Preview
eet TY
CAUSE NO. 10-08730-K
ah 3: 32
KI PONG NA, CHONG SOOK NA §\ SEP -1 P\?rHE DISTRICT COURT
COCO C-STORE, INC and 8 Ns
KSCI INVESTMENTS, INC., veal CR
Plaintiffs, : pUTY
V. K-192nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
UNITED CENTRAL BANK §
DONG SUK YOO a/k/a JIMMY YOO, = §
IN SUK SUNG, YOUNG HO AHN, §
HANS S. YOO, and HANS S. YOO,P.C. §
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEENDANTS HANS S. YOO AND HANS S. YOO, P.C.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COME NOW Hans S. Yoo and Hans S. Yoo, P.C., Defendants herein, and file their No
Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a and in
support of would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:
L
BACKGROUND
1. In June 2004 United Central Bank (herein “UCB”) approved a loan for eight hundred
thousand dollars ($800,000) for Plaintiff Coco C-Store, Inc. d/b/a Super Buy-Lo for the purchase
of the building and assets of an existing liquor store. In June 2006, UCB approved another loan
for eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) to Plaintiff KSCJ, Investment, Inc. for the
purchase of the real property to which the liquor store was located on.
2. Defendant Hans S$. Yoo owned law firm Hans S. Yoo, P.C. at the time of these
transactions. Hans S. Yoo, P.C. did draft the sales agreements in the aforementioned loans by
UCB. Hans S. Yoo was not personally involved in either sales agreement or transaction in
dispute. Attorney Tim Forgerson at Hans S. Yoo, P.C. drafted some documents related to
DEENDANTS HANS S. YOO AND HANS S. YOO, P.C.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 1transaction. Hans S. Yoo never reviewed these sales agreements or spoke with any parties in
regards to these sales agreements. Neither Hans Yoo or Hans Yoo P.C. performed the closing
made subject to the lawsuit.
u.
NO EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
3. A No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment is proper when, after adequate time for
discovery, there is no evidence of one or more of the essential elements of a claim for which the
Plaintiff would have the burden of proof at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i). This Motion is properly
granted if the non-movant does not bring forth some evidence to raise a genuine issue of material
fact. This must be more than just a scintilla of evidence. King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118
S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003). More than a scintilla of evidence exists when the evidence “rises
to the level that would enable reasonable and fair minded people to differ in their conclusions.”
id.; Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1997). If the
evidence is so weak that it does no more than create a mere surmise of suspicion of fact, there is
less than a scintilla of evidence. Moore v. K Mart Corp., 981 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. App.-San
Antonio 1998, writ denied) (citing Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc., 650 8.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. 1983)).
4, No-evidence motions for summary judgment are designed to pierce pleadings and
eliminate those claims for which there is no factual support. Benitz v. The Gould Group, 27
S.W.3d 109, 112 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.). The Rules of Procedure state the court
should grant the motion unless the non-movant presents summary judgment evidence that raises
a general issue of material fact on each challenged element. fn re Mohawk Rubber Co., 982
S.W.2d 494, 498 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1998, orig. proceeding).
'S HANS S. YOO AND HANS S. YOO, P.C.'S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUM! GMENT - Page 2Ill.
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITY
A. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Prove Their Claims of Fiduciary Duty Fail as a Matter of
Law.
5. A person has a breach of fiduciary duty claim if (1) the plaintiff and defendant had a
fiduciary relationship; (2) the defendant breached its fiduciary duty to the plaintiff; and (3)
the defendant’s breach resulted in either (a) injury to the plaintiff; or (b) benefit to the
defendant. Burrow v, Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229, 237 (Tex. 1999); Kinzbach Tool Co. v. Corbett-
Wallace Corp., 160 $.W.2d 509, 513-514 (Tex. 1942).
