Complaint,Petition: JOON TAE PARK VS. SEOKCHEON KIM

On August 02, 2023 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Joon Tae Park, Pantree Enterprises Co, Inc, and Joon Tae Park, Pantree Enterprises Co, Inc, Kelton Aerospace, Inc, Pantree Enterprises, Inc, Seokcheon Kim, for BUSINESS TORT in the District Court of Orange County.

Preview
Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 08/02/2023 11:41:28 AM.
30-2028-01340193-CU-BT-CJ C - ROA #2 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By A. Burton, Deputy Clerk.

FORD & DIULIO PC
Kristopher P. Diulio (Bar No. 229399)
KDiulio@FordDiulio.com
Olivia S. Cannon (Bar No. 315553)
OCannon@FordDiulio.com
3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 210
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Telephone: (714) 450-6830
Assigned for All Purposes
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Judge David 4. Hoffer
JOON TAE PARK and PANTREE
ENTERPRISES CO., INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
10
JOON TAE PARK, an individual; PANTREE CASE NO, 30-2023-01340193-CU-BT-C|C
11 ENTERPRISES CO., INC., a California
Corporation, COMPLAINT FOR:
12
Plaintiffs,
13 1 MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE
vs. SECRETS
14 2. ELDER ABUSE (WEL. & INST.
15 SEOKCHEON KIM A.K.A. SEAN KIM, an CODE § 15600 ET. SEQ.)
individual; KELTON AEROSPACE, INC., a VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S
16 California Corporation; PANTREE COMPREHENSIVE COMPUTER
ENTERPRISES, INC., a California Corporation: :3 DATA ACCESS AND FRAUD ACT
and DOES | through 50, inclusive,
17 (PENAL CODE § 502)
FRAUD
18 Defendants.
BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT
19 CONVERSION
FALSE ADVERTISING (BUS. &
20 PROF. CODE § 17500 ET SEQ.)
UNFAIR COMPETITION (BUS. &
21 PROF. CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.)
22
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
23

COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs JOON TAE PARK (“Park”) and PANTREE ENTERPRISES CO., INC.

(“Plaintiff”) allege against Defendants SEOKCHEON KIM A.K.A. SEAN KIM (“Kim”); KELTON

AEROSPACE, INC. (“Kelton”); PANTREE ENTERPRISES, INC. (“Defendant”); and DOES 1

through 50 as follows:

I SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiff Park is an experienced businessman who has owned and operated Pantree

Enterprises Co., Inc. since 2001. In 2017, Park met Defendant Kim when he moved into the same

office building. Despite a significant age difference, Kim fostered a relationship with Park. Kim

convinced Park to mentor Kim and give him business advice. In 2022, Park and Kim agreed that

10 Kim would purchase Park’s business. In reliance on this promise, Park continued to mentor Kim and

11 agreed to pay him a monthly advance of $5,000. Kim also convinced Park to cover costs for Kim’s

12 business Kelton Aerospace because Kim could not cover the expenses, with an understanding that all

13 expenses would be paid back. Park let Kim in to all aspects of his business, Pantree Enterprises Co.,

14 Inc., as the parties had agreed that Kim would purchase the business. Kim took advantage of Park’s

15 generosity and continued to accept his payments and business advice.

16 2. In May 2023, Kim suddenly reneged on the previously agreed upon purchase price for

17 Park’s business. On June 27, 2023, Park called off the deal. On or about that same day, without

18 Park’s knowledge, Kim formed a new entity with a nearly identical name to Park’s entity. See

19 Exhibit A. Also that same day, Kim changed the contact for Park’s company’s domain server from

20 Park’s email address to Kim’s own email address. Park had no knowledge of and did not approve

21 this. Kim further locked Park out of their shared office space and thereby blocked access to Park’s

22 business computers, files, and property. Despite repeated requests, it took Park over a week to get

23 Kim to return Park’s personal and business property from their shared office space. Once Park

24 finally received his property, many important items were missing, including a hard drive containing

25 all important historical documents pertaining to Park’s business, as well as personal information, and

26 files containing sensitive personal and business information, domain server information, business

27 license and software information, personal and company income tax information, business expense

28 receipts, and bank and credit card statements. Defendants remain in possession of this stolen
1
COMPLAINT
confidential information and have refused to return it to Plaintiffs.

