Seo v. Park CA4/3

Filed 11/16/21 Seo v. Park CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

YOUNGJIN SEO,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G059444

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01050002)

YUNG KI PARK et al., OPINION

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Layne H. Melzer, Judge. Affirmed. Lee Anav Chung White Kim Ruger & Richter, Bub-Joo S. Lee and Omar Khan for Defendant and Appellant Yung Ki Park. Parker Mills, David B. Parker and Steven S. Wang for Defendant and Appellant SC&P Resources, Inc. Daniel E. Park, Anna-Sophie Tirre and Rupal Agrawal for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Yung Ki Park and SC&P Resources, Inc., appeal from an order denying their motions to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute.1 Respondent Youngjin Seo sued Park individually and derivatively on behalf of SC&P, alleging that Park had defrauded Seo in recommending self-serving investments and, eventually, in taking over SC&P, which Seo had founded. Park and SC&P moved to strike certain new allegations of Seo’s third amended complaint, asserting that the newly added portions alleged protected activity as defined by the anti-SLAPP statute and Seo had no probability of prevailing because of the privilege afforded by Civil Code section 47. The trial court denied both motions, ruling that the new allegations did not involve protected activity. We affirm the order. The new allegations of the third amended complaint do not involve protected activity. They merely provide evidence to support Seo’s claim he was being wrongfully pushed out of his place in SC&P. FACTS Seo sued Park in February 2019 for taking over SC&P (which Seo incorporated in 2013) while defrauding him of millions of dollars through self-interested investment recommendations. Seo also sued derivatively on SC&P’s behalf. Seo filed a second amended complaint in September 2019. The complaint included individual causes of action for conversion, breach of contract, fraud, and negligence, as well as derivative causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion. Both Park and SC&P demurred. The court sustained SC&P’s demurrer to the second amended complaint in its entirety. The court ruled that Seo had not adequately alleged demand futility, as required under the Corporations Code and sustained demurrers to Seo’s individual causes