6. Plaintiffs are unable to prove any elements of this cause of action. No evidence has been
provided to show that Plaintiffs and Hans S. Yoo or Hans S. Yoo, P.C. had a fiduciary
relationship or that any duty was breached. Plaintiff merely argues since all of the alleged
parties are of Korean descent they share a cultural fiduciary relationship and fiduciary duties.
This is simply not a fiduciary relationship under Texas law and Defendants Hans S$. Yoo and
Hans S Yoo, P.C. owed no fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs. Hans S. Yoo had no involvement in the
sales agreements involved in the dispute and Hans S. Yoo, P.C. merely drafted documents.
There was no continuing relationship or duty between the parties. Last, Plaintiffs proffer no
evidence that these Defendants benefitted in anyway, or that Defendants’ actions resulted in
harm to Plaintiffs. As a matter of law, these Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this
cause of action.
B. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Prove Their Claims of Fraud as a Matter of Law.
7. The elements for a cause of action of common law fraud are (1) The defendant made a
representation to the plaintiff; (2) the representation was material; (3) The representation was
false; (4) When the defendant made the representation, the defendant (a) knew the representation
DEEND, AND HANS S._ ‘ EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 3was false; or (b) made the representation recklessly, as a positive assertion, and without
knowledge of its truth; (5) the Defendant made the representation with the intent that the plaintiff
act on it; (6) the plaintiff relied on the representation; and (7) the representation caused the
plaintiff injury. Aguaplex, Inc. v. Ranch La Valencia, Inc., 297 8.W.3d 768, 774 (Tex. 2009); In
re FirstMerit Bank, 52 S.W.3d 749, 758 (Tex. 2001).
8. Plaintiffs fail to prove any elements of fraud. Defendant Hans 8. Yoo had no
involvement in regards to the sales agreements in dispute and therefore Plaintiffs’ cause of action
on fraud fails. Plaintiffs have presented no evidence that Hans S. Yoo made any representation
to them and therefore Plaintiffs cannot meet any elements necessary for this cause of action to
survive against Hans S. Yoo. Plaintiffs have no evidence of any alleged representation made by
Hans S. Yoo, P.C. in regards to the sales agreements. Plaintiffs have no evidence that they relied
on any representation of Hans Yoo.
C. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Prove Their Claims of Negligent Misrepresentation as a
Matter of Law.
9. The elements of a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation are (1) the defendant
made a representation to the plaintiff in the course of the defendant’s business or in a transaction
in which the defendant had an interest; (2) the defendant supplied false information for the
guidance of others; (3) the defendant did not exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining
or communicating the information; (4) the plaintiff justifiably relied on the representation; and
(5) the defendant’s negligent misrepresentation proximately caused the plaintiffs injury.
McCamish, Martin, Brown & Loeffler v, F.E. Appling Interests, 991 8.W.2d 787, 791 (Tex.
1999); Nazareth Int'l v. J.C. Penney Co., 287 $.W.3d 452, 460 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet.
denied).
DEENDANTS HANS S. ¥OO AND HANS S. YOO, P.C.'S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 410. Plaintiffs seem to allege this cause of action only against defendant Jimmy Yoo regarding
handling the sales tax matter. Plaintiff has presented no evidence on any elements of negligent
misrepresentation against Defendants Hans 8. Yoo, and Hans 8. Yoo, P.C. Hans 8. Yoo had no
involvement in the sales transaction or agreements, and Hans S. Yoo, P.C. merely drafted the
agreements used by UCB. There is no evidence of a representation or misrepresentation by these
Defendants, no evidence of Defendants supplying false information or exercising reasonable care
or competence, and no misrepresentation by Defendants caused injury to Plaintiffs. Plaintiff has
failed to provide any evidence to support their claim against Hans S. Yoo and Hans S. Yoo, P.C.
and therefore summary judgment must be granted as a matter of law.
D. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Prove Their Claims of Negligence as a Matter of Law.
ll. For a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must prove (1) the defendant owed a legal duty to
the plaintiff, (2) the defendant breached that duty; and (3) the breach proximately caused the
plaintiff's injury. Nabors Drilling, U.S.A., Inc. v. Escoto, 288 8.W.3d 401, 404 (Tex. 2009);
Western Investments, Inc. v. Urena, 162 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tex. 2005).
12. Plaintiffs have failed to properly allege a cause of action for negligence, much less
present any evidence on the cause of action. Plaintiffs generally state that all alleged conduct in
their Petition was negligent, and that Plaintiffs have been injured by it for an amount within the
jurisdictional limits of the Court. No proof of any elements has been provided to the Defendants
or the Court on this claim. Plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence in support of this
lackluster cause of action and therefore Defendants Hans S. Yoo and Hans S. Yoo, P.C. are
entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
E. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Prove Their Claims of Breach of Contract as a Matter of
Law.
DEENDANTS HANS S. YOO AND HANS S. YOO, P.C,’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page §13. To prove a claim for breach of contract a party must establish (1) there is a valid
enforceable contract; (2) the party performed or tendered performance; (3) the opposing party
breached the contract; and (4) the party was damaged as a result of that breach. Hackberry
Creek Country Club v. Hackberry Creek Home Owners Ass’n., 205 S.W.3d 46, 55 (Tex. App-
Dallas 2006, pet. denied).
14. Plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence to meet elements 1, 3, and 4 of this cause
of action. It seems Plaintiffs allege there was an oral contract between them and defendant
Jimmy Yoo to pay the past due taxes owed by the owner of the assets. This allegation does not
involve Defendants Hans S. Yoo and Hans 8. Yoo, P.C. In addition, Plaintiffs proffer no
evidence regarding these named Defendants to show any enforceable contract, that defendants
breached this nonexistent contract, and that Plaintiffs were damaged from this alleged breach.
Hans S. Yoo, P.C. simply drafted documents and any relationship or duty between them and the
Plaintiffs extinguished once the transactions were closed. Hans S. Yoo had no involvement with
the agreements or transaction process. As a matter of law, Plaintiffs claims should dismissed and
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted.
F. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Prove Their Claims of Conspiracy as a Matter of Law.
15. In order to prove a cause of action for conspiracy, Plaintiff must show (1) the defendant
was a member of a combination of two or more persons; (2) the object of the combination was to
accomplish (a) an unlawful purpose; or (b) a lawful purpose by unlawful means; (3) the members
had a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action; (4) one of the members committed
an unlawful, overt act to further the object or course of action; and (5) the plaintiff suffered
injury as a proximate result of the wrongful act. Chon Tri v. J.T.T., 162 8.W.3d 552, 556 (Tex.
2005)
DEENDANTS HANS S. YOO AND HANS S. YOO, P.C."S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 616. Plaintiff cannot prove elements 2, 3, 4, 5 of a conspiracy cause of action. There is no
evidence to show Defendants Hans S. Yoo and/or Hans S. Yoo, P.C. were attempting to
accomplish an unlawful purpose or use unlawful means to accomplish a lawful purpose or that
there was an agreement between the parties on this objective. Hans S. Yoo was not even
involved in any part of the formation of the sales agreements or the transaction process.
Plaintiffs further fail to provide any evidence that there was an unlawful, overt act by one of the
Defendants, or an injury that was the result of this act. Plaintiff has presented no evidence to
support a cause of action for conspiracy and as a matter of law summary judgment should be
granted in favor of these Defendants.
Iv.
CONCLUSION
17. Plaintiffs have no viable causes of action against Defendants Hans S. Yoo and Hans S.
Yoo, P.C. As a matter of law summary judgment should be granted on all causes of action
alleged against Defendants based on no evidence proffered by Plaintiffs on any claims and their
required elements. All Plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence entitling them to
recover under their causes of action. As a result of these deficiencies, Plaintiff's case should be
dismissed at summary judgment.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Hans S. Yoo and Hans S. Yoo, P.C.
respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion for Summary Judgment and for such other
and relief to which it may be justly entitled.