3. Park and Pantree Enterprises, Co., Inc. bring this action for injunctive relief, including a

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, to prevent further immediate harm, and to

recover damages for Kim’s wrongdoing.

IL. PARTIES

A Plaintiffs

4. Plaintiff Joon Tae Park is now, and at all times relevant to this complaint, an individual

residing in the County of Orange, State of California.

5. Plaintiff Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc. is now, and at all times relevant to this complaint, a

10 California Corporation with its principal place of business in Orange County, California.

11 B Defendants

12 6. Defendant Seokcheon Kim a.k.a. Sean Kim is now, and at all times relevant to this

13 complaint, an individual residing in the County of Orange, State of California.

14 7. Defendant Kelton Aerospace, Inc. (“Kelton Aerospace”) is now, and at all times relevant

15 to this complaint, a California Corporation with its principal place of business in Orange County,

16 California.

17 8. Defendant Pantree Enterprises, Inc. is now, and at all times relevant to this complaint, a

18 California Corporation with its principal place of business in Orange County, California.

19 9. The true names and capacities of Defendants referred to in this Complaint as Does 1

20 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time. Plaintiffs are

21 informed and believe that they are in some way responsible for the injuries and damages incurred.

22 Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of Does | through 50

23 when ascertained.

24 10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege that at all relevant times, each of the

25 Defendants were the agents, servants, directors, managers, or employees of the co-Defendants, and

26 in doing so or omitting things alleged in this Complaint were acting in an agency, managerial, or

27 employment capacity within the course and scope of their authorities, and their acts and conduct

28 were with the permission and consent of the co-Defendants. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and
2
COMPLAINT
therefore allege that all of the conduct by the individual Defendants that was outside the scope of

their authority was known to, authorized, and ratified by the co-Defendants.

11. Plaintiffs are further informed, believe, and allege that Defendants designated as Doe

were responsible, negligently, or in some other actionable manner, for the events and happenings

described in this Complaint, which directly or proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiffs.

Til. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. This Court has subject matter and personal jurisdiction over Defendants and venue is

proper because Defendants’ residence and principal places of business are located within Orange

County. Further, the acts and practices of Defendants described here occurred within Orange

10 County.

11 IV. FACTS

12 13. Park is the owner of Plaintiff Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc. Park is 70 years old.

13 14. Kim is the owner of Defendant Kelton Aerospace, Inc. Kim is approximately 35 years

14 old

15 15. Park and Kim met in 2017 when Kim moved into the same office building as Park

16 located at 222 Fashion Lane, Tustin, CA. Upon moving in, Kim approached and befriended Park.

17 Park initially found it strange that someone Kim’s age would try to befriend him. Eventually, as Kim

18 continued asking Park for business advice, Park let down his guard.

19 16. Over the years, Kim fostered a relationship with Park. Kim would often go out of his way

20 to ingratiate himself with Park by giving Park gifts and inserting himself in Park’s personal life.

21 More specifically:

22 (a) Kim bought Park and his wife expensive brand name clothing such as Burberry (for Park

23 and his wife) and Lacoste (for Park).

24 (b) Kim would bring Park and his wife food from Korea as “gifts” after Kim’s business trips.

25 (c) In mid-May of 2023, Kim gifted Park’s daughter $1,000 as a wedding gift.

26 (d) Kim mentioned to Park’s family members that Kim bought a luxury luggage bag for

27 Park’s 70th birthday.

28 (e) In 2022, when Park moved into his current residence, Kim and an employee helped Park
3
COMPLAINT
move into his current residence.

