Jes Solar Company Limited v. Matinee Energy Incorporated

Opinion

WO

Jes Solar Company Limited, et al., No. CV-12-00626-TUC-DCB

Plaintiffs, ORDER

v.

Matinee Energy Incorporated, et al.,

Defendants. This Court entered summary judgment for Defendants, Tong-Soo Chung (Chung) and S. Chin Kim (Kim) on July 3, 2019. Defendants filed motions for attorney fees and costs, which were fully briefed by September 11, 2019. See (Reply (Doc. 513)). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Court’s grant of summary judgment, and the Mandate issued on November 18, 2020. Subsequently, the Defendants sought and received approval from the appellate court to have this Court rule on whether to grant them attorney fees and costs related to the appeal. Plaintiff’s object because they believe that this Court cannot rule on these pending motions because the South Korean government needs to obtain the testimony of Paul Jeong, first. As best as the Court understands the Plaintiffs’ argument, as made to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, “the Ninth Circuit has not addressed the issue of whether the termination of this case in the U.S. courts has any preclusive effect on Plaintiffs' contemplated legal actions in South Korea, their home country.” (Response (Doc. 522) at 1.) “Stated more specifically, the dismissal of this case in the absence of Paul Jeoung's direct testimony about his alleged co- conspirators such as Defendants must be without prejudice to instituting legal proceedings (both civil and criminal) in South Korean courts, where U.S.-South Korean judicial assistance may be sought by South Korean authorities to procure testimony from Paul Jeoung, who is highly likely to testify that Defendants knew the Matinee Project was a fraudulent scheme while he was working with them.” Id. at 2. This case has been dismissed with prejudice by Judgment (Doc. 491), which is by definition the “final determination [on the merits of the case] of the rights of the parties in an action or proceeding.” Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 935 P.2d 781, 791 (Cal.1997) (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted). In short, the argument the Plaintiffs made to the appellate court and, assumedly, intend to make in the context of supplementing the Responses to the Motions for Attorney Fees, is meritless because Judgment has been entered and affirmed on appeal. That boat has sailed. The Court sets a briefing schedule solely for the purpose of briefing the question of whether to award Defendants attorney fees and costs for the appeal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Briefing Schedule to Supplement the Motions for Attorney Fees (Doc. 521) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that supplemental briefs shall be filed solely1 for the purpose of allowing the Defendants to add a request for appellate fees and costs, as follows: by January 15, 2021, but not earlier than January 4, 2021 – Deadline for Mr. Chung and Mr. Kim to file supplemental briefs in support of their respective pending applications for attorneys’ fees limited to 10 pages or less, excluding supporting affidavits of counsel. /// /// /// 1 Supplemental Briefs shall address entitlement to fees incurred after the currently pending fee applications were filed and reasonableness of same. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the LRCiv. 7.2 shall apply for filing Responses and Replies. The Plaintiffs’ Responses shall be limited to 10 pages or less and Replies, if any, shall be limited to 7 pages. Dated this 21st day of December, 2020. ' Davj United Ct Judge

-3-