DEENDANTS HANS S. YOO AND HANS S. YOO, P.C.'S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 7Respectfully submitted,
ROBBIE MALONE, PLLC
ia byb- Mer
Robbie Malone
State Bar No. 12876450
Jacob C. Boswell
State Bar No. 24061269
Northpark Central, Suite 1850
8750 North Central Expressway
Dallas, Texas 75231
(214) 346-2625 Phone
(214) 346-261 Fax
Email: rmalone@rmalonelaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant
DEENDANTS HANS S. YOO AND HANS S. YOO, P.C.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 8CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been
forwarded via certified mail, return receipt and regular mail requested on this Gt day of
September, 2011 to:
Mark Stromberg
Two Lincoln Centre
5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75240
Lindy D. Jones
Laura L. Worsham
Jones, Allen & Fuquay, L.L.P.
8828 Greenville Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75243
Royce West
Craig A. Capua
West & Associates, LLP
320 South R.L. Thornton Freeway, Ste. 300
Dallas, Texas 75203
Howard F. Carter, Jr.
Howard F. Carter, Jr., P.C.
Attorneys & Counselors
Centura Tower - 1
14185 Dallas Parkway, Ste. 1275
Dallas, Texas 75254
Timothy R. McCormick
Timothy E. Hudson
Thompson & Knight
One Arts Plaza
1722 Routh Street, Ste. 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
[esta Mate
ROBBIE MALONE
DEENDANTS HANS §. YOO AND HANS S. Y¢ P.C.'S NO EVID! (0) IK JUDGMENT - Page 9=V
Robbie Malone FILED
A Professional Limited Liability Company 1 PH 3 32
Attorneys and Counselors
wa
: ER
Robbie Malone 6 SUITE 1850
DIRECT DIAL: (214) 346-2625 I NY Nae BAL seo
E-MAIL: rmalone@rmalonelaw.com : “Dawns 75231
(214) 346-2630
FAx (214) 346-2631
September 6, 2011
Clerk of the Court
192nd Judicial District
George L. Allen, Sr. Courts Bldg. :
600 Commerce St., Box 740 '
Dallas, Texas 75202 1
RE: Cause No.10-08730-K Ki Pong NA, Chong Sook NA, Coco C-Store, Inc. and
KSCI Investments, Inc. v. United Central Bank, Dong Suk Yoo a/k/a Jimmy Yoo,
In Suk Sung, Young Ho Ahn, Hans S. Yoo and Hans S. Yoo, P.C.
File No. 984-0255
I
Dear Clerk: ‘
In connection with the above-referenced matter, enclosed are the original and one copy of
Defendants Hans S. Yoo and Hans S. Yoo, P.C’s No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment.
Please file the original into the record, stamp the copy “filed” and forward to me in the enclosed
return envelope. Thank you.
By copy of this letter, I am serving counsel of record with a copy of said motion.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Robbie Malone
RM/rts
Enclosure
M:\9840000 CHUBB FILES\9840255 Ki Pong NA v. Hans S. Yoo\correspondence\9840255L.K02-Defendant's No
Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment.wpdSeptember 6, 2011
Page 2
cc: w/enclosure
VIA CM/RRR
Mark Stromberg
Two Lincoln Centre
5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75240
Via U.S. First Class Mail
Lindy D. Jones
Laura L. Worsham
Jones, Allen & Fuquay, L.L.P.
8828 Greenville Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75243
Via U.S. First Class Mail
Royce West
Craig A. Capua
West & Associates, LLP
320 South R.L. Thornton Freeway, Ste. 300
Dallas, Texas 75203
Via U.S. First Class Mail
Howard F. Carter, Jr.
Howard F, Carter, Jr., P.C.