17. Over the course of the relationship, Kim sought business advice and mentoring from

Park. Park obliged. Kim always said that Park was a mentor to him and even told his parents that he

made a memo book in his cellphone of all of Park’s words and advice to him. Indeed, Kim told Park

that he wanted to hire Park as his advisor after Park retired. Eventually, as Park sought to retire, the

two discussed Park selling to Kim his successful import/export business. In the first quarter of 2022,

discussions began for Kim to acquire Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc. Park and Kim verbally agreed

that Kim would acquire Park’s business for a price of $720,000 to be paid in monthly installments of

$6,000 for the next 10 years (with no interest). At the time the deal was made, a Certified Public

10 Accountant (“CPA”) estimated the value of Park’s business to be approximately $1,000,000. Park

11 made the decision to give Kim a significant discount on his business because of the relationship they

12 had fostered over the years, Kim’s young age, and Kim’s circumstances as a business owner with

13 low liquidity. Park and Kim had plans to draft formal written agreements at a later date.

14 18. On December 30, 2022, Park moved into the first floor of Kim’s new office space at 1407

15 Batavia St. #114, Orange, CA 92867. Park and Kim agreed that this would be the best approach to

16 gradually transition the business and provide detailed instructions.

17 19. Beginning in January 2023, Kim asked Park to pay him $5,000 a month as an advance of

18 the future income he would be sure to receive once Kelton Aerospace acquired Pantree Enterprises

19 Co., Inc. because he claimed he did not have sufficient funds to sustain his own business as Kelton

20 Aerospace. Park agreed to these terms as a favor and based on Kim’s relationship with Park.

21 20. In May 2023, Kim suddenly demanded that Park provide his income tax reports. Upon

22 review, Kim claimed that he no longer agreed upon the $720,000 value discussed and demanded that

23 Park agree to a purchase price of $300,000 instead. That amount grossly undervalued the business.

24 21. After Kim reneged on his promise to purchase the business at an already discounted

25 price, Park began to question Kim’s motives.

26 22. On June 24, 2023, Park and Kim had a three-hour conversation at a coffee shop,

27 discussing the business sale price and how it was established.

28 23. On June 27, 2023, Park had a verbal discussion with Kim during which Park made clear
4
COMPLAINT
that he would not sell the business to Kim for $300,000 instead of the original $720,000 that was

verbally agreed upon. Park said he would figure out a time to move out of the office as neither their

companies nor accounts were merged in any way. Park offered to review and cover any additional

costs incurred upon Kim during the period of late December 2022 - June 2023 on behalf of Pantree

Enterprises Co., Inc. Kim did not verbally respond in any way.

24. Unbeknownst to Park, that same day—June 27, 2023—Kim formed a new entity titled

“Pantree Enterprises, Inc.,” which is nearly identical to Park’s “Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc.” Kim

filed the required paperwork with the California Secretary of State the day Park informed Kim that

he would not sell Pantree. See Exhibit A. Park had no knowledge of and did not approve this blatant

10 attempt to coopt his business.

11 25. Also unbeknownst to Park, that same day—June 27, 2023—Kim changed the contact for

12 Plaintiff's email domain server IONOS from Park’s email to Kim’s email. Park had no knowledge of

13 and did not approve this additional blatant step to coopt Park’s business.

14 26. On Friday, June 30, 2023, Kim asked Park to leave a $5,000 check for the month of June

15 on his desk before leaving the office. Now suspicious of Kim’s intentions, Park did not leave the

16 check on his desk. He did, however, pay the two employees of Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc. before

17 leaving.

18 27. On Monday, July 3, 2023, Park arrived at the office as usual and found the office lock

19 had been changed, so he could not enter with his key. Park called and texted Kim several times, but

20 he did not respond. Park did get a hold of his two employees who stated that they were instructed by

21 Kim not to come in to work.

22 28. On July 4, 2023, Park received a text message from Kim stating that Park was no longer

23 allowed to access his property.

24 29. On July 5, 2023, Park attempted to obtain his belongings that were still at Kim’s office

25 space in Orange. This included furniture, computers, paper files, and electronic files and data. Park

26 texted Kim multiple times with no response. It was imperative for Park to obtain his valuable

27 personal and proprietary property which remained at Kim’s office.

28 30. Because Park was unable to get a hold of Kim despite many attempts, Park sought
5
COMPLAINT
assistance from the City of Orange Police Department and filed a report stating that Kim was

withholding his property. When the officers arrived, Kim’s employee answered the door and stated

that Kim instructed him to refuse entry and told the Officer to contact Kim’s lawyer.

