Case Number: BC525259 Hearing Date: May 30, 2018 Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

EUN SUG CHA, an individual and assignee,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAULO HAN, et al,

Defendant(s).

______________________________________

AND RELATED CROSS-COMPLAINT

Case No.: BC525259

[TENTATIVE AND PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF DECISION BY THE COURT AFTER TRIAL AND RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 631.8

Hearing: May 30, 2018

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Dept.: 50

[TENTATIVE AND PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF DECISION BY THE COURT AFTER TRIAL

This matter came on for trial on January 3-5 and 8-10, 2018, in Department 50 of the above-entitled court before the Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet, sitting without a jury. The Court, having considered the evidence and read the arguments of counsel, issues this tentative and proposed Statement of Decision. This tentative and proposed Statement of Decision will become the Statement of Decision unless, within 15 days hereafter, a party serves and files objections to the proposed Statement of Decision.

I. OVERVIEW

In this matter, Plaintiff Eun Sug Cha (“Cha”) claimed that (a) Defendants Jong Soo Han and Soo Hyun Ahn (the “Hans”) made fraudulent or, alternatively, negligent misrepresentations to Cha regarding investing in 66 membership contracts, each in the amount of $10,000, regarding Nest Hill Resort, (b) the Hans intended that Cha rely upon the representations, (c) Cha reasonably relied upon those representations in investing $660,000 in such membership contracts, (d) the representations were false, (e) Cha did not know nor did he have any reason to know that the representations were false, and (f) Cha suffered damages of $660,000, plus interest, as a result of the fraud or negligent misrepresentations of the Hans. (See Third Amended Complaint Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action.) The Hans denied that they made any misrepresentations to Cha at any time and assert that they are not responsible for any damages Cha suffered as a result of his investment in Nest Hill Resort.

II. THE MATERIAL ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED

The Court has identified the following as the material issue to be determined by the Court:

Did Cha Prove That the Hans Made Fraudulent or Negligent Misrepresentations?

A. The Elements of a Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation Cause of Action

The elements of a cause of action for fraud are “(1) a misrepresentation, which includes a concealment or nondisclosure; (2) knowledge of the falsity of the misrepresentation, i.e., scienter; (3) intent to induce reliance on the misrepresentation; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damages. The same elements comprise a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, except there is no requirement of intent to induce reliance.” Cadlo v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (2004) 125 Cal. App. 4th 513, 519.

B. The Contentions at Trial

At trial, the Hans did not dispute the evidence that Cha invested $660,000 in what were described as 66, $10,000 membership contracts regarding Nest Hill Resort, or the fact that he lost that investment because the membership contracts in Nest Hill were nonexistent. They did, however, dispute that they made any representations whatsoever to Cha at any time regarding such membership contracts, or that they had any contact with him or Mrs. Cha prior to his investment. They denied ever meeting Cha before this litigation, and they denied ever speaking with him other than Han having received a few phone calls from Cha in 2010 to ask him for money because of Han’s brother.

C. The Evidence at Trial

Cha and his wife testified at the trial as did the Hans. No other witnesses testified. Because this case turns on the credibility of the witnesses, the Court has provided a rather extensive discussion below of the salient testimony that affected the Court’s assessment of that credibility.

1. The Testimony of Mrs. Cha

Mrs. Cha testified that she married Cha on October 20, 2008. (TR. 1/9/18, p. 62, ll. 3-9.), However, prior thereto, Cha asked her to go to Korea to discuss a $2 million investment. In the early part of 2007, she went to Landmark Tower in Seoul, Korea, to a place that had the sign on the door that said “Kou Sa Family Club.” She did not have an appointment. She said that when she first arrived, she spoke with Han. He met her at the door and introduced himself saying that he is the Family Club Han Jong Soo and he gave her a business card. It said Family Club Manager Han Jong Soo. He said he was the manager. The card identified an L.A. office as well as a Chinese and Seoul, Korea office. (Id., p. 62, ll. 14-23, p. 63, l. 2 – p. 64, l. 3, 22-28, p. 65, 1-6, 16-18, p. 66, ll. 14-16.)

She testified that Han asked her why she was there. She said her fiancé Cha planned to invest $2 million and she told him to discuss the investment. He said “Welcome, Welcome to the office. Mr. Kim Jun Sik from Seoul Family Club –He’s working L.A. Office.” (TR. 1/9/18, p. 66, l. 22 – p. 67, l. 7.)

