CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC vs KOREAN FARM, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

22CV018811: CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC vs KOREAN FARM, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by Korean Farm, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant) CRS# A-18811-064 in Department 520

Tentative Ruling - 06/04/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson

The Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by Korean Farm, Inc., a California Corporation on 12/11/2025 is Denied.

The Motion of Defendant Korean Farm, LLC (“Defendant”) for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is DENIED. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted as to Exhibits 1 through 29. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (h).) However, the Court does not take judicial notice of the truth of any of the facts asserted in the matters noticed. (See Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1413 n. 7; Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 882.)

LEGAL STANDARD

In moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication, a defendant meets his burden if he shows that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 849; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)

The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850; Evid. Code, § 500.) A triable issue of material fact exists if the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the nonmoving party. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.) “A party cannot avoid summary judgment by asserting facts based on mere speculation and conjecture, but instead must produce admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact.” (LaChapelle v.

Toyota Motor Credit Corp. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 977, 981.) 22CV018811: CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC vs KOREAN FARM, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by Korean Farm, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant) CRS# A-18811-064 in Department 520 “The papers are to be construed strictly against the moving party and liberally in favor of the opposing party; any doubts regarding the propriety of summary judgment are to be resolved in favor of the opposing party.” (Kulesa v.

Castleberry (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 103, 112.)

The pleadings play a key role in a summary judgment motion and serve the purpose of delimiting the scope of summary judgment and framing the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment proceeding. (White v. Smule (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 346, 354.) The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues and to frame “the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment proceeding.” (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381.) “Accordingly, the burden of a defendant moving for summary judgment only requires that he or she negate the theories of liability as alleged in the complaint; that is, a moving party need not refute liability on some theoretical possibility not included in the pleadings.” (Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 486, 493.)

DISCUSSION

The issue in this motion, as well as co-Defendant Rhee Bros's virtually identical Motion for Summary Judgment, is whether Defendant is a covered under Proposition 65’s definition of a “person in the course of doing business”. (Health and Safety Code section 25249.11(b).)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case for alleging that it violated Proposition 65 because Plaintiff has not offered evidence that it conducted business in California in the manner alleged by Plaintiff. (MPA, p. 17:10-13.) In fact, Defendant claims that Plaintiff cannot create a triable issue of material fact given that its discovery responses reflect an “evidentiary void” and it relies on speculation. (Id. at pp. 8:23-9:6; 15:27-16:3; 24:3- 8)

In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that it need only show that Defendant’s actions lead to exposures to California consumers, but that it can also show that Defendant “manufactur[ed], distribut[ed], promot[ed], or [sold]” the subject products of dried vegetable and dried kelp in California. (Complaint ¶¶ 12, 18, 36.) Contrary to Defendant’s argument, Plaintiff claims that the definition of “manufacture” includes control of packaging and the labeling process; and “distribution” constitutes dispersal of the products to various retailers in California. (Oppo., pp. 15:16 fn. 7, 16:2-5; MPA, pp. 20:14-16, 23:5-10, 24:10-25:7.)

The parties dispute whether Dow v. Holly Mfg. Co. (1958) 49 Cal.2d 720 supports Plaintiff’s position that the scope of liability is broad and extends to companies labeling products with their own name in an effort to induce consumer reliance without need to specifically manufacture or import. (Oppo., p. 5:3-15; Reply p. 4:3-16; Dow v. Holly Mfg. Co. (1958) 49 Cal.2d 720, 727.) Both parties argue that the other contradicts their previous allegations. Defendant claims that Plaintiff concedes that Defendant was not an importer in its Complaint, where Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV018811: CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC vs KOREAN FARM, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by Korean Farm, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant) CRS# A-18811-064 in Department 520 references that Defendant(s) “covered the warning label affixed to the products by the manufacturer, . . . packager, importer, supplier or distributor[.]” (Reply, pp. 3:21-4:7, fn. 1; Complaint ¶¶ 34, 45.) Plaintiff states that Defendant's admissions in both Robin Rhee and Steven Rhee’s supporting declarations are sufficient to demonstrate that Defendant's “distribution region [of unspecified products during unspecified times] includes California.” (Oppo., p. 12:17; S. Rhee Decl., ¶ 6; R. Rhee Decl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff appears to have the stronger argument.

Thus, although Defendant argues that it made it clear that it did not admit to “import[ing], manufactur[ing], distribut[ing], promot[ing], or sell[ing] the products” (in spite of its name on the packaging for the products at issue), this argument fails to place it outside of reach of definition of "in the course of doing business." (Reply, p. 8:14-15 fn. 3.) Defendant does not appear to address the point that including its name on a product can be considered evidence of distribution of that product to California markets. (Ibid.)

Thus, at a minimum, this is sufficient to find a triable issue of material fact as to whether Defendant constitutes a “person doing business” within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 25249.11(b) to fall under Proposition 65 such that its actions resulted in exposures to California consumers.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Sanctions

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions – sought in passing in a footnote – under CCP section 437c(j) against Defendant is denied. (Oppo., p. 15:15-16, fn. 7.)

OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

Defendant’s objections to portions of Willard Bayer, Walter Meneses and Reuben Yeroushalmi’s supporting declarations and accompanying exhibits are overruled.

Plaintiff’s objections to portions of the Gregory Berlin, Robin Rhee, and Steven Rhee’s supporting declarations and accompanying exhibits are overruled.

NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on June 5, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on June 4, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV018811: CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC vs KOREAN FARM, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by Korean Farm, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant) CRS# A-18811-064 in Department 520 court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.