Lee v. Cho CA2/2

Filed 12/22/15 Lee v. Cho CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

DAE YONG LEE et al., B262723

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC456112) v.

KYUNG KU CHO et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John L. Segal, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Frank N. Lee, Frank N. Lee for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Lee Law Offices, W. Dan Lee for Defendants and Respondents.

___________________________________________________

In a prior appeal, plaintiffs sought to have a judgment reversed because the trial court failed to issue a statement of decision. After that appeal was dismissed, plaintiffs brought a motion to vacate the judgment, arguing it was void because no statement of decision was issued. The trial court denied the motion. We affirm. Plaintiffs’ appeal is an improper attempt to reargue the issue central to their prior appeal. BACKGROUND The trial court’s decision Plaintiffs and appellants Dae Yong Lee and Alondra Business Center, LLC, filed a complaint for breach of fiduciary duty, among other causes of action, against defendants and respondents Kyung Ku Cho and 435 Los Feliz, LLC. A multi-day bench trial was held in January 2013. After the parties submitted closing briefs, the trial court issued a tentative decision on May 30, 2013. The tentative decision—which recounted evidence presented at trial and included numerous factual findings—concluded that plaintiffs failed to prove their claims. The trial court ordered defendants to prepare a proposed judgment against plaintiffs and file the proposed judgment within 10 days. The court served the tentative decision by mail on May 31, 2013. On June 10, 2013, defendants submitted a proposed judgment, which included findings that largely tracked the findings made by the trial court in its tentative decision. Shortly thereafter, on June 14, 2013, plaintiffs filed a lengthy request for statement of decision, asking that the trial court decide 60 separate issues that plaintiffs contended were not addressed in the tentative decision. Plaintiffs also filed objections to the proposed judgment. On July 2, 2013, the trial court issued a minute order denying plaintiffs’ request for a statement of decision as untimely. The minute order stated that plaintiffs’ request was also improper because it asked the court to decide “all the factual issues of the trial” instead of only “the principal controverted issues” as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1590(d). According to the minute order, “The court’s tentative decision