Mrs. Cha testified that the Hans said they were working for Seoul Family Club,[1] and Han said his brother[2], his whole family, invests together, and that it’s a family company. By this point, she was sitting in his office. (TR. 1/9/18, p. 67, ll. 8 – 25, p. 68, ll. 7-11.) Han told her that “the best product you can invest is Nest Hill.” He said “Nest Hill is $10,000 per account. For all the investors due in three years, everyone will be paid 30 percent interest. If it’s one year, then 10 percent interest will be paid. And $1,000 worth of airfare will be provided . . . . And car rental and also golf course both discounted price.” He said “[w]ith the profit, there were many dividends already being collected.” He compared the investment to Kumho Resort which his brother sold around 1995 and said there was no comparison; he said “Nest Hill will provide a lot of interest, and there’s a lot of profit. . . .” (Id., p. 68, l. 27 – p. 70, l. 12.) He also said there was a money-back guarantee with his father’s property in the states, his mother’s property in Korea and his brother’s property in the states as collateral. He said he will guarantee all these properties with a declaration.[3] Mrs. Cha testified that Han gave her written material: his business card and Nest Hill introductory brochures, as well as documents regarding the family properties and the owners thereof. (Id., p. 70, l. 17 – p. 71, l. 6, p. 73, ll. 13-26.)

Mrs. Cha testified that she met Mrs. Han in front of the elevator on the way out. They just exchanged a simple greeting. However, when asked if Han introduced her, she said “no” but she called Han “honey” and he addressed her as “Soo Hyun.” The next time she saw the Hans was when they came to her wedding where she spoke with them for 1-2 minutes. (TR. 1/9/18, p. 74, l. 6 – 75, l. 5.)

When Mrs. Cha returned to the States, she conveyed to Cha her conversation with Han. She did not take any notes of the meeting with Han. Her testimony in court was entirely by memory. She acknowledged that Cha wants a money judgment against the Hans, that she wants Cha to win and that they have a common interest in the outcome. (TR. 1/10/18, p. 9, l1. 15-19, p. 10, l. 13-18, p. 15 ll. 2-3, 10, p. 20, ll. 8-13.)

***

The Court notes that Mrs. Cha’s testimony was very labored and stilted. For example, she asked to have almost every question repeated, despite the fact that she was assisted throughout by a Korean interpreter. She seemed to be crafting her answers.

2. The Testimony of Cha[4]

a. Direct Testimony on January 3, 2018

Cha initially testified that he first spoke with Han’s older brother in January or February 2008.[5] (TR. 1/3/18, p. 31, ll. 23-25.) He testified that he went to the office of the Family Club numerous times and the reason for going was “to meet with [Han’s older brother] to decide whether to invest on [sic] Nest Hill or not to invest, and we met numerous times because of that.” (Id., p. 32, ll.13-23.)

Cha next testified that he went to the Family Club location in Los Angeles for the first time after his wife met with the Hans. He claimed she introduced them to him and he “went there to make the investment.” (TR. 1/3/18, p. 34, ll. 21-25.) Cha did not explain what he meant when he stated that Mrs. Cha “introduced them to him.”

Cha then testified that he first went to the Family Club location January 8 or 15, 2007, and he met with Jun Sik Kim and Esther Park. He also spoke with Janet Kang. (TR. 1/3/18, p. 35, ll. 5-9, 12-13, 21-25 – p. 36, ll. 11-15, p. 37, ll. 17-22.)

Cha then testified that he recalled that the first meeting with Han’s older brother was about March 1, 2008 at the entrance of the parking lot of the Family Club. Cha testified that he was there because on February 29, 2008, Cha had approved investment of $190,000 over the phone. (TR. 1/3/18, p. 38, ll. 6-17.)

Cha next testified that a person named Sung Guk Kim came to “his place” two days in a row to collect two checks for his $190,000 investment in Nest Hill. (TR. 1/3/18, p. 64, ll. 25—p. 65, ll. 25, p. 66, ll. 4-5.)

b. Direct Testimony on January 4, 2018

During the second day of Cha’s testimony, he testified that he was instructed as to how to make out the payments for his second investment of $19,000 by the Hans and many others, six of whom he could name. (TR. 1/4/18, p. 24, l. 22 – 25, l. 4.) He did not explain how or when the Hans so instructed him.