31. On July 6 and 7, 2023, Park discovered that Kim on June 27 had changed the login

password and email contact for Plaintiff's email domain server IONOS. Park received an email from

IONOS indicating that the registered email address for the domain pantreeinc.com had been changed

from Park’s own yahoo email address (which had served as the registered email address since the

domain had been established) to a gmail address believed to have been created by Kim—

pantreeenterprises@gmail.com. This was done without Park’s knowledge or approval.

10 32. Over the next few days, Park attempted to contact Kim to arrange the return of his

11 property. Park wanted access to the office to pick up his belongings directly, so he could identify key

12 items in person. Kim instead wanted to arrange delivery. Park would agree to this, if Kim provided

13 an inventory list that he could review and approve to ensure all key items were present.

14 33. Kim then claimed that Park’s belongings were all in a secure storage unit. Park later

15 found out this was not true. Park asked for the storage unit address and said he would pay for storage

16 if he could get access ASAP. Park never received the storage unit address.

17 34. Without communicating with Park, Kim took all of Park’s belongings out of his office

18 and hired a moving truck to move them. Park eventually agreed to accept the delivery if he was

19 given a 2-hour window.

20 35. On July 10, 2023, Park received photos of inventory (which metadata shows were taken

21 on Friday afternoon) sitting outside what Park could identify as the outside of Kim’s office. That

22 evening, Kim’s moving truck appeared at Park’s home without any notice. Upon arrival, the moving

23 company demanded payment from Park, and Park paid them. Park subsequently discovered that Kim

24 intentionally delayed Park’s belongings by misrepresenting to the movers that Kim was unable to

25 reach Park. Park never received any communications from Kim regarding his belongings.

26 36. After a thorough inspection of the items delivered, Park discovered the following items

27 were missing and still in the possession of Kim:

28
6
COMPLAINT
(a) 3 hard-copy files containing highly sensitive personal/business information

(b) 1 black wooden chest

(d) Bank Statements for 2022 & 2023

(e) Credit Card Statement File for 2022 & 2023

(f) 1 portable hard drive and 1 connecting router (one of the most critical items,

containing all important historical documents pertaining to Park’s business, as well as

personal information)

(g) 4 computer monitors

10 (h) 1 black refrigerator

11 (i) 2 folders containing sensitive and critical business information labeled ‘1 and 1

12 mails’ (contains email server information) and ‘microsoft.365’ (contains business

13 license and software information).

14 (j) Sales records for years 2022 and 2023

15 (k) Personal and company income tax files

16 (1) Business expense receipt folder

17 (m) Resale certificate

18 (n) Passport copy (belonging to Park)

19 (0) Company I/D & P/W records

20 (p) 1 computer

21 37. Additionally, of the two computers received, one computer had been factory reset, so all

22 company-related information and records had been erased.

23 38. Park has not received any of the missing items outlined above despite the fact that he

24 notified Kim that they were missing.

25 39. On July 11, 2023, Park successfully transferred his domain pantreeinc.com to a new host.

26 During this process, he discovered that Kim had created an entity with a similar business name on

27 June 27, 2023: Defendant Pantree Enterprises, Inc. Park later discovered that Kim attempted to

28 contact Park’s customers.
7

COMPLAINT
40. Throughout the years of their relationship, Park covered costs for Kim’s business Kelton

Aerospace because Kim could not cover the expenses with an understanding that all expenses would

be paid back. These costs amount to an excess of $164,000 for which Park has not been repaid.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

41. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-40 above as though

fully set forth here.

42. Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc. is the owner of trade secrets in the form of its customer

lists; customer information; customer work product; contracts; prospective customers’ names,

10 phone numbers, email addresses, mailing addresses; current customers’ contact information and

11 confidential information; order histories; and industry contacts, agents, and vendors.

12 43. Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc.’s trade secret information and files relate to the

13 formulation and development of its products and services, along with information regarding

14 prospective or actual customers, and derive their value from being unknown to the general

15 public and to Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc.’s competitors.

16 44. Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc. has invested and continued to invest substantial

17 resources in developing and maintaining its proprietary and confidential information, including

18 information regarding current or prospective customers. Because this information is crucial to

19 Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc.’s success, Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc. makes substantial efforts to

20 keep this information confidential from third parties and competitors. Pantree Enterprises Co.,

21 Inc. limits workers’ access to this information, requires that all information be securely stored,

22 and demands that workers return all confidential information.

