This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage and Punitive Damages

Mi Ryong Song v. Suk K. Lee

Published: Feb. 11, 2012 | Result Date: Jul. 15, 2011 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC418479 Verdict –  Defense

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Becky Hsiao

Steven M. Goldsobel
(Law Offices of Steven Goldsobel APC)


Defendant

Sung Ho Kim
(Yoka & Smith LLP)

Christopher E. Faenza
(Yoka & Smith LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff, Mi Ryong Song, brought this case because she believes that an alleged wrongful disclosure of a confidential settlement agreement formed the grounds for a will contest. James Oh died with a will, thereby allegedly leaving his entire estate to Mi Ryong Song. However, Oh's children filed a will contest, thereby challenging that will. During the pendency of the will contest, a confidential settlement agreement was produced. The will contest later resulted in a settlement between the children and Song.

In the initial Complaint, plaintiff alleged that she is "the chief executive officer and majority shareholder of an independent grocery supercenter chain with thirty-eight outlets in Southern California." That is, Song claims ownership of Super Center Concepts.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleges that defendant breached the confidential settlement agreement by producing it or disclosing it. According to plaintiff, there was a meeting in April of 2009, at which time defendant allegedly admitted to disclosing the confidential settlement agreement. Plaintiff, defendant, and an independent witness were present at that April 2009 meeting.

Plaintiff asserted causes of action for breach of contract, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Plaintiff also sought punitive damages.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant denied producing or disclosing the confidential settlement agreement. Further, defendant contended that the only topic discussed at the April 2009 meeting was an ownership dispute concerning Super Center Concepts.

During cross-examination at trial, the "independent witness" stated that at the April 2009 meeting, defendant, plaintiff, and he only discussed the ownership dispute of Super Center Concepts. The witness stated that he does not know the subject matter for the confidential settlement agreement.

Damages

Plaintiff sought over $1.5 million.

Result

The jury found in favor of the defense.

Length

one week


#84394

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390