Cha testified that regarding the tenth Nest Hill transaction, on February 19, 2010, he gave a check in the amount of $11,320, plus cash of $138,680 to the Hans at their father’s house in Fullerton, Orange County. (TR. 1/4/18, p. 36, l. 28- p. 38, l. 4.) Although Cha testified he received a receipt for the cash, he did not point to any receipt in the exhibits. (Id. p. 38, ll. 23-25 – p. 40, l. 12.)

When asked how he got interested in Nest Hill Resort, Cha testified that the Hans referred it to him when they called him on February 29, 2008. Although he had seen advertisements in the local newspapers and the ads got him interested, he “had absolutely no – no desire to make an investment.” (TR. 1/4/18, p. 44, ll. 10-14, 25-28, p. 45, ll. 1-4.) Cha then testified that he first spoke with Han February 29, 2008, when Han called him. He said he spoke to both Hans but not at the same time, but on the same day. (Id., p. 45, ll. 10-17.) Cha testified that the purpose of the call was with regard to his initial investment of $190,000. He told

Mr. Guk who came to Cha’s house, to hold the check because he wanted “to get some kind of assurance from Mr. Han or Mrs. Han.” So Mr. Guk had them call him “and they guide me to make the investment.” He then modified that statement to state that he instructed Mr. Guk “to Mr. Han or Mrs. Han or whoever the Family Member called me.” He said he wanted “some kind of guarantee before [he] made the investment.” (Id. at p. 45, l. 24- p. 46, l. 15.) When asked by his counsel what Han said in that conversation, he testified as follows: “He said that he met my fiancée about a year ago in my – in their office. It was at Family Club Office located in Seoul. And he hand me the memo, and contents of the memo is – I was planning to invest around $2 million and the memos indicated that, if I invest $2 million to Nest Hill, after the three years maturity date, regular investment, they will guarantee their investment through the assets of Nest Hill or the Family.” (Id., p. 46, ll. 17-26.) The Court notes that the statement that Han handed him a memo cannot be true because this conversation took place over the telephone.

Cha went on to testify that Han went over the terms of the Nest Hill investment scheme and confirmed the collateral that the entire family was putting up to guarantee his investment. (TR. 1/4/18, p. 47, l. 3 — p. 48, l. 17.)

Cha then testified that Mrs. Han said what her husband said about guaranteeing his investment; and both of them advised him to invest. Cha did not clarify whether Mrs. Han made her statements during the same conversation or during a different conversation. (TR. 1/4/18, p. 48, ll. 18 — 49, l. 4.)

Cha then testified that he decided to invest based upon their guarantee; without that, he would not have invested. (TR. 1/4/18, p. 50, ll. 7-13.)

Cha testified that the next time he spoke to the Hans was when they came to his wedding in October 2008. (TR. 1/4/18, p. 50, ll. 14-16.)

Cha then testified that the next time he spoke with them after the wedding was February 1, 2010. He was wondering how things were going. He eventually went to Korea and he learned that Nest Hill had stopped operating in 2005. Within a month or two of returning, he met with the Hans, their brother, the whole family and most of the Family Club employees. He also spoke with the Hans by telephone. He said this was around June 14, 2010. (TR. 1/4/18, p. 50, ll. 17-19, p. 52, ll. 19-22, p. 53, ll. 3- 18, p. 54, ll. 4-15.) Cha testified that ‘[t]hey admitted that everything was fraud.” They asked for time to reimburse him and not to reveal this to the police or media. He testified that he met with them on June 28, 2010 at Han’s father’s house in Fullerton, Orange County. (Id. p. 55, ll. 14-28, p. 56, ll. 10-15, p. 57, ll. 2-5.) Cha then revised his testimony to say that the phone call occurred on June 28th at Han’s brother’s office with the Hans on the speakerphone, and the meeting occurred on July 15th. (Id., p. 59, l. 17—p. 60, l. 23, p. 61, ll. 11-22.) He added that at the meeting at the Fullerton house, Mrs. Han said she would sell all the family assets and pay him back and to give her time. He did not indicate how

