Case Name:       Sang Youn Tark v. Sung Soo Yoon, et al.

Case Number:   1-13-CV-254096

 

There are currently four separate motions before the Court:

 

(1)  Plaintiff/cross-defendant Sang Youn Tark’s (“Plaintiff”) special motion to strike first amended cross-complaint (“FAXC”) of Sungho Yoon, Jungmi S. Yoon, Sung Soo Yoon, and Sogongdong Tofu House Palo Alto, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”);

(2)  Defendants’ motion to compel settlement agreement;

(3)  Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file second amended complaint (“SAC”); and

(4)  Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents (“RPD”), and request for monetary sanctions (collectively, “Plaintiff’s Discovery Motions”).

 

Plaintiff’s Special Motion to Strike FAXC

 

Plaintiff’s special motion to strike FAXC is DENIED AS MOOT.  On June 11, 2014, Court issued an order striking the FAXC (the Court’s “6-11-14 Order”).

 

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Settlement Agreement

 

Defendants have presented evidence establishing that a valid settlement of the action was reached and memorialized between Plaintiff and defendants Jungmi Yoon and Sung Soo Yoon (the “Settling Defendants”) upon Plaintiff’s written acceptance of the Settling Defendants’ offer to compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (“998 Offer” or “998 Settlement”).   The 998 Offer included “any matters that are within the scope of the subject matters of the present lawsuit [i.e. the First Amended Complaint]” against the Settling Defendants, Sogongdong Tofu House Palo Alto, Inc.(“STH”), and other persons including company’s directors, employees, and family members.  (See Exh. 2 to Deft.s’ Memo of Ps & As.)  (While the 998 Offer also purported to include future claims against the persons/entities identified therein, to that extent it is void.)  It is undisputed that Plaintiff accepted payment of the settlement amount set forth in the 998 Offer, constituting further proof of the settlement reached between the parties in this action.

 

The situation here has been complicated by the fact that, after the settlement was reached and judgment filed herein, Plaintiff filed (by stipulation and order) a second amended complaint adding a new cause of action against the Settling Defendants arising out of the same subject matter as the First Amended Complaint; alleging the original and the new cause of action against Sung Ho Yoon, who may be the brother of the Settling Defendants; and adding STH as a named party.  The procedural anomaly caused by these actions was addressed in the Court’s

6-11-14 Order.  Filing of the SAC was improper because the parties failed to advise the Court that judgment had already entered in this case.  Additionally, the “one single judgment rule” would preclude piecemeal judgments against the same defendant(s) relative to separate causes of action.

 

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to compel settlement agreement is GRANTED as to the Settling Defendants, and as to STH—which was specifically named in the 998 Settlement with the agreement to “dismiss with prejudice” any actions “for any matters that are within the scope of the subject matters of the present lawsuit.”  (See Exh. 2 to Deft.s’ Memo of Ps & As)  With regard to defendant Sung Ho Yoon, it is unclear whether it has been established between the parties that he is the brother of the Settling Defendants—which in turn would determine whether or not he is included in the settlement of this action.  The Court seeks clarification on this issue from the parties at the hearing of this matter.

 

As noted above, this ruling does not bar future claims filed in a separate lawsuit against any of the parties herein.

 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File SAC

 

The Court’s ruling on this motion depends in part about whether defendant Sung Ho Yoon is the brother of the Settling Defendants.  As noted above, the Court seeks the parties’ clarification on this issue at the hearing of this matter.

 

Plaintiff’s Discovery Motions

 

Plaintiff’s discovery motions may or may not be moot depending on the status of the settlement of the action as to all defendants named in the proposed SAC.  Again here, the Court seeks the parties’ clarification as to whether defendant Sung Ho Yoon is the brother of the Settling Defendants at the hearing of this matter.