true and correct
copy of this document was contemporaneously E-served to all parties or their counsel of record
via efile.txcourts.gov to their email address on file therein on 9/10/2021.
w we Chu 2, aZO)

CERTIFICATE OF CER’
Counsel William Chu attempted to call and confer régarding this motion, and the follow up email
is attached hereto as EXHIBIT D. Attempts to call were made for a second time on September 10,
2021. Thus, Court intervention is necessary.
/s/ William Chu

MOTION FOR ORDER OF PROTECTION
Page 6 of6

9/10/21, 5:54 PM Re: DC-21-04907 PK and BNG v. Tozee et al.

From: joyce.wmchulaw@gmail.com,
To: jwhiddon@tailimsong.com,
Cc: wmchulaw@aol.com, tsong@tailimsong.com
Subject: Re: DC-21-04907 PK and BNG v. Tozee et al.
Dai : Fri, Jul 30, 2021 ae
ae Se
Mr. Whiddon,

We would like to request additional time to respond to the discovery you sent on July 6. Would you be agreeable
to a 30 day extension for the Requests for Production, the Interrogatories to Cho, the Interrogatories to Giant
Blue, and the Interrogatories to Tozee.

Sincerely,

a
Joyce E. Bonga
Assistant
Law Offices Of William Chu
4455 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1008
Dallas, Texas 75244
Ph: 972.392.9888
Fax: 972.392.9889
joyce.wmchulaw@gmail.com

https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 4
9/10/21, 5:55 PM Fwd: DC-21-04907 PK and BNG v. Tozee et al.

From: derrick.wmchulaw@gmail.com,
To: jwhiddon@tailimsong.com,
Cc: wmchulaw@aol.com, tsong@tailimsong.com,
Subject: Fwd: DC-21-04907 PK and BNG v. Tozee et al.
Date: Wed, ag 4, 2021 12:35 pm
—— ee ———
Mr. Whiddon,

1am following up the email below. Would you be agreeable to a 30-day extension on the discovery requests that
was served on July 6, 2021?

Thank you,

Sincerely

Derrick Dong
Assistant
Law Office of William Chu
972-392-9888
derrick.wmchulaw@gmail.com

none Original Message: anne
From: Joyce Bonga
To: Jordan Whiddon
Cc: WILLIAM CHU ; tsong@tailimsong.com
Sent: Fri, Jul 30, 2021 4:07 pm
Subject: Re: DC-21-04907 PK and BNG v. Tozee et al.

Mr. Whiddon,

Sincerely,

-
Joyce E. Bonga
Assistant
Law Offices Of William Chu
4455 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1008
Dallas, Texas 75244
Ph: 972.392.9888
Fax: 972.392.9889
joyce.wmchulaw@gmail.com

httos://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 4M
9/10/21, 5:55 PM Re: DC-21-04907 PK and BNG v. Tozee et al.

From: jwhiddon@tailimsong.com,
To: derrick.wmchulaw@gmail.com,
Cc: wmchulaw@aol.com, tsong@tailimsong.com,
Subject: Re: DC-21-04907 PK and BNG v. Tozee et al.
Date: Wed, Aug fae 2:08 pm
——
Derrick,

Would you mind explaining why an additional 30 days is necessary when 30 days have already passed since the
discovery was sent? I don't foresee extending discovery out that far as reasonable, but perhaps you can sway me
with a compelling reason.

Thanks,
Jordan

On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 12:35 PM Derrick Dong wrote:
| Mr. Whiddon,

| Lam following up the email below. Would you be agreeable to a 30-day extension on the discovery requests
| that was served on July 6, 2021?

| Thank you,
|
| Sincerely
|
|| Derrick Dong
| Assistant
Law Office of William Chu
972-392-9888
derrick,wmchulaw@gmail.com

| Mr. Whiddon,
j|

We would like to request additional time to respond to the discovery you sent on July 6. Would you be
| agreeable to a 30 day extension for the Requests for Production, the Interrogatories to Cho,
| the Interrogatories to Giant Blue, and the Interrogatories to Tozee.
||
|Sincerely,
|
|
i Joyce E. Bonga
| Assistant
| Law Offices Of William Chu
4455 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1008
| Dallas, Texas 75244
Ph: 972.392.9888
| Fax: 972.392.9889
httos://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintWessage 4/2
9/10/21, 5:55 PM Re: DC-21-04907 PK and BNG v. Tozee et al.