Mrs. Han controlled the assets of her husband’s family. He said she also offered to give him $150,000, the amount he had just invested on February 20, 2010, to settle, and she said to keep one car but return another that he apparently had repossessed. (TR. 1/4/18, p. 64, ll. 4-9, 23-28; p. 65, ll. 1-3.) He also testified that Mrs. Han had been present when he “handed over the $138,000 and change,” and she testified that she would guarantee his investment with the family’s assets. He would not have invested then without her assurance. (TR. 1/4/18, p. 66, ll. 7-1. 25.)

c. Cross-Examination Testimony on January 5, 2018

Cha went to college in New York and received a BS. He then became a licensed MRI technologist in the United States after taking an exam in English.[6] (TR. 1/5/18, p. 6, ll. 13-25.)

Cha acknowledged that he first learned about the investment opportunity in Nest Hill in a Korean newspaper in Los Angeles in around 2006. (Id., p. 4, ll. 18-27.) He testified that Exhibit 6, a Korean advertisement, was given to him by the Hans on February 19, 2010, along with several other advertisements, Exhibits 28-30. (Id., p. 5, l. 28 – p. 6, ll. 3, 26-28, p. 7, ll. 1-4, p. 14, ll. 14-18.) Surprisingly, Cha testified that prior to meeting with the Hans on February 19, 2010, he did not clearly know the terms of the membership benefits when he invested money in Nest Hill. He said “I don’t pay attention. Not much.” He was then asked “So when you invested money back in 2008, February 27, 2008, what you’re saying is that you didn’t pay attention to the benefits of the investment?” He answered: “No. I saw – I saw, but I didn’t – I didn’t – I saw, but I didn’t pay – I knew – I saw all this benefit that’s good, and then I didn’t pay attention too much, but I knew a little bit.” (Id., p. 15, ll. 7-19.) Cha then changed his testimony in response to the following question: “So what you’re saying is, until you met with Mr. Han and Mrs. Han on February 19, 2010, you didn’t really knew [sic] about the benefits of the investment in Nest Hill? Is that your testimony?” He answered: “I – I saw, and I knew very clearly. Check with it after I receive a memo from Mr. Han and Mrs. – Mr. Han’s memo and 2007 – 2007 earlier.” (Id. ll. 20-26.) He later says it could have been in 2006 or 2007 because his memory was not very clear on that. (Id., p. 20, 2-9.)

Cha then testified that he was prompted to go to the Family Club office in January, 2007 after his fiancée showed him the memo from the Hans and Han’s business card. He testified that he heard that Mr. Han’s older brother was the representative of that Family Club and he made an appointment with “Mr. Han”[7] because of what he received through his fiancée, which he considered it as an introductory letter. He did not meet with Han or his older brother; he met with Jun Sik Kim. He did not receive any brochure or promotional documents regarding investment in Nest Hill at that January meeting. Between that meeting and his first investment in Nest Hill on about 2/27/08, he did not talk to anyone from Family Club. (TR. 1/5/18, p. 20, ll. 10-23, p. 21, ll. 10-24, p. 23, l. 3-13, p. 24, l. 25 – 25, l. 4.)

Cha testified that he first met Mr. Han’s brother February 19, 2009. Then he changed his answer and said it was on the February 20; he then twice testified that the meeting was at

Mr. Han’s brother’s house in Fullerton.[8] (TR. 1/5/18, p. 28, l. 5-23.) After several pages worth of questioning, Cha then changed his testimony to state that the February meeting was not the first time he met Mr. Han’s brother; the first time was on March 1, 2008, near the parking lot of the Family club office. (Id., p. 32, ll. 9-28.) Despite this testimony, Cha acknowledged that he in fact had invested several years earlier in a similar opportunity offered by Mr. Han’s brother. (Id., p. 36, ll. 5-13, p. 37, ll. 1-17, p. 40, ll. 1-4.)