23 45. As a result of his working relationship with Park, Kim acquired access to Pantree

24 Enterprises Co., Inc.’s customer lists and related proprietary information, both of which are

25 trade secrets. This information was only disclosed because Kim agreed to acquire Park’s

26 business for an agreed-upon price.

27 46. Defendants improperly used or disclosed Plaintiff Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc.’s

28 trade secrets by forming a separate entity with a nearly identical name: Pantree Enterprises, Inc.
8
COMPLAINT
Defendants further misappropriated Plaintiff Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc.’s trade secrets by

accessing and changing the password and contact email for Plaintiff Pantree Enterprises Co.,

Inc.’s domain server without permission. Defendants further misappropriated Plaintiff Pantree

Enterprises Co., Inc.’s trade secrets by improperly withholding its proprietary information,

including a hard drive containing the businesses’ important historical documents, and files

containing sensitive personal and business information, domain server information, business license

and software information, personal and company income tax information, business expense receipts,

and bank and credit card statements. Defendants took this information with them after Kim’s

relationship with Park and Plaintiff Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc. ended.

10 47. Defendants have therefore misappropriated Plaintiff Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc.’s

11 trade secrets under Civil Code section 3426 et seq.

12 48. Plaintiff Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc. did not consent to Defendants’ use ofits trade

13 secrets.

14 49. Each of the acts of misappropriation were done willfully and maliciously by Defendants,

15 thereby entitling Plaintiff Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc. to attorneys’ fees and exemplary damages

16 to be proved at trial under Civil Code sections 3426.4 and 3426.3(c).

17 50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff Pantree Enterprises

18 Co., Inc. has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial. Plaintiff Pantree Enterprises Co.,

19 Inc. has also suffered irreparable harm as a result of Defendants’ activities and will continue to

20 suffer irreparable injury that cannot be adequately remedied at law unless Defendants, and all other

21 persons acting in concert with them, are enjoined from engaging in any further acts of

22 misappropriation.

23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

24 Elder Abuse

25 (Wel. & Inst. Code § 15600 ef seq.)
26 51. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-50 above as though

27 fully set forth here.

28 52. This cause of action is brought under California Welfare & Institutions Code sections
9
COMPLAINT
15600 et seg. (The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Protection Act).

53. At all relevant times, Park was at least 65 years old. He was an “elder” as defined by

Welfare & Institutions Code section 15610.27 and is, therefore, entitled to the statutory protections

from abuse provided by Welfare & Institutions Code sections 15610.07. Defendants knew Park was

an elder.

54. Kim befriended Park under the guise of hoping to learn from a more established

businessman. In reality, Kim befriended Park to learn about his business and eventually steal Park’s

clients for his own financial gain. Kim offered to buy Park’s business for $720,000, then later

suddenly would not offer more than $300,000. When Park would not agree, Kim formed a new

10 entity with a nearly identical name to Park’s business and misappropriated Park’s business and trade

11 secrets, as described above.

12 55. Kim deceived and earned Park’s trust to the point that Park agreed to pay Kim a monthly

13 advance and cover costs for his business Kelton Aerospace (because Kim could not cover the

14 expenses) with an understanding that all expenses would be paid back. Kim took advantage of Park’s

15 generosity and continued to accept these payments. These costs amount to an excess of $160,000 for

16 which Park has not been repaid.

17 56. Defendants’ actions amount to financial abuse of an elder under Welfare & Institutions

18 Code section 15610.30 and Park is, therefore, entitled to the statutory protections from abuse

19 provided by Welfare & Institutions Code sections 15610.07.

20 57. This deception and misappropriation caused Park to suffer financial damages in addition

21 to severe mental anguish and distress to the point that he was prescribed anti-anxiety medication by

22 his doctor.