From: : wmchulaw@aol.com,
To; ; jwhiddon@tailimsong.com, derrick.wmchulaw@gmail.com,
Co: : tsong@tailimsong.com,
Subject: : Re: DC-21-04907 PK and BNG v. Tozee et al.
Date: : Wed, Aug 4, 2021 2:22 pm
—_— _ ee
Mr Whiddon,

The answer is because we need it, we have a trial on Friday that was originally set for Monday.

If you don't want to agree to any customary extensions of any deadlines for the pendency of this entire case then that is a
decision you can make right now for everyone. Please have Tailim call me if he decides for his client that he does not want
to agree.

Thank you,

William Chu
4455 LBJ Fwy Suite 1008
Dallas, Texas 75244
972 392-9888 (Office)
972 392-9889 (Fax)
214 263-9988 (Cell)
wmchulaw@aol.com

~----Original Message:
From: Jordan Whiddon
To: Derrick Dong
Cc: William ; Tailim Song
Sent: Wed, Aug 4, 2021 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: DC-21-04907 PK and BNG v. Tozee et al.

Derrick,

Would you mind explaining why an additional 30 days is necessary when 30 days have already passed since the discovery
was sent? | don't foresee extending discovery out that far as reasonable, but perhaps you can sway me with a compelling
reason.

Thanks,
Jordan

On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 12:35 PM Derrick Dong wrote:
| Mr. Whiddon,
| am following up the email below. Would you be agreeable to a 30-day extension on the discovery requests that was
| served on July 6, 2021?

| Thank you,

| Sincerely

| Derrick Dong
Assistant
| Law Office of William Chu
| 972-392-9888
|
derri ck.wmchulaw@gmail.com

eel Original Message- sl
| From: Joyce Bonga
| To: Jordan Whiddon
| Co: WILLIAM CHU ; tsong@tailimsong.com
| Sent: Fri, Jul 30, 2021 4:07 pm
httoc://mail_ aol com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintWessaqe 41/2
9/10/21, 5:55 PM Re: DC-21-04907 PK and BNG v. Tozee et al.

From: jwhiddon@tailimsong.com,
To: wmchulaw@aol.com,
Ce: derrick.wmchulaw@gmail.com, tsong@tailimsong.com,
Subject: Re: DC-21-04907 PK and BNG v. Tozee et al.
Date: Wed, Aug 4, 2021 2:32 om
pe .
Mr. Chu.

Respectfully, you haven't had a trial for the past 30 days. If you haven't been diligent in preparing the
discovery responses up to now, having a trial doesn't excuse that. If there's some other reason why you've been
unable to prepare the responses and need a week or so, I could do that. However, 30 days is excessive and not
customary.

Thanks,
Jordan

On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 2:22 PM William Chu wrote:
| Mr. Whiddon,

| The answer is because we need it, we have a trial on Friday that was originally set for Monday.
i If you don't want to agree to any customary extensions of any deadlines for the pendency of this entire case then that is
a decision you can make right now for everyone. Please have Tailim call me if he decides for his client that he does not
want to agree.

Thank you,

William Chu
4455 LBJ Fwy Suite 1008
Dallas, Texas 75244
972 392-9888 (Office)
972 392-9889 (Fax)
214 263-9988 (Cell)
wmchulaw@aol.com

-----Original Message- a
From: Jordan Whiddon
com>
To: Derrick Dong ; Tailim Song
Sent: Wed, Aug 4, 2021 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: DC-21-04907 PK and BNG v. Tozee et al.

Derrick,

Would you mind explaining why an additional 30 days is necessary when 30 days have already passed since the
discovery was sent? | don't foresee extending discovery out that far as reasonable, but perhaps you can sway me with
a compelling reason.