Cha testified that prior to the conversation on 2/29/09 that he claims was with Han, Cha had never talked to him, met him in person, seen a picture of him, communicated via email with him or heard his voice. He never called Han before then. He had the number on the business card and he had called the Los Angeles number, but Mr. Han’s brother answered. He called the Korean number, but Han did not answer. (TR. 1/5/18, p. 45, l. 27 – p. 46, l. 17, p. 47, l. 1-3, 24- 28, p. 48, ll. 1-11, 28, p. 49, ll. 1-3.) Cha testified that he concluded that it was Han who called him on February 29, 2009 before he finalized his initial investment because the person on the phone recounted the meeting with his fiancée and “he kind of tried to explain the terms, and he said that he would do everything according to the terms.” (Id., p. 54, ll. 9-14.)

Cha testified that from the time he received the memo that his fiancée brought from Korea in early 2007 until he made the investment on February 27, 2008, he did not talk to anybody from Family Club to confirm the terms of the investment in Nest Hill. The only people he talked to before making the investment were the Hans when they spoke on the phone on February 29, 2008. He ignored what Sung Guk Kim explained to him and he did not talk to

Mr. Han’s brother about the investment in Nest Hill before he made it. (TR. 1/5/18, p. 61, l. 21 – p. 62, l. 24.) Cha then confirmed that he made the investment in transaction nos. 1 through 9 (a period that spans February 2008 through February 20, 2009 – See Ex. 17, p. 390) solely based upon the representations made by the Hans by telephone on February 29, 2008. (Id., p. 63, l. 2 – p. 65, l. 23.) Despite that testimony, Cha then testified that Mr. Han’s brother also said on March 1, 2008, that he will guarantee the investment just as his younger brother did. Then he added that Mr. Han’s brother’s wife made a representation regarding his investment in Nest Hill; then he added Mr. Han’s mother. Then he added Mr. Han’s father. Then he added “the employees” including Janet Kang and Jong Won Park. He could not identify the “employees” because he said they “used more than ten names.” (Id., p. 67, l. 13 – p. 68, l. 13.)

c. Cross-Examination Testimony on January 8, 2018

Cha filed an earlier case on August 24, 2012 (Case No. BC490926) whereby he sued defendants other than the Hans based upon the same Nest Hill investment he alleges in this case. (TR. 1/8/18, p. 2, ll. 19 – 28, p. 3, ll. 6-10, 23-28, p. 4, l. 1 — p. 5, l. 22.)[9] Cha testified that the contents of Exhibit B, the Summary of Case in Support of Default Judgment that he obtained in the earlier case, were true, and that the amount that he was requesting in the default judgment included the $660,000 he invested in Nest Hill. (Id., p. 8, l. 18-28, p. 9, ll. 1, 28, p. 10, ll. 1-18.) The Court notes that at pages 4 and 5 of Exhibit B, it states that the defendants in the earlier case were doing business as Family Club, they were selling the Nest Hill memberships and they advertised heavily in Korean community newspapers, radio and television to sell the memberships, and the promises they made were the same promises regarding repayment, interest and additional benefits alleged in this case. In Exhibit B, it also states that based upon those representations, Cha was induced to pay the money he invested to them.

Cha testified that he signed Exhibit D, his declaration in the earlier case, after reading it and that he understood the content of the declaration and that he thought the statements were all true at the time when he signed it on May 2, 2013. (TR. 1/8/18, p. 39, l. 6 – p. 40, l. 21.) In that declaration, Cha stated that the defendants in that case were selling memberships in Nest Hill and he purchased 66 units for $660,000. He again stated that those defendants advertised heavily in the Korean community with newspapers, radio and television, and they represented to him that they would pay back the full amount of his investment plus interest, along with the same additional benefits as alleged in this case. He confirmed in his declaration that “[b]ased on the above representations, [he] was induced to pay and I did pay to Defendants $660,000 on various dates and became a member owning 66 units from 3/07/08 to 2/20/2010.” (p. 2, ll. 12-13.) (Bold in original.)

d. Redirect Testimony on January 9, 2018

Cha testified that Mr. Han’s brother was the Los Angeles branch manager of a company called Kumho Development Company from around 1995 through around 2000. Cha acknowledged that he invested around $20-30,000 in Kumho around 1997, but he dealt with a female employee and Mr. Han’s brother had nothing whatsoever to do with it. The investment was profitable. Cha’s involvement with Kumho was for three years from 1997 to more or less 2000. He did not have any contact with Mr. Han’s brother, not even a phone call or a meeting. (TR. 1/9/18, p. 20, l. 23 – p. 22, l. 6, 22-28, p. 23, ll. 1-6.) However, the Court notes that in paragraph 28 of the Third Amended Complaint, Cha alleged that “he had had a profitable investment experience several years earlier when he had invested in a similar opportunity offered by Han’s brother.” (Emphasis added.)