23 58. By their actions, Defendants are responsible for elder abuse because their treatment of

24 Park, as described above, resulted in pain and/or mental suffering in violation of Welfare &

25 Institutions Code § 15610.07(a) and Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies provided by the Elder Abuse

26 Act.

27 59. As a legal result of Defendants’ conduct, Park has suffered damages, including general

28 and economic damages, including mental distress, in an amount according to proof at trial.
10
COMPLAINT
60. Plaintiff
has incurred, and will continue to incur, attorneys’ fees and costs in this

litigation. Plaintiff, if successful in this action, is entitled to recover such fees and costs from

Defendants, under the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15657.5(a).

61. In committing the actions and conduct described above, Defendants, and each of them,

acted with recklessness, oppression, fraud, and malice, and Park is therefore entitled to an award of

exemplary or punitive damages under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15657.5 and Civil Code

Section 3294, and treble damages under Civil Code Section 3345.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act

10 (Penal Code § 502)

11 62. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-61 above as though

12 fully set forth here.

13 63. Defendants intentionally accessed a protected computer without authorization when on

14 June 27, 2023, Kim changed the password and contact for Plaintiff's email domain server IONOS

15 from Park’s email to Kim’s email. Park had no knowledge of and did not approve this. On this same

16 day, Kim created a new entity with a nearly identical name to Plaintiff, Park’s entity (Defendant

17 Pantree Enterprises, Inc.).

18 64. Kim also factory reset one of Plaintiff's computers after Park left their shared office

19 space, so all work-related information and records were erased.

20 65. Kim’s hacking into Plaintiff's domain server and taking all data and information off of

21 one of Plaintiff's computers as described above resulted in impairment to the integrity and

22 availability of Plaintiff's email data, programs, systems and information.

23 66. These actions violate Penal Code section 502, which prohibits “[k]nowingly

24 access[ing] and without permission tak[ing], cop[ying], or mak[ing] use of any data from a

25 computer, computer system, or computer network, or tak[ing] or cop[ying] any supporting

26 documentation, whether existing or residing internal or external to a computer, computer system,

27 or computer network.” Section 502 (c)(2).

28 67. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have suffered
11
COMPLAINT
1 damages in an amount to be proven at trial. Plaintiffs are also entitled to punitive or exemplary

damages against Defendants because the acts described here were done with malice and oppression.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Fraud

68. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-67 above as though

fully set forth here.

69. Defendants made multiple misrepresentations to Plaintiffs. More specifically:

a) In 2022, Park and Kim verbally agreed that Kim would purchase Park’s business.

b) In reliance on this promise, Park continued to mentor Kim and agreed to pay him a

10 monthly advance and cover costs for Kim’s business Kelton Aerospace (because Kim

11 could not cover the expenses) totaling over $160,000 with an understanding that all

12 expenses would be paid back.

13 c) Kim took advantage of Park’s generosity and continued to accept Park’s payments

14 and business advice.

15 b) In May 2023, Kim suddenly reneged on the previously agreed upon purchase price

16 for Park’s business.

17 c) By June 27, 2023, Kim had not again agreed to the original purchase price, so Park

18 called off the deal. That same day, without Park’s knowledge, Kim formed a new

19 entity with a nearly identical name to Park’s entity. Also that same day, Kim changed

20 the contact for Park’s company’s domain server to his email address. Park had no

21 knowledge of and did not approve this. Despite repeated requests, it took Park over a

22 week to get Kim to return Park’s personal property from their shared office space.

23 Once Park finally received his property, many important items were missing which

24 contain Pantree Enterprises Co. Inc.’s proprietary information and trade secrets.

25 70. At the time Defendants made the false representations, Defendants knew that the

26 representations were false or had no reasonable basis for believing that they were true because Kim

27 had no intention of paying Park the agreed-upon $720,000 to purchase Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc.

28 Nor did Kim have any intention of befriending and learning from Park. It was always Kim’s intent to
12
COMPLAINT
take advantage of Park to gain access to Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc.’s customer lists and related

proprietary information to use for his own financial gain. Defendants also did not have any

intention to pay Park back for the monthly advance and costs for Kim’s business Kelton Aerospace

that Park fronted as it was always Defendants’ intention to take advantage of Plaintiffs for their own

personal gain.

71. Defendants made the representations with the intent to defraud and deceive Plaintiffs and

with the intent to induce Plaintiffs to provide Defendants access to Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc.’s

customer lists and related proprietary information and to induce Plaintiffs to continue to pay

Defendants the monthly advance and business costs.