Thanks,
Jordan

On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 12:35 PM Derrick Dong wrote:
| Mr. Whiddon,
||
| | | am following up the email below. Would you be agreeable to a 30-day extension on the discovery requests that was.
|
| served on July 6, 2021?
{
Thank you,

| Sincerely
httos://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 4/3
9/10/21, 5:56 PM Conference - Motion to Extend

From: wmchulaw@aol.com,
To: jwhiddon@tailimsong.com,
Ge: tsong@tailimsong.com,
Subject: Conference - Motion to Extend
Date: Wed, Aug 4, 2021 Sot pm
- e —
Me Whiddon,

We are filing a motion to extend discovery response due. | am sending this email to conference. | assume you are
opposed.

William Chu
4455 LBJ Fwy Suite 1008
Dallas, Texas 75244
972 392-9888 (Office)
972 392-9889 (Fax)
214 263-9988 (Cell)
wmchulaw@aol.com

httos://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintNessage 1A
9/10/21, 5:56 PM Re: Conference - Motion to Extend

From: : jwhiddon@tailimsong.com,
To! ; wmchulaw@aol.com,
Ce: : tsong@tailimsong.com,
Subject: : Re: Conference - Motion to Extend
Date: : nee ae 4, 2021 5:08 pm
eens ee —
Mn Chu,

Would you please properly confer with me by answering the questions I previously asked of you: (1) what
extenuating circumstances justify your request for additional time? (2) why a week extension will not suffice?
and (3) what has been done up to now to prepare the responses? I owe a duty to my client to continue to
progress in the case absent a reasonable explanation. If you will be reasonable and explain the basis for your
request, perhaps you won't need to file a motion at all.

Thanks,
Jordan

On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 5:01 PM William Chu wrote:
| Mr. Whiddon,

| We are filing a motion to extend discovery response due. | am sending this email to conference. | assume you are
| opposed,

| William Chu
4455 LBJ Fwy Suite 1008
Dallas, Texas 75244
972 392-9888 (Office)
| 972 392-9889 (Fax)
| 214 263-9988 (Cell)
| wmchulaw@aol.com

-
-
Jordan Whiddon
Senior Associate
TAILIM SONG LAW FIRM
8111 LBJ Freeway, Suite 480
Dallas, Texas 75251
Telephone (214) 528-8400
Fax (214) 528-8402
IMPORTANT NOTICES:
This message is attorney privileged and confidential information and is transmitted for the exclusive
information and use of the addressee. Please notify the sender by email if you are not the intended
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not copy, disclose, or distribute this message or its
contents to any other person and any such actions may be unlawful.
This communication does not reflect an intention by the sender or the sender's agent or sender's client to
conduct a transaction or make any agreement by electronic means. Nothing contained in this message or
in any attachment shall satisfy the requirements for writing, and nothing contained herein shall constitute
a contract or electronic signature under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act,
any version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any other statute governing electronic
transactions.
Please note that this law firm does not accept time sensitive or action-oriented messages via email. We
further reserve the right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this email

httos://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintWessage 1/2
9/10/21, 5:56 PM Re: Conference - Motion to Extend

From: : wmchulaw@aol.com,
To: : jwhiddon@tailimsong.com,
Ce: : tsong@tailimsong.com,
Subject: : Re: Conference - Motion to Extend
Date : Wed, Aug 4, aa 6:21 pm
—— : E ee
Mr. Whiddon,

| have explained my reasons in my previous email. | am not revealing any privileged information or getting anywhere close
to revealing any privileged information. Your prying into how | am handling my case is abusive.

Please let me know if you are opposed or not. If you refuse to respond then that will be treated as an opposed.

