Jung

Jung v. Kim CA2/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 18, 2022B307413California1,989 words

Opinion

Opinion

Baker, J.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Lawsuit Kim was Woo’s financial advisor. During the spring of 2012, Kim allegedly persuaded Woo to invest money in C4, a limited partnership for which Kim is a general partner and the agent for service of process. Woo allegedly invested nearly $400,000 in C4 and then transferred $332,300 of that investment to Jung in exchange for a promissory note. C4 allegedly did not report taxes during 2014, 2015, and 2016, and defendants allegedly failed to provide Jung with a Schedule K (a document used to report a partner’s share of the partnership earnings, losses, deductions, and credits) to file with his state and federal tax returns. In December 2017, plaintiffs filed an initial complaint against defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and failure to provide financial information.

B. Service of the First Amended Complaint Plaintiffs maintain they served defendants with the original complaint via substituted service at 1148 Iguala Street, Montebello, CA 90640 (the “Montebello address”), which is both a home address and C4’s business address per California records. Plaintiffs later filed a first amended complaint (the operative

2 complaint) in March 2018,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.