***

The Court notes that the testimony of Cha was inconsistent at best and revised repeatedly. At worst, it included obviously false assertions, such as (1) the assertion that Han handed him a memo during the telephone conversation on February 29, 2008, and (2) the assertion that he made the investment in transaction nos. 1 through 9 (a period that spans February 2008 through February 20, 2009) solely based upon the representations made by the Hans by telephone on February 29, 2008. The latter assertion was clearly contradicted by the statements Cha made regarding the conduct and impact of other defendants in Exhibit D, his declaration in support of the default judgment entered in the earlier action.

3. The Testimony of Han

He went to Ohio State University after high school. He received a Bachelor degree in Economics in 2001. He was then in the Korean Navy for three years as a translator and an officer. He left in 2005, and was hired as a salesperson at Tong Pu Steel. He left that job in January or February of 2008. He then went to L.A. in June or July of 2008, then back to Korea, then to Atlanta in September of 2008 with his wife and two children. They went to Atlanta because his in-laws lived there. He worked full-time for his brother-in-law running a gas station. He does not believe he visited L.A. during that time. They were in Atlanta until August 2009 when they moved to L.A. (TR. 1/10/18, p. 28, l. 3—p. 32, l. 27.)

Han never met Mrs. Cha until the first day of trial; he never met her in Korea in 2007. He did not work for Family Club. He never gave anybody a business card that said he was a manager for Family Club. He went to the Family Club office in L.A. after he moved to L.A. in August 2009 to visit his brother. He did not think he went to the Family Club office in Korea. He does not know Cha; he first met him at his deposition in 2017. At one point in 2010, Cha called his cell phone several times and “asked some money.” Cha was demanding the money because of Han’s brother. Cha called 2-3 times, then Han stopped answering. Han never promised to pay Cha money. He did not speak with Cha in February 2008. He never received any money from Cha; he never gave Cha any reassurances. (TR. 1/10/18, p. 32, l. 28 – p. 35, l. 9, p. 36, l. 13 –- p. 38, l. 11.)

***

The Court notes that the testimony of Han was very clear, straightforward and without hesitation.

4. The Testimony of Mrs. Han

The Hans were married in 1997. They have two children, ages 17 and 15. She testified that she never met Mrs. Cha in Korea. She first saw her at her husband’s deposition, but she did not meet her until “last Wednesday.” She never spoke to Cha; he never called her and she never called him. She never worked for Family Club in Korea or L.A. She never went to either place. (TR. 1/10/18, p. 39, l. 27 – p. 41, l. 16.)

***

The Court notes that the testimony of Mrs. Han also was very clear, straightforward and without hesitation.

Cha Did Not Prove That the Hans Made Fraudulent or Negligent Misrepresentations Upon

Which Cha Reasonably Relied

The Court finds that Cha did not prove either fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations by the Hans. The Court so finds because the testimony of Cha and Mrs. Cha was not credible whereas the testimony of the Hans was credible. First of all, the story told by Cha during the trial is inconsistent with the allegations of the earlier lawsuit. In this trial, he claimed that he invested in Nest Hill, not because of any advertisements he saw or representations by other people, but solely because of the representations by Han to Mrs. Cha in Korea and the assurances he received during the phone calls from the Hans in February, 2008. In the earlier lawsuit, Cha clearly asserted that he made his investments based upon advertisements he saw and the representations of the many other defendants named in that earlier lawsuit which did not include the Hans.

Second, the story told by Cha was not very believable on its face. There was no credible proof that the person Mrs. Cha purportedly met with in Korea was Han. She had never met him previously; she had not made any appointment with anyone. She had no way of knowing to whom she purportedly was speaking. Additionally, she concluded that she had met Mrs. Han because a woman by the elevator purportedly called the man she spoke with “honey” and he called her “Soo Hyun.” Similarly, there was no credible proof that the individuals that Cha purportedly spoke with on February 29, 2008, to give him assurances regarding his first investment in Nest Hill were the Hans. Cha offered no evidence to counter the testimony of Han to show that he really had worked for Family Club rather than Tong Pu Steel until February 2008 and then in Atlanta at his brother-in-law’s gas station until August 2009. Cha offered no evidence as to why he would purportedly believe representations or guarantees from either of the Hans, but particularly Mrs. Han, a person he knew nothing about and a person he did not claim to be employed by Family Club. Nevertheless, he testified that he decided to invest based upon the guarantees of two people he never knew or met.