10 72. Plaintiffs reasonably and justifiably relied on Defendants’ false representations because

11 Plaintiffs had no reason to believe (1) Kim would not pay the agreed upon $720,000 to purchase

12 Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc., (2) that Defendants would not pay back the monthly advance and costs

13 for Kelton Aerospace fronted by Plaintiffs; and (3) Defendants would misappropriate Pantree

14 Enterprises Co., Inc.’s trade secrets by improperly accessing its domain server, wiping its computer,

15 and keeping its important files and hard drive containing such information.

16 73. Plaintiffs have been damaged as a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants and are

17 therefore entitled to recover damages. Additionally, Defendants’ actions were reckless,

18 unconscionable, fraudulent, and/or malicious, entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages.

19 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

20 Breach of Oral Contract

21 74. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-73 above as though

22 fully set forth here.

23 75. In the first quarter of 2022, Park and Kim entered into a verbal agreement that Kim

24 would acquire Park’s business (Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc.) for a price of $720,000 to be paid in

25 monthly installments of $6,000 for the next 10 years (with no interest). Park and Kim had plans to

26 draft formal written agreements at a later date.

27 76. Park performed all of his obligations under the contract as he was ready and willing to

28 sell Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc. for the agreed upon price of $720,000.
13
COMPLAINT
77. In May 2023, Kim breached the agreement when he claimed that he no longer agreed

upon the $720,000 value discussed and demanded that Park agree to a purchase price of $300,000

instead.

78. As a direct and proximate result of the breach by Kim, Plaintiffs suffered damages in an

amount to be proven at trial.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Conversion

79. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-78 above as though

fully set forth here.

10 80. Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc. and Park are owners of the following personal property:

11 (a) 3 hard-copy files containing highly sensitive personal/business information

12 (b) 1 black wooden chest

13 (c) Commission Record File

14 (d) Bank Statements for 2022 & 2023

15 (e) Credit Card Statement File for 2022 & 2023

16 (f) 1 portable hard drive and 1 connecting router (one of the most critical items,

17 containing all important historical documents pertaining to Park’s business, as well as

18 personal information)

19 (g) 4 computer monitors

20 (h) 1 black refrigerator

21 (i) 2 folders containing sensitive and critical business information labeled ‘1 and 1

22 mails’ (contains email server information) and ‘microsoft.365’ (contains business

23 license and software information).

24 (j) Sales records for years 2022 and 2023

25 (k) Personal and company income tax files

26 (1) Business expense receipt folder

27 (m) Resale certificate

28 (n) Passport copy (belonging to Park)
14
COMPLAINT
(0) Company I/D & P/W records

(p) 1 computer

81. Defendants substantially interfered with Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc. and Park’s

property by knowingly and intentionally taking possession of the personal property described in

paragraph 80(a)-(p) above.

82. Defendants also substantially interfered with Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc. and Park’s

property by knowingly and intentionally preventing Plaintiffs from having access to the personal

property described in paragraph 80(a)-(p) above.

83. Defendants also substantially interfered with Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc. and Park’s

10 property by knowingly and intentionally refusing to return the personal property described in

11 paragraph 80(a)-(p) above after Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc. and Park demanded its return.

12 84. Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc. and Park did not consent to Defendants taking of the

13 personal property described in paragraph 80 above.

14 85. Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc. and Park have been harmed by Defendants taking of the

15 personal property described in paragraph 80 above.

16 86. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Pantree Enterprises Co., Inc

17 and Park’s harm.

18 87. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants conduct described above, Pantree

19 Enterprises Co., Inc. and Park suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

20 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

21 False Advertising

22 (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.)
23 88. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-87 above as though

24 fully set forth here.

25 89. The California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq., prohibits

26 unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.

27 90. Over the course of multiple years, Kim fostered a relationship with Park. Kim would

28 often go out of his way to ingratiate himself with Park by giving Park gifts and inserting himself in
15
COMPLAINT
Park’s personal life as described in detail in paragraph 16 above.

91. Over the course of the relationship, Kim sought business advice and mentoring from