Case Number: BC677268 Hearing Date: June 18, 2018 Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

HWA BUM SHIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DONGHYUNG CHANG, GIRYUNG CHANG, OK BOON UM, DONG HYUK JOO, HYO SOOK YANG, HANNAH HUH, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: BC677268

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S ANTI-SLAPP MOTION

8:30 a.m.

June 18, 2018

Dept. 56

This is an action arising from an alleged fraudulent scheme by Defendants Donghyung Chang and Giryung Chang to have the Plaintiff accept checks from the other Defendants—many of whom the Plaintiff had not met—as repayment for a loan; however, Defendants allegedly did not intend to be responsible for the sums paid by check and instead filed several frivolous lawsuits to extort a settlement from Plaintiff. On January 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging causes of action for (1) fraud and conspiracy, (2) intentional misrepresentation, (3) concealment, (4) breach of fiduciary duty, (5) breach of the duty of loyalty, and (6) malicious prosecution.

Anti-SLAPP Motion

Defendant Kevin Jang brings an anti-SLAPP Motion seeking to strike the first and sixth causes of action. Defendant argues such claims arise from protected activity under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(1)-(2). Further, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s deposition testimony demonstrates this action lacks minimal merit.

An anti-SLAPP motion “may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court’s discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(f).)

This sixty day deadline is reopened upon the filing of an amended complaint only if new allegations or claims arising from protected activity are pled. (Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1207, 1219.) Here, the first and sixth causes of action which are the subject of the instant Motion were first pled in the First Amended Complaint filed on January 9, 2018. Defendant’s anti-SLAPP Motion, however, was filed more than sixty days later on May 21, 2018. Defendant has provided no reason why the Motion should be heard late. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 18th day of June 2018

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court