PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
June 9, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 16 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 9 25-CIV-05185 JEONGHEE HAN VS. MIN PYO HONG
JEONGHEE HAN SEOKYUN JANG MIN PYO HONG JI W. KIM
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
TENTATIVE RULING:
The Motion of Plaintiff Jeong Hee Han (“Plaintiff”) for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.
Plaintiff did not file a proof of service for this Motion.
The court’s records do not show a proof of service filed by Plaintiff for this Motion. Defendant claims in opposition that Plaintiff failed to serve this Motion on Defendant. (Defendant’s Opposition, p. 2, fn. 1.) Nevertheless, Defendant filed and served a substantive opposition, and therefore the court proceeds to rule on this Motion. Plaintiff is cautioned to properly serve Defendant with any motion or else the court may deny without prejudice any motion that lacks a proper proof of service in the future.
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice of Exhibits A, B, D, E, I, J, K and L is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice of Exhibit M is DENIED. (See Ragland v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 182, 193-194.) Plaintiff requests judicial notice of the foreign exchange rate of Korean Won (“KRW”) to U.S. Dollars for July 17, 2015, which appears to be a printout from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Although the court may take judicial notice of a government document, it may not accept such contents as true. Plaintiff appears to be offering these documents for the truths of the matters asserted therein.
Defendant Min Pyo Hong’s (“Defendant”) Request for Judicial Notice
Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice of Exhibit 1 and 2 is GRANTED.
Legal Standard
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
A motion for judgment on the pleadings by the plaintiff may be brought on the ground that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant, and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).) The grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings shall
June 9, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 17 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Id., at § 438, subd. (d).)
The Complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The court previously overruled Defendant’s Demurrer to the Complaint finding that the Complaint sufficiently alleged facts to support an action to recognize the Korea Judgment. (See Court’s January 12, 2026 Order incorporating Court’s December 23, 2025 Minute Order overruling Demurrer.) Under the Code of Civil Procedure, “[i]f recognition of a foreign-country judgment is sought as an original matter, the issue of recognition shall be raised by filing an action seeking recognition of the foreign-country judgment.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 1718, subd. (a).) Plaintiff has filed this action seeking to recognize the Korean Judgment. Moreover, the Complaint alleges that the Korean Judgment is final, conclusive and enforceable under Korean law. Thus, the court once again finds that the Complaint alleges facts sufficient to support this cause of action. Defendant does not make any argument to the contrary in opposition to this Motion. However, this finding in not on the merits because on a demurrer, the court accepts all factual allegations as true. (John's Grill, Inc. v.
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1003, 1013.) The trier of fact then decides in an evidentiary hearing if the facts alleged have been proved.
The Answer states facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the Complaint.
Defendant’s verified First Amended Answer (“Answer”) asserts Nineteen Affirmative Defenses.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1716 sets forth the statutory grounds under which a California court shall not recognize or is not required to recognize a foreign-country judgment. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1716, subds. (b)-(d).) Defendant’s Ninth through Seventeenth Affirmative Defenses are based on the statutory grounds set forth in section 1716. Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendant alleges facts to support the Ninth through Eleventh and Thirteenth through Seventeenth Affirmative Defenses. (Plaintiff’s Memorandum, p. 6:2-4.)
These Affirmative Defenses claim that Plaintiff filed the underlying action in the Seoul Central District Court despite being aware that the agreement at issue was between Definicio, Inc. and Shiftworks, Inc., and that a judgment was entered against Plaintiff on July 25, 2014 (“Shiftworks judgment”) before Plaintiff filed the Seoul Central District Court action on November 28, 2024 (“2024 action”). Plaintiff argues that this loss merely shows that the debt at issue was not owed by Shiftworks, Inc.
However, Plaintiff does not cite to any matter of which the court may take judicial notice or any other facts on the face of the pleadings from which the court may reach such a conclusion. In fact, Plaintiff has not requested judicial notice of any documents from the action with Shiftworks, Inc.
Defendant’s Seventeenth Affirmative Defense asserts that recognition of the judgment in the 2024 action conflicts with the Shiftworks judgment. “A court of this state is not required to recognize a foreign-country judgment if the judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1716, subd. (d).) Accordingly, the court finds that Defendant alleges facts sufficient to constitute a defense to this action. As a result, the court need not
June 9, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 18 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ address whether Defendant’s remaining affirmative defenses are sufficiently pleaded and whether Plaintiff may seek a judgment in U.S. dollars instead of KRW.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court's ruling for the Court's signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. The Court alerts the parties to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) (amended effective January 1, 2024) regarding the wording of proposed orders.