1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

GINA JANG and HOSEONG CHANG, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) CASE NO. 12CV782 

vs. ) 

 ) JUDGE JOHN W. DARRAH 

WOO LAE OAK, INC. CHICAGO, ) 

JIN K. JANG, CHIYOON KIM and ) 

IL KWON JEONG, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT AGAINST 

DEFENDANT, KEI WOOK LEE

 Plaintiffs, GINA JANG, HOSEONG and KYOUNG CHOI, by their attorney, Amy 

Elizabeth Paluch Epton, of Whitfield, McGann & Ketterman, respectfully move this 

Court for an Order of Default against President KEI WOOK LEE, and state as follows: 

 1. This is a Complaint for unpaid wages under the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed their 

Complaint on February 3, 2012. Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on 

December 6, 2012, naming Defendant President KEI WOOK LEE “Defendant Lee,” for 

the first time as an individually named Defendant. 

 2. Defendant Lee was properly served on February 22, 2013, by service on 

Attorney Peter Kim. (Docket number 41). 

 3. Defendant Lee has failed to appear, answer or otherwise plead within the 

time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
2 

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE ON KEI WOOK LEE

 4. This lawsuit involves allegations against KEI WOOK LEE, individually, in 

that he deprived Plaintiffs of all wages during their employment at the corporate 

restaurant. 

 5. The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on February 3, 2012. Plaintiffs filed their 

First Amended Complaint on December 6, 2012, and process servers attempted to serve 

Defendant, KEI WOOK LEE, at his residence located at 5601 Carriageway Dr., Apt. 214, 

Rolling Meadows, Illinois, on January 18, 2013, January 19, 2013, January 21, 2013, 

January 26, 2013 and January 28, 2013. Additionally, Plaintiffs attempted to serve 

Defendant Lee at the restaurant on February 1st, 2nd, 5th, 8th and 11th, 2013. The process 

server left notes for the Defendant on each occasion, and on each occasion spoke with 

employees who said that Defendant Lee worked there. The process server left business 

cards with these employees, and Defendant Lee never responded in any fashion. 

Plaintiffs have been unable to accomplish personal or substitute service on any of those 

dates. A copy of the Affidavit of Non-Service detailing these service attempts is attached 

as Exhibit A.

 6. Former corporate counsel, Attorney Peter Kim represented that although 

he met and talked with Defendant Lee in Defendant Lee’s capacity as corporate 

president, Attorney Kim did not represent Defendant Lee in his individual capacity. 

 7. On February 6, 2013, this Court heard Plaintiffs’ motion for an order of 

alternate service on Defendant Lee, by means of service on the Corporate attorney, Peter 

Kim. The Court indicated that it was inclined to grant that motion. Defendant Lee, in 

his capacity as corporate representative, argued that the Court should not grant that 
3 

motion until Plaintiffs had attempted a waiver of service on Defendant Lee. (See 

Exhibit B, Transcript of Hearing of February 6, 2013) 

 8. At the end of the hearing on February 6, 2013, this Court entered and 

continued the motion for alternate service so that Plaintiffs could attempt to obtain a 

waiver of service on Defendant Lee. 

 9. Plaintiffs attempted a waiver of service on Defendant Lee by mailing him 

via certified mail, the required form. (Exhibit C) 

 10. The parties returned to Court on February 20, 2013, for the continuance of 

the motion for alternate service, and for Attorney Peter Kim’s withdrawal of 

representation. Plaintiffs reported that President Lee had failed to respond to the 

waiver of service overture. The Court then entered an Order granting Plaintiffs Service 

on Defendant Lee by means of service on Peter Kim, by personal service or certified 

mail. Immediately following this Order, during the same February 20, 2013 hearing, the 

Court granted Attorney Kim leave to withdraw as counsel for the corporation. (Exhibit 

D) 

 11. The Court’s intention by these orders was clearly that service on Attorney 

Kim would be valid, even though Attorney Kim had withdrawn from corporate 

representation. If not, the Court’s Order granting service on Defendant Lee by means of 

service on Attorney Kim would have been nugatory, futile, or void at its inception as 

immediately after granting the Order, the Court entered an Order permitting Attorney 

Kim to withdraw. 

 12. The two parts of the February 20, 2013 Order, read together, must mean 

that service on Attorney Kim created service on Defendant Lee regardless of whether 

Attorney Kim was still the corporation’s attorney, in order to avoid an interpretation of 
4 

the Order that is Lex nil facit frustra, nil jubet frustra (“The law does not do anything 

nor commands anyone to do anything which would be futile.) 

 13. Plaintiffs properly served Defendant Lee via attorney service on February 

22, 2013 with an answer due March 26, 2013. (Exhibit E) 

 14. Defendant Lee admits to actual knowledge of the suit against him in 

Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify Exhibit D to Docket #52. (See Exhibit F). Defendant 

corporation, in its reply to the Motion to Strike, Docket #65, page 3, ¶ 12, admits that 

Defendant Lee purposefully removed himself from the jurisdiction of the Court. 

 15. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1), a Plaintiff may serve an 

individual defendant “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in 

courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located.” 

 16. Under Illinois law, where service through personal service on an individual 

defendant or by substitute service on a person residing at the individual defendant’s 

usual place of abode is impractical, a party: 

 may move, without notice, that the court enter an order directing a 

comparable method of service. The motion shall be accompanied with an 

affidavit stating the nature and extent of the investigation made to 

determine the whereabouts of the defendant and the reasons why service 

is impractical [through personal or substitute service], including a specific 

statement showing that a diligent inquiry as to the location of the 

individual defendant was made and reasonable efforts to make service 

have been unsuccessful. The court may order service to be made in any 

manner consistent with due process. 

735 ILCS 5/2-203.1. 

 17. As established above, service upon Mr. Lee is impractical because 

the Plaintiffs’ process server has been unable to speak with anyone at his residence. The 
5 

process server has made five (5) attempts at service at a wide variety of times. It 

appears that Defendant Lee is avoiding service because the process server left three (3) 

notes at the condominium where Defendant lives, and the notes were gone at the time of 

the process server’s next visit. 

 18. A special order permitting service through an attorney representing a the 

corporation was approved in AEL Financial LLC v. Tri-City Auto Salvage, Inc., Case No. 

08 C 4384 (N.D.Ill. January 30 2009) (Dow, Jr., J) (a copy of the order is attached 

hereto as Exhibit G), which noted that Illinois courts had “at least tacitly 

endorsed...service on an attorney where service on the attorney’s client through the 

standard methods had proven impossible or impractical.” The court permitted service 

on the client via service on the attorney by personal service or certified mail, return 

receipt requested. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Honorable Court enter a 

Judgment by Default, and order a Prove Up Hearing for Damages. 

 Respectfully Submitted, 

 

 /s/ Amy Elizabeth Paluch Epton

 One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Travis J. Ketterman 

Amy Elizabeth Paluch Epton 

Whitfield McGann & Ketterman 

111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

(312) 251-9700 Fax (312) 251-9701 

aepton@wmklaborlaw.com