Thank you,
William Chu
4455 LBJ Fwy Suite 1008
Dallas, Texas 75244
972 392-9888 (Office)
972 392-9889 (Fax)
214 263-9988 (Cell)
wmchulaw@aol.com

riginal Message-
From: Jordan Whiddon
To: William Chu
Cc: tsong@tailimsong.com
Sent: Wed, Aug 4, 2021 5:08 pm
Subject: Re: Conference - Motion to Extend

Mr. Chu,

Would you please properly confer with me by answering the questions | previously asked of you: (1) what extenuating
circumstances justify your request for additional time? (2) why a week extension will not suffice? and (3) what has been
done up to now to prepare the responses? | owe a duty to my client to continue to progress in the case absent a
reasonable explanation. If you will be reasonable and explain the basis for your request, perhaps you won't need to file a
motion at all.

Thanks,
Jordan

On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 5:01 PM William Chu wrote:
' Mr. Whiddon,
_ We are filing a motion to extend discovery response due. | am sending this email to conference. | assume you are
| opposed.

| William Chu
| 4455 LBJ Fwy Suite 1008
| Dallas, Texas 75244
| 972 392-9888 (Office)
972 392-9889 (Fax)
214 263-9988 (Cell)
wmchulaw@aol.com

=
~
Jordan Whiddon
Senior Associate
TAILIM SONG LAW FIRM
41/2
9/10/21, 5:56 PM Re: Conference - Motion to Extend

From: jwhiddon@tailimsong.com,
To; wmchulaw@aol.com,
Ce: tsong@tailimsong.com,
Subject: Re: Conference - Mation to Extend
Dat Thu, Aug 5, 2021 12:28 pm
~— ———~ ——

Mr. Chu,

"Because I said so" is not a valid reason. I'm not prying, but rather asking to confer regarding your prospective
motion. If you don't want to confer and explain the basis for your motion, I'm sure the Judge will ask you the
same question later. Please note that if your responses aren't timely, I'm going to treat these emails as evidence
of conscious indifference and ask the Court to strike any objections later-lodged and compel responses. I really
don't think that's necessary though. If you can simply give me a reasonable basis, I'm happy to give you a week.

Thanks,
Jordan

On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 6:21 PM William Chu wrote:
. Mr. Whiddon,

| have explained my reasons in my previous email. | am not revealing any privileged information or getting anywhere
close to revealing any privileged information. Your prying into how | am handling my case is abusive.

Please let me know if you are opposed or not. If you refuse to respond then that will be treated as an opposed.

Thank you,

William Chu
4455 LBJ Fwy Suite 1008
Dallas, Texas 75244
972 392-9888 (Office)
972 392-9889 (Fax)
214 263-9988 (Cell)
wmchulaw@aol.com

wanna Original Message:
From: Jordan Whiddon
To: William Chu
Cc: tsong@tailimsong.com
com
‘tsong@tallimsong.cc
Sent: Wed, Aug 4, 2021 5:08 pm
Subject: Re: Conference - Motion to Extend

Mr. Chu,

| Thanks,
| Jordan
I
On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 5:01 PM William Chu wrote:
| Mr. Whiddon,
We are filing a motion to extend discovery response due. | am sending this email to conference. | assume you are
| opposed.
I
hl
httos'/imail aol. com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintWessage 1/3.

9/10/21, 5:57 PM Re: Conference - Motion to Extend

From: jwhiddon@tailimsong.com,
To: wmchulaw@aol.com,
Ce: tsong@tailimsong.com,
Subject: Re: Conference - Motion to Extend
Date: Fri, inca 2021 2:29 pm
~ a ee
Mr. Chu,
I'm in receipt of your clients' responses to discovery. They are woefully deficient. No documents were
produced, no verification was produced, no substantive answers were made for any defendant, and frivolous,
copied and pasted objections were attached to almost every single request. Please let me know if you plan on
amending by the end of next week. Otherwise, I'm going to be forced to move to compel and strike objections.

Thanks,
Jordan

On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 12:29 PM Jordan Whiddon wrote:
Mr. Chu,

"Because I said so" is not a valid reason. I'm not prying, but rather asking to confer regarding your
prospective motion. If you don't want to confer and explain the basis for your motion, I'm sure the Judge will
ask you the same question later. Please note that if your responses aren't timely, I'm going to treat these emails
as evidence of conscious indifference and ask the Court to strike any objections later-lodged and compel
responses. I really don't think that's necessary though. If you can simply give me a reasonable basis, I'm
happy to give you a week.