Attorneys & Counselors
Centura Tower - 1
14185 Dallas Parkway, Ste. 1275
Dallas, Texas 75254
Via U.S. First Class Mail
Timothy R. McCormick
Timothy E. Hudson
Thompson & Knight
One Arts Plaza
1722 Routh Street, Ste. 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
Preview
eet TY CAUSE NO. 10-08730-K ah 3: 32 KI PONG NA, CHONG SOOK NA §\ SEP -1 P\?rHE DISTRICT COURT COCO C-STORE, INC and 8 Ns KSCI INVESTMENTS, INC., veal CR Plaintiffs, : pUTY V. K-192nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT § UNITED CENTRAL BANK § DONG SUK YOO a/k/a JIMMY YOO, = § IN SUK SUNG, YOUNG HO AHN, § HANS S. YOO, and HANS S. YOO,P.C. § Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEENDANTS HANS S. YOO AND HANS S. YOO, P.C.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME NOW Hans S. Yoo and Hans S. Yoo, P.C., Defendants herein, and file their No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a and in support of would respectfully show unto the Court as follows: L BACKGROUND 1. In June 2004 United Central Bank (herein “UCB”) approved a loan for eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) for Plaintiff Coco C-Store, Inc. d/b/a Super Buy-Lo for the purchase of the building and assets of an existing liquor store. In June 2006, UCB approved another loan for eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) to Plaintiff KSCJ, Investment, Inc. for the purchase of the real property to which the liquor store was located on. 2. Defendant Hans S$. Yoo owned law firm Hans S. Yoo, P.C. at the time of these transactions. Hans S. Yoo, P.C. did draft the sales agreements in the aforementioned loans by UCB. Hans S. Yoo was not personally involved in either sales agreement or transaction in dispute. Attorney Tim Forgerson at Hans S. Yoo, P.C. drafted some documents related to DEENDANTS HANS S. YOO AND HANS S. YOO, P.C.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 1transaction. Hans S. Yoo never reviewed these sales agreements or spoke with any parties in regards to these sales agreements. Neither Hans Yoo or Hans Yoo P.C. performed the closing made subject to the lawsuit. u. NO EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD 3. A No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment is proper when, after adequate time for discovery, there is no evidence of one or more of the essential elements of a claim for which the Plaintiff would have the burden of proof at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i). This Motion is properly granted if the non-movant does not bring forth some evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact. This must be more than just a scintilla of evidence. King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003). More than a scintilla of evidence exists when the evidence “rises to the level that would enable reasonable and fair minded people to differ in their conclusions.” id.; Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1997). If the evidence is so weak that it does no more than create a mere surmise of suspicion of fact, there is less than a scintilla of evidence. Moore v. K Mart Corp., 981 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1998, writ denied) (citing Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc., 650 8.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. 1983)). 4, No-evidence motions for summary judgment are designed to pierce pleadings and eliminate those claims for which there is no factual support. Benitz v. The Gould Group, 27 S.W.3d 109, 112 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.). The Rules of Procedure state the court should grant the motion unless the non-movant presents summary judgment evidence that raises a general issue of material fact on each challenged element. fn re Mohawk Rubber Co., 982 S.W.2d 494, 498 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1998, orig. proceeding). 'S HANS S. YOO AND HANS S. YOO, P.C.'S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUM! GMENT - Page 2Ill. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITY A. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Prove Their Claims of Fiduciary Duty Fail as a Matter of Law. 5. A person has a breach of fiduciary duty claim if (1) the plaintiff and defendant had a fiduciary relationship; (2) the defendant breached its fiduciary duty to the plaintiff; and (3) the defendant’s breach resulted in either (a) injury to the plaintiff; or (b) benefit to the defendant. Burrow v, Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229, 237 (Tex. 1999); Kinzbach Tool Co. v. Corbett- Wallace Corp., 160 $.W.2d 509, 513-514 (Tex. 1942). 6. Plaintiffs are unable to prove any elements of this cause of action. No evidence has been provided to show that Plaintiffs and Hans S. Yoo or Hans S. Yoo, P.C. had a fiduciary relationship or that any duty was breached. Plaintiff merely argues since all of the alleged parties are of Korean descent they share a cultural fiduciary relationship and fiduciary duties. This is simply not a fiduciary relationship under Texas law and Defendants Hans S$. Yoo and Hans S Yoo, P.C. owed no fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs. Hans S. Yoo had no involvement in the sales agreements involved in the dispute and Hans S. Yoo, P.C. merely drafted documents. There was no continuing relationship or duty between the parties. Last, Plaintiffs proffer no evidence that these Defendants benefitted in anyway, or that Defendants’ actions resulted in harm to Plaintiffs. As a matter of law, these Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this cause of action. B. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Prove Their Claims of Fraud as a Matter of Law. 7. The elements for a cause of action of common law fraud are (1) The defendant made a representation to the plaintiff; (2) the representation was material; (3) The representation was false; (4) When the defendant made the representation, the defendant (a) knew the representation DEEND, AND HANS S._ ‘ EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 3was false; or (b) made the representation recklessly, as a positive assertion, and without knowledge of its truth; (5) the Defendant made the representation with the intent that the plaintiff act on it; (6) the plaintiff relied on the representation; and (7) the representation caused the plaintiff injury. Aguaplex, Inc. v. Ranch La Valencia, Inc., 297 8.W.3d 768, 774 (Tex. 2009); In re FirstMerit Bank, 52 S.W.3d 749, 758 (Tex. 2001). 8. Plaintiffs fail to prove any elements of fraud. Defendant Hans 8. Yoo had no involvement in regards to the sales agreements in dispute and therefore Plaintiffs’ cause of action on fraud fails. Plaintiffs have presented no evidence that Hans S. Yoo made any representation to them and therefore Plaintiffs cannot meet any elements necessary for this cause of action to survive against Hans S. Yoo. Plaintiffs have no evidence of any alleged representation made by Hans S. Yoo, P.C. in regards to the sales agreements. Plaintiffs have no evidence that they relied on any representation of Hans Yoo. C. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Prove Their Claims of Negligent Misrepresentation as a Matter of Law. 9. The elements of a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation are (1) the defendant made a representation to the plaintiff in the course of the defendant’s business or in a transaction in which the defendant had an interest; (2) the defendant supplied false information for the guidance of others; (3) the defendant did not exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information; (4) the plaintiff justifiably relied on the representation; and (5) the defendant’s negligent misrepresentation proximately caused the plaintiffs injury. McCamish, Martin, Brown & Loeffler v, F.E. Appling Interests, 991 8.W.2d 787, 791 (Tex. 1999); Nazareth Int'l v. J.C. Penney Co., 287 $.W.3d 452, 460 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied). DEENDANTS HANS S. ¥OO AND HANS S. YOO, P.C.'S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 410. Plaintiffs seem to allege this cause of action only against defendant Jimmy Yoo regarding handling the sales tax matter. Plaintiff has presented no evidence on any elements of negligent misrepresentation against Defendants Hans 8. Yoo, and Hans 8. Yoo, P.C. Hans 8. Yoo had no involvement in the sales transaction or agreements, and Hans S. Yoo, P.C. merely drafted the agreements used by UCB. There is no evidence of a representation or misrepresentation by these Defendants, no evidence of Defendants supplying false information or exercising reasonable care or competence, and no misrepresentation by Defendants caused injury to Plaintiffs. Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence to support their claim against Hans S. Yoo and Hans S. Yoo, P.C. and therefore summary judgment must be granted as a matter of law. D. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Prove Their Claims of Negligence as a Matter of Law. ll. For a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must prove (1) the defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant breached that duty; and (3) the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's injury. Nabors Drilling, U.S.A., Inc. v. Escoto, 288 8.W.3d 401, 404 (Tex. 2009); Western Investments, Inc. v. Urena, 162 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tex. 2005). 12. Plaintiffs have failed to properly allege a cause of action for negligence, much less present any evidence on the cause of action. Plaintiffs generally state that all alleged conduct in their Petition was negligent, and that Plaintiffs have been injured by it for an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the Court. No proof of any elements has been provided to the Defendants or the Court on this claim. Plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence in support of this lackluster cause of action and therefore Defendants Hans S. Yoo and Hans S. Yoo, P.C. are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. E. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Prove Their Claims of Breach of Contract as a Matter of Law. DEENDANTS HANS S. YOO AND HANS S. YOO, P.C,’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page §13. To prove a claim for breach of contract a party must establish (1) there is a valid enforceable contract; (2) the party performed or tendered performance; (3) the opposing party breached the contract; and (4) the party was damaged as a result of that breach. Hackberry Creek Country Club v. Hackberry Creek Home Owners Ass’n., 205 S.W.3d 46, 55 (Tex. App- Dallas 2006, pet. denied). 14. Plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence to meet elements 1, 3, and 4 of this cause of action. It seems Plaintiffs allege there was an oral contract between them and defendant Jimmy Yoo to pay the past due taxes owed by the owner of the assets. This allegation does not involve Defendants Hans S. Yoo and Hans 8. Yoo, P.C. In addition, Plaintiffs proffer no evidence regarding these named Defendants to show any enforceable contract, that defendants breached this nonexistent contract, and that Plaintiffs were damaged from this alleged breach. Hans S. Yoo, P.C. simply drafted documents and any relationship or duty between them and the Plaintiffs extinguished once the transactions were closed. Hans S. Yoo had no involvement with the agreements or transaction process. As a matter of law, Plaintiffs claims should dismissed and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted. F. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Prove Their Claims of Conspiracy as a Matter of Law. 15. In order to prove a cause of action for conspiracy, Plaintiff must show (1) the defendant was a member of a combination of two or more persons; (2) the object of the combination was to accomplish (a) an unlawful purpose; or (b) a lawful purpose by unlawful means; (3) the members had a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action; (4) one of the members committed an unlawful, overt act to further the object or course of action; and (5) the plaintiff suffered injury as a proximate result of the wrongful act. Chon Tri v. J.T.T., 162 8.W.3d 552, 556 (Tex. 2005) DEENDANTS HANS S. YOO AND HANS S. YOO, P.C."S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 616. Plaintiff cannot prove elements 2, 3, 4, 5 of a conspiracy cause of action. There is no evidence to show Defendants Hans S. Yoo and/or Hans S. Yoo, P.C. were attempting to accomplish an unlawful purpose or use unlawful means to accomplish a lawful purpose or that there was an agreement between the parties on this objective. Hans S. Yoo was not even involved in any part of the formation of the sales agreements or the transaction process. Plaintiffs further fail to provide any evidence that there was an unlawful, overt act by one of the Defendants, or an injury that was the result of this act. Plaintiff has presented no evidence