Defendants David S. Kim, David S. Kim & Associates, and Moses Moon Park’s demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave as to the first and second cause of action.
On June 1, 2018, Plaintiff Eden Hill Mission (“Eden Hill”) and Jeff Kern (“Kern”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants David S. Kim (“Kim”), David S. Kim & Associates (the “Firm”), and Moses Moon Park (“Park”) (collectively “Defendants”). The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) arises out of a series of litigation over the control of Eden Hill, a non-profit religious organization. On December 5, 2018, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the FAC as to the first and second causes of action with leave to amend and overruled it as to the third. On December 21, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), alleging 1) legal malpractice by Eden Hill against Kim and the Firm; 2) breach of fiduciary duty by Eden Hill against Kim and the Firm; and 3) malicious prose
Hearing Date
April 04, 2019
Type
Legal Malpractice (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Defendants David S. Kim, David S. Kim & Associates, and Moses Moon Park’s demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave as to the first and second cause of action.
On June 1, 2018, Plaintiff Eden Hill Mission (“Eden Hill”) and Jeff Kern (“Kern”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants David S. Kim (“Kim”), David S. Kim & Associates (the “Firm”), and Moses Moon Park (“Park”) (collectively “Defendants”). The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) arises out of a series of litigation over the control of Eden Hill, a non-profit religious organization. On December 5, 2018, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the FAC as to the first and second causes of action with leave to amend and overruled it as to the third. On December 21, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), alleging 1) legal malpractice by Eden Hill against Kim and the Firm; 2) breach of fiduciary duty by Eden Hill against Kim and the Firm; and 3) malicious prose