Thanks,
Jordan

On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 6:21 PM William Chu wrote:
_ Mr. Whiddon,
i
| [have explained my reasons in my previous email. | am not revealing any privileged information or getting anywhere
_ close to revealing any privileged information. Your prying into how | am handling my case is abusive.

Please let me know if you are opposed or not. If you refuse to respond then that will be treated as an opposed.
|| Thank you,
|
| William Chu
| 4455 LBJ Fwy Suite 1008
| | Dallas, Texas 75244
| 972 392-9888 (Office)
| 972 392-9889 (Fax)
| 214 263-9988 (Cell)
| wmchulaw@aol.com

anne Original Message- —
| From: Jordan Whiddon
| | To: William Chu
| Cc: tson
tsong! |@iailimsong.com
@tailimsong.com <{son\

| | Sent: Wed, Aug 4, 2021 5:08 pm
| | Subject: Re: Conference - Motion to Extend

| Mr. Chu,
||
|
1
httos://mail.ao!.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 1/3.
9/10/21, 5:57 PM Re: Conference - Motion to Extend

From:
jwhiddon@tailimsong.com,
To; wmchulaw@aol.com,
Co; tsong@tailimsong.com,
Subject: Re: Conference - Motion to Extend
Date: Tue, Aug 10, 2021 4:42 pm
Attachments: motion.compel.jw.21 Eeeae (136K)

Mr. Chu,
I never heard back from you regarding amending your clients' responses and answers. Please see attached a
motion I intend to file if J cannot gain cooperation from you in discovery. Please let me know if you are
opposed, unopposed, or in agreement with the motion.

Thanks,
Jordan

On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 2:29 PM Jordan Whiddon wrote:
| Mr. Chu,

I'm in receipt of your clients' responses to discovery. They are woefully deficient. No documents were
| produced, no verification was produced, no substantive answers were made for any defendant, and frivolous,
| copied and pasted objections were attached to almost every single request. Please let me know if you plan on
| amending by the end of next week. Otherwise, I'm going to be forced to move to compel and strike
| objections.

Thanks,
Jordan
I
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 12:29 PM Jordan Whiddon wrote:
i Mr. Chu,

| "Because I said so" is not a valid reason. I'm not prying, but rather asking to confer regarding your
| prospective motion. If you don't want to confer and explain the basis for your motion, I'm sure the Judge
| will ask you the same question later. Please note that if your responses aren't timely, I'm going to treat these
emails as evidence of conscious indifference and ask the Court to strike any objections later-lodged and
| compel responses. I really don't think that's necessary though. If you can simply give me a reasonable
basis, I'm happy to give you a week.
|
| Thanks,
| Jordan

| On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 6:21 PM William Chu wrote:
| | Mr. Whiddon,
| ' | have explained my reasons in my previous email. | am not revealing any privileged information or getting
| \ anywhere close to revealing any privileged information. Your prying into how | am handling my case is abusive.
| \|
I i Please let me know if you are opposed or not. If you refuse to respond then that will be treated as an opposed.
|
|| | Thank you,
|
William Chu
| | 4455 LBJ Fwy Suite 1008
| | Dallas, Texas 75244
| | 972 392-9888 (Office)
| 972 392-9889 (Fax)
4/4
EXHIBIT C
CAUSE NO. DC-21-04907

PK RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC

Plaintiffs,

Vv. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

TOZEE CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
GIANT BLUE, INC., AND JIMMY CHO,
INDIVIDUALLY

Defendants. 101ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFFS’ PK RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. AND BNG MANAGEMENT
GROUP, LLC’S REQUIRED DISCLOSURES

TO: Defendants Tozee Construction, Inc., Giant Blue, Inc., and Jimmy Cho,
individually, by and through their counsel of record William Chu, William Chu Law Firm,
4455 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1008, Dallas, Texas 75244.

