Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-00995/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-00995-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ING BANK, fsb,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CHANGSEOB AHN and SOOKHEE

AHN,

Defendants.

NO. C09-00995 TEH

ORDER FINALIZING ORDER

GRANTING COUNTERCLAIMANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CHANGSEOB AHN and SOOKHEE

AHN,

 Counterclaimants,

v.

ING BANK, fsb and BONA

FINANCIAL GROUP, Inc.

Counterdefendants.

This matter came before the Court for case management on May 17, 2010. By order

dated May 13, 2010, the Court had granted summary judgment to Defendants and

Counterclaimants Changseob Ahn and Sookhee Ahn (“the Ahns”) on the narrow question of

whether Counterdefendant Bona Financial Group, Inc. (“Bona”) had violated California Civil

Code section 1632. At the case management conference, the Court stated that it would treat

its order as a tentative ruling and allowed Bona to present oral argument in opposition to the

Ahns’ motion, which the Court had previously decided based only on the papers.

Case 3:09-cv-00995-TEH Document 79 Filed 05/19/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Bona argued that Mr. Ahn’s apparent fluency in English places him within the section

1632’s broad definition of “interpreter,” and therefore excepted it from the statute’s

requirement that the Ahns be furnished with Korean-language translations of loan

documents. However, Bona’s argument – which the Court had previously considered and

rejected – is without merit. It is undisputed that the negotiation here was conducted in

Korean. Mr. Ahn’s mere knowledge of English does not render him an interpreter, which

requires that he have translated “from one language to another.” Black’s Law Dictionary 838

(8th ed. 2004).

The Court therefore does not alter its original decision GRANTING the Ahns’ motion

on the narrow question of Bona’s violation of section 1632. That Order is now FINAL. The

Court also VACATES AS MOOT Bona’s objection to the untimely filing of the Ahns’ reply

brief, upon which the Court did not rely in deciding the motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/18/10 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:09-cv-00995-TEH Document 79 Filed 05/19/10 Page 2 of 2