YOUNG RAN KIM’S, F/K/A YOUNG HONG, MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 1

(CV-06-00149-RSM)

Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC

601 Union Street, Suite 4100

Seattle, Washington 98101-2380

(206) 628-6600

3046429.1

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

The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

WAYNE SEMINOFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUNG HONG, a/k/a LAWRENCE HONG, and 

YOUNG HONG, a married couple, HYO 

HONG, a single woman, and H & H GROUP,

INC., a Washington corporation,

Defendants.

NO. CV-06-00149-RSM

YOUNG RAN KIM’S, F/K/A YOUNG 

HONG, MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 

JUDGMENT

NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:

FEBRUARY 11, 2011

I. RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant Young Ran Kim, formerly known as Young Hong, moves the Court 

pursuant to Rule 60(a) and or 60(b) for an Order granting relief from this Court’s June 23, 2009 

Judgment in favor of plaintiff. Ms. Kim requests relief because the judgment debtor apparently

was not limited to Defendant Sung Hong, a/k/a Lawrence Hong, as it should have been.

II. FACTS

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed suit against all defendants seeking restitution after defendants allegedly 

engaged in a scheme to defraud plaintiff. Dkt. # 1. On April 6, 2007, defendant Sung 

(Lawrence) Hong entered a plea of guilty to one count of wire fraud in a corresponding 

criminal suit. United States v. Sung Hong, CR07-33JLR, Dkt. # 17. As part of the plea, 

Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 67 Filed 02/01/11 Page 1 of 7
YOUNG RAN KIM’S, F/K/A YOUNG HONG, MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 2

(CV-06-00149-RSM)

Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC

601 Union Street, Suite 4100

Seattle, Washington 98101-2380

(206) 628-6600

3046429.1

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

Mr. Hong agreed to make restitution to plaintiff in the amount of $655,834. Id. On 

January 14, 2008, the court entered judgment against Mr. Hong in the criminal case and 

ordered him to pay restitution to plaintiff in the amount of $655,834.00. Id., Dkt. # 21. The 

court ordered restitution due immediately. Id.

The defendants in this civil action originally appeared through counsel and filed an 

answer. Dkt. ## 10, 18,21. Counsel for defendants subsequently withdrew. Dkt. # 22. 

Although defendants thereafter failed to enter notices of appearance pro se or otherwise appear 

to defend against this action, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for entry of judgment of 

default because he failed to submit supporting documentation including proof that he had 

served defendants at their last known address. Dkt. # 42.

Plaintiff renewed his motion for entry of default on January 18, 2008. Dkt. # 43. 

Defendant Hyo Hong appeared through counsel and opposed the motion. Dkt. # 46. Neither 

Ms. Kim or defendant Sung (Lawrence) Hong appeared to oppose the motion. This Court 

again denied plaintiff’s request to enter a default judgment:

Plaintiff has neither satisfied the Court that he properly served all defendants, 

nor submitted a sworn declaration and supporting documentation as required. 

He has failed to establish that he is entitled to anything more than the amount of 

the restitution which has been ordered in the criminal case, and has failed to 

acknowledge any amounts that have actually been paid to this point. The motion 

for entry of default judgment is accordingly DENIED. 

Dkt. # 48. 

More than a year then lapsed until the next substantive action was taken when 

Defendant Hyo Hong filed for summary judgment on February 25, 2009. Dkt. # 56. Plaintiff 

and Defendant Hyo Hong ultimately reached an agreement and the Court entered an Order 

granting their stipulated motion for dismissal with prejudice against Defendant Hyo Hong. 

Dkt. # 61.

Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 67 Filed 02/01/11 Page 2 of 7
YOUNG RAN KIM’S, F/K/A YOUNG HONG, MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 3

(CV-06-00149-RSM)

Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC

601 Union Street, Suite 4100

Seattle, Washington 98101-2380

(206) 628-6600

3046429.1

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

After a telephone conference with the Court on June 16, 2009 at which only Plaintiff 

and Defendant Sung (Lawrence) Hong appeared, and did so pro se, the two parties agreed to 

entry of judgment in the same amount as the previously imposed restitution against Defendant 

Sung (Lawrence) Hong. The Minute Entry reflected in the Docket contains the following 

description, in relevant part:

The Court will prepare the stipulated judgment and forward to the parties; if 

there are no objections by either party within (5) days of receipt of the proposed 

judgment, it will be signed and entered by the Court and the case will be 

dismissed.

Dkt. # 63 (emphasis added). Receiving no objections, the Court entered judgment on June 23, 

2009: “in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $655,834,00, the same amount ordered as 

restitution in the criminal case, U.S. v. Hong.” Dkt. # 65.

B. Ms. Kim’s Divorce from Defendant Sung (Lawrence) Hong

Nearly a year prior to entry of judgment in this matter, on or about September 8, 2008, 

Defendants Young Ran Kim and Sung (Lawrence) Hong were divorced pursuant to a Decree of 

Dissolution entered in Snohomish County Superior Court.1 In dissolving the marriage, the 

court apportioned the property and liabilities of Defendants Young Ran Kim and Sung 

(Lawrence) Hong. In pertinent part, the defendant and business company known as H&H 

Group was awarded solely to Sung (Lawrence) Hong, ¶ 3.2, and the liabilities to be paid by

him included:

Any debt incurred by the business known as H&H Group, including but not 

limited to, any civil legal actions filed or pending against the business, the 

husband individually or the parties jointly, any taxes owed, any reimbursements 

due to clients of the business, etc.

Any financial obligations arising from the pending criminal prosecution of the 

husband.

Id. at ¶ 3.4.

 

1

 Declaration of Mark S. Davidson, Ex. 1.

Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 67 Filed 02/01/11 Page 3 of 7
YOUNG RAN KIM’S, F/K/A YOUNG HONG, MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 4

(CV-06-00149-RSM)

Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC

601 Union Street, Suite 4100

Seattle, Washington 98101-2380

(206) 628-6600

3046429.1

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

III. STATEMENT OF ISSUE

Should Ms. Kim be awarded relief from the judgment apparently but erroneously

entered as to all defendants where:

1. The agreed judgment was only by and between Plaintiff and Sung (Lawrence) 

Hong

2. Ms. Kim divorced Defendant Sung (Lawrence) Hong well before entry of 

judgment and, as recognized by the Decree, the liabilities forming the basis of 

the judgment properly belong solely to Defendant Sung (Lawrence) Hong

IV. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON

This motion is based upon the Declaration of Mark S. Davidson and the exhibit thereto, 

and the records and pleadings on file with the Court.

V. AUTHORITY

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60: Relief from Judgment

(a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions.

The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or 

omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the 

record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. 

But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is 

pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court's leave.

(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding.

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal 

representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following 

reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have 

been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); 

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or 

misconduct by an opposing party; 

(4) the judgment is void; 

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an 

earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively

is no longer equitable; or 

Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 67 Filed 02/01/11 Page 4 of 7
YOUNG RAN KIM’S, F/K/A YOUNG HONG, MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 5

(CV-06-00149-RSM)

Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC

601 Union Street, Suite 4100

Seattle, Washington 98101-2380

(206) 628-6600

3046429.1

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

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.2

B. Ms. Kim Should Be Granted Relief From The Judgment under Rule 60(a)

Under Rule 60(a), the Court has the power to correct any “clerical mistake or a mistake 

arising from oversight or omission.” Here, it appears that the Court approved a stipulated 

judgment agreed upon by Plaintiff and the defendant Sung (Lawrence) Hong. See Dkt. # 63. It 

further appears that the Court did so recognizing that the agreement was only between those 

two parties. Id. The judgment itself, however, fails to reflect this critical limitation. While 

awarding judgment in “favor of plaintiff,” it does not expressly provide that this judgment is 

only as to Defendant Sung (Lawrence) Hong. Dkt. # 65. There are several indications that this 

oversight was likely a clerical mistake, oversight or omission. For instance, the terms of the 

judgment – in ordering restitution with reference to the criminal proceeding – make clear that it 

was intended to be entered only as to Defendant Sung (Lawrence) Hong. Moreover, Defendant 

Hyo Hong, having previously been dismissed from the action, and Ms. Kim were not parties to 

the stipulated judgment.

For all of these reasons, the Court should grant Ms. Kim relief from judgment pursuant 

to Rule 60(a) and should correct the judgment to reflect that it was entered only as against 

Defendant Sung (Lawrence) Hong.

C. Ms. Kim Should Be Granted Relief From The Judgment under Rule 60(b)

Rule 60(b)(5) and (6) recognize that equitable principals often justify relief from 

judgment (granting relief, respectively where “applying it prospectively is no longer equitable” 

or for “any other reason that justifies relief.”). Here, it is not equitable to apply the judgment 

against Ms. Kim for the reasons previously stated: (1) the judgment is in the same amount and 

stems from the same facts for which Defendant Sung (Lawrence) Hong was ordered to pay

 

2

 Motions for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)(2) and (3) must be made within one year of judgment. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). This motion is based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) and 60(b)(5) and (6).

Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 67 Filed 02/01/11 Page 5 of 7
YOUNG RAN KIM’S, F/K/A YOUNG HONG, MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 6

(CV-06-00149-RSM)

Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC

601 Union Street, Suite 4100

Seattle, Washington 98101-2380

(206) 628-6600

3046429.1

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

restitution in connection with his criminal conviction; and (2) Ms. Kim divorced Defendant 

Sung (Lawrence) Hong under terms which recognized that only Defendant Sung (Lawrence) 

Hong is properly liable for all restitution ordered in either civil or criminal proceedings.

For all of these reasons, the Court should grant Ms. Kim relief from judgment pursuant 

to Rule 60(a) and/or Rule 60(b) and should correct the judgment to reflect that it was entered 

only as against Defendant Sung (Lawrence) Hong.

DATED this 1st day of February, 2011.

s/Mark S. Davidson

Mark S. Davidson, WSBA #06430

Michael I. White, WSBA #35409

Attorneys for Defendant Young Ran Kim, 

formerly known as Young Hong

WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC

601 Union Street, Suite 4100

Seattle, WA 98101-2380

Telephone: (206) 628-6600

Fax: (206) 628-6611

Email: mdavidson@williamskastner.com

mwhite@williamskastner.com

Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 67 Filed 02/01/11 Page 6 of 7
YOUNG RAN KIM’S, F/K/A YOUNG HONG, MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 7

(CV-06-00149-RSM)

Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC

601 Union Street, Suite 4100

Seattle, Washington 98101-2380

(206) 628-6600

3046429.1

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 1st day of February, 2011, I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, and a copy of which was 

delivered via U.S. Mail to the following:

Wayne Seminoff

PO Box 956

Kirkland, WA 98083

Plaintiff Pro Se

DATED this 1st day of February, 2011.

s/Mark S. Davidson

Mark S. Davidson, WSBA #06430

Michael I. White, WSBA #35409

Attorneys for Defendant Young Ran Kim, 

formerly known as Young Hong

WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC

601 Union Street, Suite 4100

Seattle, WA 98101-2380

Telephone: (206) 628-6600

Fax: (206) 628-6611

Email: mdavidson@williamskastner.com

mwhite@williamskastner.com

Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 67 Filed 02/01/11 Page 7 of 7