COMES NOW Plaintiffs PK Restaurant Group, Inc. and BNG Management Group, LLC
(hereafter “Plaintiffs”), in the above-entitled and numbered cause, serves this their Required
Disclosures pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants reserve the
right to supplement insofar as discovery is ongoing.

Respectfully submitted,

TAILIM SONG LAW FIRM

4s/ Jordan Whiddon

JORDAN WHIDDON
State Bar No. 24093350
jwhiddon@tailimsong.com
8111 LBJ Fwy, Suite 480
Dallas, Texas 75251
(214) 528-8400 Telephone
(214) 528-8402 Facsimile

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS

Plaintiffs’ Required Disclosures Page 1 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of the above and foregoing document was provided to all parties and attorneys of record
on the 25th day of June, 2021.
/s/ Jordan Whiddon

Jordan Whiddon
REQUIRED DISCLOSURES

Request 194.2(b)(1): The correct names of the parties to the lawsuit.

Response: Upon information and belief, the parties are correctly named.

Request 194.2(b)(2): The name, address and telephone number of any potential parties.

Response: None at this time. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement.

Request 194.2(b)(3): The legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the responding party’s
claims or defenses (the responding party need not marshal all evidence that
may be offered at trial).

Response: Plaintiffs are a restaurant group that owns, operates, and franchises chicken
wing restaurants. Plaintiffs are in the process of opening stores in Texas for
the first time. To that end, Plaintiffs were introduced to Jimmy Cho, who
represented himself as a contractor with decades of experience. Cho
claimed to have completed several large-scale construction jobs much larger
than what Plaintiffs were requesting. Cho claimed he was the #1 contractor
in the Dallas — Fort Worth Korean community. Cho claimed he was ready,
willing, and able to perform all the work requested by Plaintiffs
immediately and to the plans and specifications provided.

Based on these representations, Plaintiff BNG Management Group, Inc.
hired Tozee Construction, Inc. and Giant Blue, Inc., Jimmy Cho’s
construction corporations to perform construction work on three (3)
leaseholds designed to become chicken wing restaurants. Each job had a
pay schedule that set forth how the payments were to be made throughout
the progress of construction. In accordance with the schedules, BNG
Management then paid Cho over $390,000.00 for the three restaurants.

Cho completed about 70% of each location, and then ceased work. Cho
claimed that he needed the entire contract price before he would finish, and
threatened he would walk off the job if his demands weren’t met. BNG
refused to modify the payment terms of the contract, and insisted that Cho
complete the work.

Plaintiffs’ Required Disclosures Page 2 of9
Cho stopped work, and stopped paying his subcontractors as a result.
Multiple subcontractors claimed liens on the properties, and threatened
lawsuits against BNG because of Cho’s failure to pay them. Cho then
attempted to interfere with the leases PK Restaurant Group, Inc. had with
the landlords by sending letters to the landlords claiming liens and
threatening to sue them if he wasn’t paid more money.

BNG was forced to retain alternate contractors to finish the jobs on each of
the three (3) properties. BNG spent about $170,000.00 finishing the jobs,
which included many repairs and replacements to defective work
discovered to have been performed by Cho.

Once BNG finished construction and PK opened the restaurants for
business, Cho, in the middle of the night went to two of the restaurants and
physically stole the signs off the front of the buildings. Cho refused to
return the signs, attempting to use the signs to extort money from Plaintiffs.
As a result, BNG was forced to purchase new signs for the restaurants.

Cho, individually and through Tozee and Giant Blue breached his
agreement with Plaintiff BNG. They had three (3) contracts. Cho breached
all three. BNG was damaged.

Cho committed civil theft when he stole the signs off the buildings and
refused to return them. PK and BNG were damaged by the theft. Cho is
also liable for statutory damages for the theft.

Cho committed fraud on Plaintiffs. Cho never intended to finish the job, as
evidenced by his failure to finish unless he was paid more than he was due
sooner that he was due. Cho made numerous misrepresentations about his
work product, experience, and ability to perform. Cho never intended to do
the work without getting paid far more than the quote, and made the
representations to induce Plaintiff BNG into the contract and to induce PK
to allow him to do work on the leaseholds. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on
the representations. Plaintiffs were damaged by the fraud.