Third, Cha’s testimony was inconsistent in many particulars, as noted above. For example, he testified that he first spoke with Han’s brother in January or February, 2008, and that he went to the office of the Family Club numerous times to meet with Han’s older brother to decide whether to invest in Nest Hill. But then he testified that he first went to the Family Club location January 8 or 15, 2007, and that was when he was supposed to meet with Han’s older brother. Then he testified that his first meeting with Han’s older brother was about March 1, 2008. When asked how he got interested in Nest Hill, Cha testified that the Hans referred it to him when they called him on February 29, 2008; that was clearly untrue. He then acknowledged that he had seen ads and the ads got him interested, but he had no desire to make the investment until the Hans called him on February 29, 2008. This made no sense because he already had written two checks in the total amount of $190,000 when he purportedly received their call, and he was just waiting for assurances from them. Moreover, it was entirely inconsistent with the statements in his declaration in support of the default judgment in the earlier action that he relied on the advertisements and the misrepresentations of the many other defendants in making his investments in Nest Hill.

Consequently, the Court finds that Cha failed to prove that the Hans made any false or negligent misrepresentations to him. Because he did not prove the first element of the two causes of action he alleged, his claims fail and judgment must be awarded to the Hans.

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 631.8 BY THE HANS

With regard to the Motion for Judgment Pursuant to CCP Section 631.8 brought by the Hans, the Court finds that the motion is moot.

CONCLUSION

The Court finds in favor of the Hans on Cha’s fraud and negligent misrepresentation causes of action. Therefore, judgment in favor of the Hans on the Second Amended Complaint will be entered. The Hans are ordered to file and serve a proposed judgment within ten days after this Statement of Decision becomes final.

DATED: May 30, 2018

___________________________

Honorable Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

[1] Later in her testimony, Mrs. Cha contradicts this testimony by indicating that she only saw Mrs. Han at the elevator and deduced that she was Mrs. Han when she called Han “honey.”

[2] Because of the similarity of some of the names of family members mentioned in the case, the parties and the Court agreed to refer to such family members as Mr. Han’s brother, father, etc. (Tr. 1/4/18, p. 26, l. 4 – 27, ll. 11.)

[3] There was no testimony that Han ever gave Cha any such declaration.

[4] What follows is a summary of the testimony of Cha that affected the Court’s decision in this case. It is not a summary of all of his testimony.

[5] The Court has bolded certain dates and facts as significant to the assessment that the Court has made in reaching its Decision.

[6] It became apparent that Cha understood English and he stopped using the interpreter for part of his testimony. When he felt he needed the translator, he called upon the translator for assistance. (TR. 1/5/18, p. 6, l. 8-12, p. 7, l. 2 — p. 8, l. 10.)

[7] Cha later clarified that the appointment was with Mr. Han’s brother. (TR. 1/5/18, p. 27, l. 26 – p. 28, l. 1.)

[8] As noted above, Cha testified more than once that the Fullerton house was the house of Han’s father, not his brother’s house.

[9] The Court took judicial notice of the earlier complaint Ex. A; Cha also confirmed the truth of the allegations during the cross examination identified above. The Court hereby revises its previous statement at trial that it also was admitting Exhibit A for a limited purpose and admitting other pleadings that were not signed by Cha. In reaching this Statement of Decision, the Court only took judicial notice of those pleadings other than any pleading verified by Cha or any declaration signed by Cha. Additionally, the Court relied upon the testimony of Cha as to the veracity of such documents. (See Valerio v Andrew Youngquist Construction (2002), 103 Cal. App. 4th 1264, 1271: “The admission of fact in a pleading is a ‘judicial admission.’ Witkin describes the effect of such an admission: ‘An admission in the pleadings is not treated procedurally as evidence; i.e., the pleading need not (and should not) be offered in evidence, but may be commented on in argument and relied on as part of the case.’”)