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
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
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390