to support a cause of action for conspiracy and as a matter of law summary judgment should be granted in favor of these Defendants. Iv. CONCLUSION 17. Plaintiffs have no viable causes of action against Defendants Hans S. Yoo and Hans S. Yoo, P.C. As a matter of law summary judgment should be granted on all causes of action alleged against Defendants based on no evidence proffered by Plaintiffs on any claims and their required elements. All Plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence entitling them to recover under their causes of action. As a result of these deficiencies, Plaintiff's case should be dismissed at summary judgment. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Hans S. Yoo and Hans S. Yoo, P.C. respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion for Summary Judgment and for such other and relief to which it may be justly entitled. DEENDANTS HANS S. YOO AND HANS S. YOO, P.C.'S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 7Respectfully submitted, ROBBIE MALONE, PLLC ia byb- Mer Robbie Malone State Bar No. 12876450 Jacob C. Boswell State Bar No. 24061269 Northpark Central, Suite 1850 8750 North Central Expressway Dallas, Texas 75231 (214) 346-2625 Phone (214) 346-261 Fax Email: rmalone@rmalonelaw.com Attorneys for Defendant DEENDANTS HANS S. YOO AND HANS S. YOO, P.C.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 8CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded via certified mail, return receipt and regular mail requested on this Gt day of September, 2011 to: Mark Stromberg Two Lincoln Centre 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 300 Dallas, Texas 75240 Lindy D. Jones Laura L. Worsham Jones, Allen & Fuquay, L.L.P. 8828 Greenville Avenue Dallas, Texas 75243 Royce West Craig A. Capua West & Associates, LLP 320 South R.L. Thornton Freeway, Ste. 300 Dallas, Texas 75203 Howard F. Carter, Jr. Howard F. Carter, Jr., P.C. Attorneys & Counselors Centura Tower - 1 14185 Dallas Parkway, Ste. 1275 Dallas, Texas 75254 Timothy R. McCormick Timothy E. Hudson Thompson & Knight One Arts Plaza 1722 Routh Street, Ste. 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 [esta Mate ROBBIE MALONE DEENDANTS HANS §. YOO AND HANS S. Y¢ P.C.'S NO EVID! (0) IK JUDGMENT - Page 9=V Robbie Malone FILED A Professional Limited Liability Company 1 PH 3 32 Attorneys and Counselors wa : ER Robbie Malone 6 SUITE 1850 DIRECT DIAL: (214) 346-2625 I NY Nae BAL seo E-MAIL: rmalone@rmalonelaw.com : “Dawns 75231 (214) 346-2630 FAx (214) 346-2631 September 6, 2011 Clerk of the Court 192nd Judicial District George L. Allen, Sr. Courts Bldg. : 600 Commerce St., Box 740 ' Dallas, Texas 75202 1 RE: Cause No.10-08730-K Ki Pong NA, Chong Sook NA, Coco C-Store, Inc. and KSCI Investments, Inc. v. United Central Bank, Dong Suk Yoo a/k/a Jimmy Yoo, In Suk Sung, Young Ho Ahn, Hans S. Yoo and Hans S. Yoo, P.C. File No. 984-0255 I Dear Clerk: ‘ In connection with the above-referenced matter, enclosed are the original and one copy of Defendants Hans S. Yoo and Hans S. Yoo, P.C’s No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment. Please file the original into the record, stamp the copy “filed” and forward to me in the enclosed return envelope. Thank you. By copy of this letter, I am serving counsel of record with a copy of said motion. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Robbie Malone RM/rts Enclosure M:\9840000 CHUBB FILES\9840255 Ki Pong NA v. Hans S. Yoo\correspondence\9840255L.K02-Defendant's No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment.wpdSeptember 6, 2011 Page 2 cc: w/enclosure VIA CM/RRR Mark Stromberg Two Lincoln Centre 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 300 Dallas, Texas 75240 Via U.S. First Class Mail Lindy D. Jones Laura L. Worsham Jones, Allen & Fuquay, L.L.P. 8828 Greenville Avenue Dallas, Texas 75243 Via U.S. First Class Mail Royce West Craig A. Capua West & Associates, LLP 320 South R.L. Thornton Freeway, Ste. 300 Dallas, Texas 75203 Via U.S. First Class Mail Howard F. Carter, Jr. Howard F, Carter, Jr., P.C. Attorneys & Counselors Centura Tower - 1 14185 Dallas Parkway, Ste. 1275 Dallas, Texas 75254 Via U.S. First Class Mail Timothy R. McCormick Timothy E. Hudson Thompson & Knight One Arts Plaza 1722 Routh Street, Ste. 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201