Cho is liable to Plaintiffs for conversion. Cho stole personal property,
namely, the signs, and refused to return them on demand. Therefore,
Plaintiffs were damaged by having to replace the signs.

Cho is liable to Plaintiffs for money had and received. Cho retains money
that in equity and good conscience belongs to Plaintiffs.

Cho intentionally interfered with PK’s relationship with its landlords by

Plaintiffs’ Required Disclosures Page 3 of9
stealing the signs, refusing to finish the job on time, and by failing to
perform intentionally. PK was damaged.

Plaintiff is also requesting attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement insofar as discovery is ongoing.

Request 194.2(b)(4): The amount and any method of calculating economic damages.

Response: Plaintiffs damages are calculated as follows:

Roof Repair (Paragon Roofing): $3,777.93
Concrete (HP Forms & Concrete): $1,890.00
QKB, Inc. (Plumbing): $9,250.00
Dallas Rent ($2,913.33/mo x 3 mo delay): $8,739.99
Dallas Contractor Payment: $120,000.00
Dallas Repairs/Finish Out: $103,355.11
Dallas Payroll: $10,000.00
Carrollton Rent ($5,268.72/mo x 3 mo delay). $15,806.16
Carrollton NNN Charges (3 mo): $5,366.16
Carrollton Contractor Payment: $156,430.18
Carrollton Repairs/Finish Out: $34,398.23
Carrollton Sign: $8,660.00
Carrollton Payroll: $10,000.00
Irving Rent ($2,765.00/mo x 3 mo delay): $8,295.00
Irving NNN charges (3 mo): $3,306.15
Irving Contractor Payment: $120,000.00
Irving Repairs/Finish Out: $36,881.36
Irving Sign: $8,660.00
Irving Add’! Work (Giant Blue work not done): $11,340.00
Irving Payroll: $10,000.00
Subtotal Actual Damages $677,156.27
Attorneys’ Fees: Est. $100,000.00
Total Damages: $777,156.27
Exemplary Damages for fraud: Jury award

Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement insofar as discovery is ongoing.

Request 194.2(b)(5): The name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of
relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified person’s connection
with the case.

Response: BNG Management Group, LLC
c/o Tailim Song Law Firm

Plaintiffs’ Required Disclosures Page 4 of9
8111 LBJ Freeway, Suite 480
Dallas, Texas 75251
T: (214)528-8400
F: (214)528-8402
Plaintiff

PK Restaurant Group, Inc.
c/o Tailim Song Law Firm
8111 LBJ Freeway, Suite 480
Dallas, Texas 75251
T: (214)528-8400
F: (214)528-8402
Plaintiff

Jimmy Cho
Tozee Construction, Inc.
Giant Blue, Inc.
c/o William Chu
William Chu Law Firm
4455 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1008,
Dallas, Texas 75244
Defendants

Paragon Roofing, Inc.
1601 N. Walton Walker Blvd.
Dallas, Texas 75211
214-630-6363
Roofing company that fixed leaks

HP Forms and Concrete Work, Inc.
C6960 FM 934
Milford, Texas 7670
Telephone number unknown
Concrete subcontractor.

QKB, Inc.
315 Foxglove Ct.
Grand Prairie, TX 75052
Telephone Number unknown
Plumbing subcontractor

Frankford Crossing Shopping Center Dallas, Tx. Limited Partnership
270 Commerce Drive
Rochester, NY 14623

Plaintiffs’ Required Disclosures Page 5 of 9
Telephone number unknown
Landlord of Dallas location

Hebron Crossing Shops, LLC
c/o Christon Company
4445 Alpha Road, Suite 109
Dallas, Texas 75244
972-233-3333
Carrollton Landlord

Jin Kang
Urbanlife Construction, LLC

Case Info

Judge

WILLIAMS, STACI Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

September 13, 2021

Case Filing Date

April 19, 2021

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, et al vs. JIMMY CHO, et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties