Court Opinion

ID: 9881937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 18:18:17.446251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:27.161395
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/4/23 Han v. Korean Am. Federation of Los Angeles CA2/4
         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

     IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                            SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION FOUR

 DONG Y. HAN,                                                            B323748

           Plaintiff and Appellant,                                      (Los Angeles County
                                                                         Super. Ct. No.20STCP04115)
           v.

 KOREAN AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF LOS ANGELES,
 INC.,

           Defendant and Respondent.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Mitchell L. Beckloff, Judge. Affirmed.
      Jeong and Likens, Chan Yong Jeong for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
      Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Robert D. Weber,
Valerie E. Alter, Bryan M. Wittlin, and Gian Ryan for Defendant
and Respondent.
                        INTRODUCTION
      Appellant Dong Y. Han filed a petition for writ of mandate
seeking inspection of financial records, member lists, and
meeting minutes from the Korean American Federation of Los
Angeles, Inc. (KAFLA), a nonprofit public benefit corporation,
under Corporations Code sections 6330 and 6333.1 Han alleged
that KAFLA mismanaged funds and failed to comply with its own
rules regarding electing a president. KAFLA produced some of
the requested documents, including certain accounting books and
records. The trial court granted Han’s petition in part, and
KAFLA produced additional documents. Han then filed a motion
requesting further additional documents, seeking receipts, bank
records, and other source documents that would allow her to
investigate alleged financial discrepancies in KAFLA’s ledgers;
she also requested appointment of an independent auditor under
section 6336. The trial court denied Han’s motion, concluding
that Han was not entitled to additional documents under sections
6330 and 6336, and an auditor was unwarranted under section
6336. Han appealed.
      We affirm. Han has not demonstrated that the trial court
erred in finding that KAFLA’s production complied with sections
6330 and 6333, and that appointment of an auditor was not
warranted.
       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A.    Petition for writ of mandate
      KAFLA is a nonprofit corporation organized to promote the
interests of the Korean American community of Los Angeles
County. According to KAFLA president James An, KAFLA

1    All further undesignated statutory references are to the
Corporations Code.

                               2
“serves as an umbrella organization to over 250 Korean American
community organizations throughout Greater Los Angeles,” and
“KAFLA’s social programs include the distribution of food to the
needy, Medicare & Medi-Cal assistance to Seniors, and
assistance in obtaining Senior and Affordable housing.”
According to KAFLA’s bylaws, all Korean Americans residing in
Los Angeles County are members of the organization, and all
members over the age of 18 have voting rights. Han, a Korean
American living in Los Angeles County, is a member.
       Han alleged KAFLA failed to abide by various rules
regarding elections for KAFLA president, including the 2020
election, which resulted in the appointment of An as president.
On December 8 and 9, 2020, Han requested “disclosure of the
records . . . regarding controversies surrounding the KAFLA’s
improper use of funds and mismanagement of the election by the
board, the election management committee and/or
officers/board/committee members.” She listed 38 categories of
documents, requesting that the documents be sent to her within
10 business days.
       On December 14, 2020, Han filed a petition for writ of
mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, alleging a
single cause of action for “improper and intentional refusal to
disclose” certain information under Corporations Code sections
“6310, 6320, 6321, 6322, 6323, 6324, 6330, 6333, 6335, 8333,
8337, 9511, [and] 9514.” Han alleged she had “made a formal
request for disclosure” of certain documents, “but KAFLA
knowingly and willfully ignored, and refused to comply with, the
request.” In her prayer for relief, Han asked the court to order
KAFLA to produce all requested documents, invalidate the

                               3
election of An, order KAFLA to hold a new election, and award
Han costs and attorney fees.
B.     Han’s opening brief
       In her opening brief and a supporting declaration, Han
asserted that KAFLA is required to hold presidential elections
every two years, but “[s]ince the last election where the KAFLA
members could actually vote for candidates for the election in
2006, KAFLA never had a real election.” Han stated, “[S]ince
2006, KAFLA has claimed that there was only a single candidate
who was qualified for the presidential election, and therefore
appointed that candidate, thus interfering with the members’
right to vote for candidates.” She contended that in 2020, the
KAFLA board “on their own decided to extend the [president’s]
term by six months . . . from June to December of 2020, which is
the equivalent to limiting, and interfering with, the rights of the
members to the election of the new president.” KAFLA then
“announced James Giwook An . . . as the only candidate and the
new president.”
       Han further asserted that KAFLA took certain steps “to
discourage potential candidates from registering” for the
elections. She contended that An “failed to comply with” the
registration requirements, but “KAFLA chose to accept him as
the candidate in violation[ ] of their own bylaws and election
rules.” In addition, “An uploaded his campaign videos soliciting
donations to support him as a ‘candidate’ on the KAFLA’s
youtube [sic] channel called the ‘KAFLA TV’ that has been run
obviously under the name of KAFLA and had over 10,000
subscribers and thousands of view[s] for each video.” Han
asserted that An also “improperly used the list of the members
who provided their contact information to get KAFLA’s help in

                                 4
seeking the benefits from the governments’ Covid Relief
Programs such as EDD, PPP, and EIDL,” and An used KAFLA
member information to “create[ ] a chatroom with about 500
members where he discussed about [sic] his candidacy.”
       Regarding her document requests, Han relied on sections
6330 and 6333, relating to nonprofit public benefit corporations
and members’ rights of inspection. Section 6330 allows a member
to “[i]nspect and copy the record of all the members’ names,
addresses and voting rights.” (§ 6330, subd. (a)(1).) Section 6333
states in full, “The accounting books and records and minutes of
proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the
board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the
corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose
reasonably related to such person’s interests as a member.”
       Han alleged that after she filed her writ petition, KAFLA
responded to her production request by “post[ing] some
documents on a secured webpage, most of which were the
documents that were already disclosed to the public such as the
bylaws and the election rules. Further, it did not allow
downloading of any records,” even though the Corporations Code
mandates that records be made available for copying.
       Han asked the court to order KAFLA to produce additional
documents, and divided her requests into three groups. In the
first group, she asserted that KAFLA should be required to
disclose “accounting books and records” pursuant to section 6333.
Under this category, she included the following requests, using
the numbering from her initial document requests to KAFLA2:

2     We reproduce Han’s requests verbatim here, including the
language, spelling, and punctuation of Han’s requests. Footnotes
within the requests have been deleted.

                                5
“4. We are informed James An received $3,000 per
month without any endorsement or approval of the
board of KAFLA. Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS
showing who and through what procedure, such a
decision to pay James An was made.
“5. Please also produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing
any and all payment for any reason, KAFLA made to
James An.
“12. We are informed Jeff Lee has improperly been
paid by KAFLA. Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS
showing, mentioning, authorizing, discussing,
endorsing or opining on, any payment to Jeff Lee in
any form including without limitation to wage,
reimbursement, other benefits or equipment, whether
or not work-related.
“13. We are informed Laura Jeon has improperly
been paid by KAFLA. Please also produce ALL
DOCUMENTS showing, mentioning, discussing, or
opining on, any payment to Laura Jeon for any
reason in any form including without limitation to
wage, reimbursement, other benefits or equipment,
whether or not work-related.
“14. We are informed James An has improperly been
paid by KAFLA. Please also produce ALL
DOCUMENTS showing, mentioning, discussing, or
opining on, any payment to James An for any reason
in any form including without limitation to wage,
reimbursement, other benefits or equipment, whether
or not work-related.

                        6
“15. We are informed the board members who
participated in distribution of the funds donated for
helping undocumented members in needs due to
COVID-19 has improperly been paid by KAFLA.
Please also produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing,
mentioning, discussing, or opining on, the identities
of the participating board members and any payment
given to them in any form including without
limitation to wage, reimbursement, other benefits or
equipment, whether or not work-related.
“16. Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing,
mentioning, discussing, or opining on, any grants or
donations from any government offices to KAFLA
including without limitation to Korean government,
Los Angeles City or County, or state/federal
government offices, on or after January 1, 2018.
“17. Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing,
mentioning, discussing, or opining on, any grants or
donations from other non-profit organizations,
individuals, enterprises given to KAFLA, on or after
January 1, 2018.
“19. Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing,
mentioning, discussing, or opining on, any
expenditure by KAFLA in the amount of or over $200
including without limitation to bank statements,
canceled checks, any statement, receipts, invoices
and payment records or if it is regarding any event,
the picture of the event, on or after January 1, 2018.
“28. Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS submitted to
any of the California State Franchise Tax Board, the

                          7
Internal Revenue Service, California State Attorney
General’s Office on or after January 1, 2018.
“32. Please also disclose; (a) adequate and correct
books and records of account ; (b) Minutes of the
proceedings of the corporation’s members, board, and
board committees; (c) Members’ records containing
their names, addresses, and the class of membership
held by each; and (d) Minutes, books, and records
must be kept in written form or a form capable of
being converted into a clearly legible, tangible form.
“34. We are informed James Ahn (board chairman)
has improperly been paid by KAFLA. Please also
produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing, mentioning,
discussing, or opining on, any payment to James
Ahan for any reason, in any form, including without
limitation to wage, reimbursement, other benefits, on
or after January 1, 2018.
“35. We are informed Ik Chung Um (“[the person’s
name in Korean]”) has improperly been paid by
KAFLA. Please also produce ALL DOCUMENTS
showing, mentioning, discussing, or opining on, any
payment to Ik Chung Um in any form including
without limitation to wage, reimbursement, other
benefits or equipment, whether or not work-related,
on or after January 1, 2018.
“36. We are informed some board members have
improperly been paid by KAFLA. Please also produce
ALL DOCUMENTS showing, mentioning, discussing,
or opining on, any payment to any of the board
members in any form including without limitation to

                          8
       wage, reimbursement, other benefits or equipment,
       whether or not work-related, on or after January 1,
       2018.
       “37. We are informed KAFLA has improperly been
       wastefully spending or even converting its fund in the
       form of meals. Please also produce ALL
       DOCUMENTS showing mentioning, discussing, or
       opining on, any payment related to meals including
       without limitation to receipt, invoice, payment
       records, etc., on or after January 1, 2018.
       “38. We are informed KAFLA has improperly been
       wastefully spending or even converting its fund in the
       form of purchasing equipment such as ipad or iphone.
       Please also produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing
       mentioning, discussing, or opining on, any payment
       related to purchasing, renting, or leasing any
       equipment or vehicles including without limitation to
       receipt, invoice, payment records, etc., on or after
       January 1, 2018.”
       Han asserted that KAFLA had produced “a few pages of its
financial statements full of self-serving conclusory statements,”
but “[t]here is no breakdown or explanation as to what grants or
contracts, from or with whom, when, why and how, the amount
was received. There is no way to understand what that is about
or verify the accuracy.” Han continued, “There is no breakdown,
or supporting records for $381,850 expenditure for ‘health and
welfare’, $89,272 for ‘Empowerment’, $224,138 for ‘General
Administration’. There is no way for a member to get to know
whether, for what, when, and how any part of the total
expenditure in the amount of $754,483 was spent. . . . Even for

                                9
$120,814 for salaries and wages, there is no way for a member to
know who received how much, for what and when, as well as
whether it includes the potentially improper payments to board
members or officers. If paid, for what, how much and when. The
same problems exist as to other items such as $58,383 for
meetings, $37,331 for outside service, $20,930 for rent, $29,858
for supplies and other, the total of which KAFLA claims to be
over $400,000.00. The other big chunk of funds KAFLA claims to
have spent, with no proof or explanation, is $311,333 for ‘relief
fund’.” Han argued that KAFLA “should be ordered to produce
all of the accounting books and records including bank
statements and check copies verifying amounts of the revenues
and the expenditures, copies of agreements, receipts, invoices,
reimbursement forms, any board resolutions approving
expenditures, and KAFLA accounting books and ledgers.”
        In her second group of requests, Han contended that
KAFLA was required to disclose “the minutes of the proceedings
of the board, committees, and members” under section 6333. In
this group, she included the following requests, reproduced
verbatim:

                        “Re: 2020 Election
     “1. We are informed James An did not pay $50,000
     for his registration as a candidate. Please produce
     ALL DCOUMENTS showing, if any, James An (aka
     James Giwook An) paid $50,000 for his registration
     as a candidate.[ ]
     “3. We are informed James An improperly raised
     fund using the KAFLA TV owned and managed by
     KAFLA. Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS
     discussing, analyzing, opining the issue of whether

                               10
such an improper use was in violation of the election
rules applicable for KAFLA’s presidential election
including without limitation to any meeting minutes,
emails or text messages in a chat room. Please
produce ALL DCOUMENS showing any donation
given for his campaign. Please also produce ALL
DOCUMENTS showing KAFLA’s expenditure or
costs spent in purchasing any equipment, promoting
on youtube.com or other media, paying any person or
entity.[ ]
“7. We are informed James An created a Kakao chat
room (“Chat Room”) using the contact information of
about 500 Benefited Members.[ ] Please produce ALL
DOCUMENTS, pertaining to how the Chat Room was
created and who were invited and excluded, and who
are currently in the Chat Room.
“10. We are informed James An failed to submit all of
the required documents needed for registration as a
candidate for KAFLA president. Please produce ALL
DOCUMENTS submitted by James An for his
registration as a candidate. (you may redact the
personal information such as DOB, and SSN. We are
also ready to stipulate to any reasonable protective
order for protection of the personal information that
may be produced per this request.) Please also
produce ALL DOCUMENTS discussing, analyzing,
mentioning, opining on, James An’s qualification for
registration as a candidate including without
limitation to any meeting minutes.

                         11
“11. We are informed KAFLA Election Management
Committee discussed about the issues surrounding
James An’s qualification for registration as a
candidate and/or the elected without election, Please
produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing such
discussion, any effort for fact-checking on the
contents on hit document submitted, or any decision
made on the issues, without limitation to any
meeting minutes.
“21. Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing,
mentioning, discussing, or opining on, any election
management committee member’s review and
decision on the issues surrounding the review of
James An’s application, determination that he
qualified and determination that he should be elected
without election.
“22. Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing,
mentioning, discussing, or opining on, any election
management committee member’s review and
decision on the issues surrounding the question from
Chan Yong Jeong as to the election-related rule, the
review of the questions, determination as to when
and how to answer the questions.
“23. Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing,
mentioning, discussing, or opining on, any election
management committee member’s review and
decision on the issues surrounding the review of
James An’s improper use of KAFLA TV for his
campaign.

                         12
“24. Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing,
mentioning, discussing, or opining on, any election
management committee member’s review and
decision on the issues surrounding the review of
James An’s improper use of the term “candidate
([candidate in Korean])” in soliciting the campaign
donation on KAFLA TV.
“25. Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing,
mentioning, discussing, or opining on, any election
management committee member’s review and
decision on the issues surrounding the review of
James An’s continued participation in making videos
uploaded even after his announcement video on
November 5, 2020.
“29. Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing,
mentioning, discussing, or opining on, any election
management committee member’s review and
decision on the issues surrounding the review of
Hyun Moo Choi (aka David Choi)’s campaign
activities
“31. Please produce ALL DCOUMENTS showing
James An’s resignation from any positions at
KAFLA.
“33. Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing,
mentioning, discussing, or opining on, any payment
to any of the members of the election management
committee (“[Election Committee in Korean]”) for any
reason, in any manner, including without limitation
to wage, reimbursement, meals, other benefit or
equipment, on or after January 1, 2018.[ ]”

                        13
                 “Re: 2016/2018 Election
“2. We are informed Laura Jeon did not pay in 2016
and 2018 any amount for her registration as a
candidate. Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS
showing, if any, her payment of any amount for her
registration.[ ]
    “Re: Bylaws violations / infringement upon the
                     members’ rights
“9. We are informed KAFLA board improperly
decided to extend by 6 months,[ ] the terms of the
President, and other officers including the Board
Chairman and board members in order to postpone
the date of election of the next KAFLA president.
Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing on what
basis, by whom, through what procedure and on what
basis such a decision has been made, including
without limitation to the board’s meeting minute,
relevant sections of the Bylaws.
                      “Re: Meetings
“18. Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing,
mentioning, discussing, or opining on, any board
meeting including without limitation to notices,
minutes, agenda, proxies, handouts or other
materials including any discussions at the chat room
of the board members, if any, on or after January 1,
2018.
“20. Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing,
mentioning, discussing, or opining on, any meeting of
the election management committee (“[Election
Committee in Korean]”) including without limitation

                         14
     to notices, minutes, agenda, proxies, handouts or
     other materials including any discussions at the chat
     room of the board members, if any. Please also
     produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing the invitations
     given to fill a committee member’s seat, the
     applications submitted, who reviewed the candidates
     for the committee members position, who decided to
     appoint each of the committee members.”

      Han argued these requests were “reasonably related to the
interests of the members to have a fair and proper elections, and
protect the members’ voting rights. Further, this is to verify
whether the KAFLA elections and the Election Committee
proceedings were properly conducted in timely manners in
compliance with the applicable rules. . . .”
      In her third group of requests, Han asserted that KAFLA
was required to produce “the record of the names, addresses, and
voting rights of all members” under section 6330. In this group,
Han included the following requests:

     “6. We are informed KAFLA helped some of the
     members (“Benefited Members”) in getting the EDD
     benefits, Economic Injury Disaster Loans, Paycheck
     Protection Program loans (“Benefits”) but their
     contact information was improperly used by James
     An for his campaign. Please produce the list of the
     members who received the help to get any of the
     Benefits. (you may redact the personal information
     such as DOB, SSN, and/or other financial
     information. We are also ready to stipulate to any
     reasonable protective order for protection of the

                               15
      personal information that may be produced per this
      request.) Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS
      pertaining to the procedure, rules or protocols of
      maintaining, managing, using, or protecting the
      Benefited Members’ information.
      “8. We are informed James An used the Chat Room
      for his campaign such as announcing his candidacy,
      delivering his campaign messages, and soliciting
      registration as a voter and/or donations to his
      campaign. Please produce ALL messages exchanged
      in the Chat Room.
      “26. Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS showing,
      mentioning, discussing, or opining on, any election
      management committee member’s review and
      decision on the issues surrounding the review of
      James An’s approaching and using the list of the
      members who received helps from KAFLA in getting
      the EDD benefits, Economic Injury Disaster Loans,
      Paycheck Protection Program loans, for his
      campaign.
      “27. Please produce any messages exchanged in a
      chat room of the election committee members, if any.
      “30. Please produce the list of the members who
      registered as a voter for the election of the KAFLA
      president in 2020.”

      Han contended these requests were relevant to “An’s
improper use of the members list and their contact information,
personally for his own campaign, in violation of Corporations
Code Section 6338(a). . . . The demands are reasonably related to
the purposes of protecting the interests and rights of the

                               16
members from improper uses of their list and contact
information.”
C.     KAFLA’s opposing brief
       In its opposing brief, KAFLA asserted that Han’s counsel,
Chan Yong Jeong, was “a publicity-seeking member of the local
Korean American community, [who] announced his intention to
run for president of KAFLA in the 2020 election, but later
withdrew when support for his candidacy failed to materialize.
Ever since, Jeong has conducted a public campaign criticizing the
election procedures and results. As part of his campaign, Jeong
recruited [Han] to pursue this Petition for Writ of Mandate
seeking an order requiring KAFLA to allow Han to inspect an
astounding thirty-eight categories of internal corporate
documents.”
       KAFLA stated that the “qualifications for the President
position are contained in KAFLA’s publicly[ ]available By-Laws,
and have remained materially unchanged for approximately ten
years. . . . Likewise, KAFLA’s specific Election Management
Regulations . . . are publicly available on the KAFLA website and
have remained materially unchanged for around ten years.”
These regulations provide that “any prospective candidate for
President must pay a registration fee of $50,000,” and the
presidential candidate may hold fundraisers to contribute to this
registration fee. If only a single candidate registers to run, the
election committee may declare the lone candidate the winner
without the necessity of a public voting process.
       The 2020 election, scheduled for June 2020, was delayed by
unanimous vote of the board until December 2020 due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. An “was the only individual who satisfied
all qualifications to run for President of KAFLA during the 2020

                                17
election,” and therefore was declared the new president.
Afterwards, Han and her counsel Jeong sent the “litigation-style”
document requests to KAFLA.
       KAFLA asserted that it had produced all documents
required under sections 6330 and 6333, “and several additional
categories of documents beyond those required by the Code.”
KAFLA stated that it had produced all minutes of board of
director meetings for the previous three years, as well as “audited
financial statements” for the previous three years. KAFLA also
“assembled copies of all the checks from persons who donated
funds to the winners of KAFLA’s Presidential elections in 2016,
2018 and 2020, and the deposit slips evidencing the deposits of
the $50,000 candidate fee by each of those candidates into
KAFLA election accounts.” KAFLA stated that it had not
produced a membership list, because “all Korean-American
adults who reside within Los Angeles County are considered
‘members’ of KAFLA who may participate in KAFLA’s services
and officer elections without any need to register with the
organization or pay dues,” and KAFLA did not maintain any
membership lists.
       KAFLA argued, “The Corporations Code does not give
members of a non-profit corporation the right to conduct
unfettered discovery, let alone provide them unrestricted access
to all corporate documents.” KAFLA asserted that “the
remaining documents which [Han] now seeks are records that do
not, by any stretch of the imagination, come within the terms
‘accounting books and records’ or ‘minutes.’ And the vast majority
of the demanded documents have nothing to do with KAFLA’s
2020 election.” It further asserted that documents regarding
individuals’ donations to KAFLA were protected by personal

                                18
privacy rights. KAFLA argued that Han could not show that
KAFLA had a duty to produce additional documents or that Han
had a right to such production, as required for a writ of mandate
under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1085.
D.     Han’s reply brief
       In her reply brief, Han stated that KAFLA “failed to deny”
most of her contentions, called An’s declaration “false testimony,”
and asked the court to find An in contempt. She asserted that
her document requests were intended to determine whether
KAFLA was properly using funds, according to the Corporation
Code’s “policy of keeping the public-benefit corporations’
transparency of its accounting and other proceedings.”
       Han argued that KAFLA should be required to produce not
only minutes of board meetings, but also “the documents
reviewed, discussed, or approved at the relevant meetings.” She
asserted that there was a chat room used exclusively by election
committee members that “was tantamount to the official
proceedings of the Election Committee,” and therefore should be
produced. Han asserted that other documents relating to the
election should be produced because “[t]he Election is the most
important official ‘proceeding’ of KAFLA.” As for member lists,
Han asserted that members were required to register before
voting, and “KAFLA could and should produce the contact
information of the registered voting members.”
       Han further contended that KAFLA should produce all
financial and accounting records, including bank statements and
copies of checks, because nonprofit public benefit corporations “do
not have . . . business confidential information, especially about
accounting matters.” Han also argued there was no privacy
concerns in releasing information about donors, and even if there

                                19
were, KAFLA could redact such information to protect
individuals’ privacy rights.
E.     Court ruling: Order 1
       The court issued a written ruling on May 19, 2021; on
appeal, Han calls this “Order 1.” The court found that “KAFLA
has complied with its obligation to produce meeting minutes and
is unable to provide a membership list,” but “KAFLA has not
sufficiently complied with its obligation to produce ‘accounting
books and records’ as required by statute.”
       Regarding the accounting books and records, consisting of
the first group of requests in Han’s opening brief, the court noted
that “there is no clear definition of ‘accounting books and
records’” under the Corporations Code. The court nevertheless
found that the documents KAFLA provided to Han were
insufficient to meet its duties under section 6333, because
“[a]ccounting records—by KAFLA’s own argument and proffered
definition—includes more than three years of audited financial
statements.” The court further stated, “While the court agrees
KAFLA may not be required under the Corporations Code to
provide underlying source documents or specifically categorize
payments made or money received, the Corporations Code allows
[Han] to inspect and copy KAFLA’s accounting records to the
extent they exist including the general ledger, cash receipts
journal, cash disbursements journal and any other similar ledger
or journal. The Legislature did not limit a member’s inspection
rights to mere financial statements.” The court therefore ordered
KAFLA to produce any additional documents meeting this
definition dating from 2018 to the present, and stated, “KAFLA
may sanitize records as it believes appropriate based on third-
party privacy rights.”

                                20
       Regarding Han’s second group of requests for meeting
minutes, the court held that Han was not entitled to relief. The
court stated that section 6333 provides only for minutes of certain
proceedings, but Han’s requests were “akin to litigation-type
discovery, not inspection of minutes from scheduled meetings of
KAFLA’s Board of Directors or committees of the Board.” The
court stated that Han’s requests for chat room transcripts, for
example, were “outside the limited categories of records” in
section 6333.
       Turning to Han’s third group of requests for information
about member lists and voting rights, the court agreed with
KAFLA that the voting rights of members are publicly stated in
KAFLA’s bylaws. In addition, KAFLA did not maintain
membership lists, and therefore “[i]t appears KAFLA has nothing
further to produce for this category of documents.” In a footnote
to the order, the court stated, “This is without prejudice to
Petitioner seeking other records through a request that is
appropriately tailored.”
F.     Judgment on the pleadings
       KAFLA produced additional documents pursuant to the
court’s order. KAFLA then moved for judgment on the pleadings
on the grounds that Han had only asserted a single cause of
action for production of documents, and KAFLA had produced all
documents required, so there was nothing left to be tried. Han
opposed the motion, asserting that she also “alleged sufficient
facts to seek the writs [sic] to invalidate the purported election of
An and mandate a new election under the supervision of a court-
appointed neutral.” She also asked that the court allow her to
amend her petition if KAFLA’s motion were granted.

                                 21
       In an order dated August 6, 2021, the trial court granted
KAFLA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted Han
leave to file an amended petition within 30 days. The court held
that the petition as written was “inadequate to seek an
invalidation of the election,” but that Han might be able to allege
such a cause of action in an amended petition.3
G.     Han’s motion for additional documents and Order 2
       Han filed a first amended petition on September 8, 2021,
which repeated her initial allegations and included a second
cause of action for “improper, unfair and unreasonable election
procedure.” The second cause of action is not relevant for
purposes of this appeal.
       On January 28, 2022, Han filed a motion requesting that
the court order KAFLA to produce additional documents, and
seeking an order appointing a third-party auditor under section
6336, subdivision (a).4 She asserted that “KAFLA’s ledgers
produced in this case did not show the major items missing on
the financial statement and the ledger in the amount of about
$850,000 or more, which requires further investigation. . . . The
disclosed records were incomplete and/or false, and therefore,
[Han] hereby seeks the Court’s order or writ mandating . . .
KAFLA to disclose additional records, and/or mandating KAFLA

3      In the same order, the court also granted KAFLA’s motion
for a protective order relating to a subpoena served on KAFLA’s
bank on the grounds that KAFLA never received the subpoena,
and therefore did not have the opportunity to move to quash it.
4      Section 6336, subdivision (a) states that “[u]pon refusal of a
lawful demand for inspection . . . , the superior court . . . may, for
good cause shown, appoint one or more competent inspectors or
independent accountants to audit the financial statements” of the
corporation.

                                 22
to disclose under penalty of perjury all of the accounting records
to a Court-appointed third party auditor to audit KAFLA’s
accounting.”
       Han contended that despite the court’s order that KAFLA
produce documents from 2018 to the present, KAFLA failed to
produce “ledgers and journals” from January 2018 to June 2018.
She further asserted that a review of the ledger information
KAFLA produced “reveal[ed] big discrepancies because the ledger
missed out numerous major items in the amount of about
$850,000.00 or more.” In particular, Han contended that
“donations for COVID-19 Relief Funds in the amount of about
$240,000.00 are missing”; “James An’s donation of $210,000.00
for a community center project is missing”; a balance of
$149,000.00 from donations for a Korean Garden project was not
reflected in the ledgers; purported transfers of funds from one
bank account to another did not add up; the ledgers did not show
the deposits of the presidential candidates’ registration fees; and
information about compensation paid to officers, directors, and
employees was inaccurate or missing. Han also asserted that
KAFLA stated on its website that more than 250 members had
registered for the 2020 election, so when KAFLA represented
that it had no such information, it had “falsely misled the Court.”
       KAFLA opposed Han’s motion. It stated that it had
complied with Order 1, then moved for judgment on the
pleadings, which the court granted. Han’s motion sought to
resurrect the same claims in what was essentially an untimely
motion for reconsideration of the court’s previous orders. (See
Code Civ. Proc, § 1008 [a motion for reconsideration must be filed
within 10 days of service of the relevant order].)

                                23
       Regarding the substance of Han’s contentions, KAFLA
asserted that Han’s arguments involved “large jumps in logic
[that] are strung together to create conclusions that fit the larger
narrative created by Jeong, that KAFLA is mismanaging its
financial records in order to conceal something, when, in reality,
KAFLA has disclosed its entire general ledger for the time
requested.” It noted that Han asserted the Korean Garden funds
were “known” to be in an account, with no support for such a
claim. And Han’s allegations about compensation “bear no
weight against the fact that KAFLA has produced all of the
requested and court ordered ledgers and financial statements
showing compensation payments.” KAFLA also asserted that a
financial audit was unnecessary. Han filed a reply in support of
her motion.
       On March 2, 2022, in what Han calls “Order 2,” the court
denied Han’s motion. In its written tentative ruling, the court
noted that KAFLA argued Han’s motion was akin to a motion for
reconsideration of Order 1. The court stated, “Whether [Han]
intended reconsideration is unclear. The court elects to treat the
motion akin to a motion to enforce.”
       In its tentative ruling, the court explained that Han was
“not entitled to these specific source records pursuant to the
Court’s May 19, 2021 order. That is, [Han] has not shown
KAFLA has failed to comply with the court’s order simply
because [Han] has determined there are accounting
inconsistencies or omissions. This is not an action for an
accounting. Rather, [Han] appears to seek civil discovery for an
unalleged civil misconduct claim not at issue in these
proceedings.” Regarding payments to officers, directors, and
employees, the court stated that Han did “not demonstrate that

                                 24
KAFLA has any obligation to provide any more information on
this subject based on Corporations Code sections 6330 and 6333.”
The court noted that although Han alleged that KAFLA failed to
make certain withholdings or otherwise improperly managed
funds, Han “has conflated the narrow scope of her petition to
obtain records with claims of wrongdoing,” and, “To the extent
[Han] contends KAFLA has committed some civil wrong, it is not
before this court in this action.” The court also denied Han’s
request for appointment of an auditor, noting that the plain
language of section 6336 authorizes the appointment of an
auditor only when a corporation has failed to comply with a
lawful inspection demand, which was not the case here.
       In Order 2 the court stated, “The court may reconsider its
May 19, 2021 inspection order.” It ordered the parties to submit
additional three-page briefs, and set a “Hearing on Motion for
Reconsideration.” According to KAFLA, the court requested
“briefing on the scope of a non-profit corporation’s obligation to
turn over source documents for financial statements in response
to a member’s request for inspection under the Corporations
Code.”
H.     Additional briefing and Order 3
       The parties each filed briefing discussing section 6333 and
the meaning of “accounting books and records.” KAFLA asserted
that no relevant authority suggested “that (1) ‘accounting books
and records’ includes source documents; or that (2) source
documents include bank statements.” It also asserted that Han
had not shown that such documents were “reasonably related to
such person’s interests as a member.” (§ 6333.) Han admitted
there was no statute or case law directly on point, but asserted

                                25
that cases from similar contexts supported her contention that
KAFLA should be ordered to produce its bank records.
       On March 23, 2022, in what Han calls “Order 3,” the court
stated in a written order, “Having considered the argument of
counsel/parties, the court rules as follows: The court reviewed
the prior order and determines it will not reconsider the prior
order.”
       On July 29, 2022, Han filed a request to dismiss her
remaining claim without prejudice; the court entered the
dismissal on August 1, 2022. Han timely appealed, stating on
her notice of appeal that she was appealing from Orders 1, 2, and
3.5
                          DISCUSSION
       Han asserts three points of error, contending that (1) the
trial court should have ordered KAFLA to produce additional
documents; (2) the court erred in treating Han’s motion for
additional documents as a motion for reconsideration, and (3) the
court erred in denying Han’s request for an independent auditor.
       Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, “A writ of
mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal,
corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act
which the law specially enjoins.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085, subd.

5     The parties do not address appealability following a
dismissal. An appellate court may “‘“treat a voluntary dismissal
with prejudice as an appealable order if it was entered after an
adverse ruling by the trial court in order to expedite an appeal of
the ruling.”’” (Flowers v. Prasad (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 930, 935
[emphasis added].) A dismissal without prejudice, when
“unaccompanied by any agreement for future litigation,” may also
“create sufficient finality” to allow an appeal. (Kurwa v. Kislinger
(2013) 57 Cal.4th 1097, 1105.)

                                26
(a).) To be entitled to a writ of mandate under Code of Civil
Procedure section 1085, a petitioner must demonstrate: (1) the
respondent has a clear, present, and usually ministerial duty to
act; and (2) the petitioner has a clear, present, and beneficial
right to performance of that duty. (Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma
County Union High School Dist. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 911, 916.)
       “‘[W]hen an appellate court reviews a trial court’s judgment
on a petition for a traditional writ of mandate, it applies the
substantial evidence test to the trial court’s findings of fact and
independently reviews the trial court’s conclusions on questions
of law, which include the interpretation of a statute and its
application to undisputed facts.’” (CV Amalgamated LLC v. City
of Chula Vista (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 265, 280.)
A.     Requests for documents
       1.    Accounting books and records
       Section 6333 provides that a corporation’s “accounting
books and records . . . shall be open to inspection.” Han agrees
that KAFLA “produced ledgers and journals per Order 1.”
However, she asserts that in Order 1 the trial court erred by
narrowly interpreting the phrase “accounting books and records.”
Han asserts that “accounting records” should be interpreted to
include “any piece of evidence about the past,” such as “the
sources of information on accounting books such as ledgers and
journals, only by which meaningful and reasonable inspection
could be conducted on this non-profit corporation.” She argues
she was entitled to inspect KAFLA’s contracts, receipts, bank
records, and copies of checks. She contends, “By seeing only
ledgers and journals, members would not be able to reasonably
inspect the accounting in order to verify the truthfulness and
accuracy of the numbers stated [in] journals and ledgers.” She

                                27
asserts the documents KAFLA did produce included
discrepancies, and without access to additional documents she is
“unable to finish her inspection meaningfully.” KAFLA asserts
that Han was not entitled to source documents under section
6333.
       When we are called upon to interpret a statutory provision,
our fundamental task is to determine the Legislature’s intent so
as to effectuate the law’s purpose. (Brennon B. v. Superior Court
(2022) 13 Cal.5th 662, 673.) We examine the statutory language,
giving it a plain and commonsense meaning. (Ibid.) “‘“We do not
examine that language in isolation, but in the context of the
statutory framework as a whole in order to determine its scope
and purpose and to harmonize the various parts of the
enactment.”’’’ (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2
Cal.5th 608, 616.) We may also consider the relevant “‘statutory
scheme . . . , giving significance to every word, phrase, sentence,
and part of an act in pursuance of the legislative purpose.’”
(Sierra Club v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 157, 166.)
       The phrase “accounting books and records” is not defined in
in section 6333 or similar statutes.6 However, a suggestion of the
Legislature’s intent may be gleaned from the other statutes in
the relevant chapter of the Corporations Code, which allows
different levels of inspection to different individuals. Under
section 6333, for a member of a corporation such as Han, the

6      We note that largely identical language occurs in section
8333 pertaining to nonprofit mutual benefit corporations, section
9512 pertaining to nonprofit religious corporations, and section
12603 pertaining to cooperative corporations. Similar language
is also used in section 1601, pertaining to shareholder rights for
domestic corporations.

                                28
“accounting books and records” of the corporation must be “open
to inspection” upon demand. (§ 6333.) By contrast, a director of
the corporation has an “absolute right” to inspect “all books,
records, and documents of every kind.” (§ 6334.) When an
auditor is appointed by a court, “[a]ll officers and agents of the
corporation shall produce . . . all books and documents in their
custody or power” to the auditor. (§ 6336, subd. (b).)
       KAFLA argues the source documents Han seeks are not
encompassed by section 6333: “By using the phrase ‘accounting
books and records’ in section 6333 instead of the broader phrases
in sections 6334 and 6336, the Legislature strongly indicated that
it intended to restrict members’ inspections to ‘accounting
records’” rather than all records. We agree. The language of
section 6333 is far more limited than that of sections 6334 and
6336, and we assume this was an intentional choice by the
Legislature. When the Legislature has chosen to include a
phrase in one provision of the statutory scheme but to omit it in
another provision, we presume the Legislature intended to
convey a different meaning in the different provisions. (Walt
Disney Parks & Resorts U.S., Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 21
Cal.App.5th 872, 879.) Han proposes that she is entitled to a
level of disclosure that would allow her to audit or check the
accuracy of the produced books and records,7 but the code

7      See, e.g., Bily v. Arthur Young & Co. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 370,
380: “In a typical audit, a CPA firm may . . . confirm account
balances and mathematical computations. It might also examine
sample transactions or records to ascertain the accuracy of the
client company’s financial and accounting systems. For example,
auditors often select transactions recorded in the company’s
books to determine whether the recorded entries are supported
by underlying data (vouching). Or, approaching the problem

                                29
expressly provides that directors and auditors—not members—
have a right to inspect this sort of financial documentation. It is
not the role of a court “to insert what has been omitted” from
section 6333. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1858.)
       The cases Han cites do not support her position. Han relies
on Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 (Schnabel),
for example, a marital dissolution case in which the husband was
employed by a close corporation and held 30 percent of its stock;
the stock was community property. In an attempt to “appraise
the corporation’s value and to ascertain [the husband’s]
remuneration and benefits,” the wife sought certain financial
records from the corporation. (5 Cal.4th at pp. 709-710.) The
Supreme Court considered whether the wife was entitled to
review the corporation’s “bank activity statements, accounts
receivable and payable listings, ledgers, cash receipts and
disbursement records, and sales and purchase registers.” (Id. p.
710.)
       The Supreme Court noted that “information about the
value of community assets and the parties’ financial status is
clearly relevant to the spouse’s interests in obtaining a fair
division of those assets and fair attorney fee and spousal support
(and, in other cases, child support) awards. Moreover, at least as
to a division of assets and child and spousal support awards,
those interests are strongly protected by California law.”
(Schnabel, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 711.) The court also observed
that whatever rights the husband had as shareholder and as

from the opposite perspective, an auditor might choose particular
items of data to trace through the client’s accounting and
bookkeeping process to determine whether the data have been
properly recorded and accounted for (tracing).”

                                30
fiduciary to protect community assets, the wife also had such
rights “either indirectly through [the husband], or directly, as in
this case, by means of third party discovery.” (Id. at p. 715.)
       In this context, the Schnabel court considered the
inspection rights of a shareholder under section 1601, subdivision
(a), which allows a shareholder to inspect “[t]he accounting books,
records, and minutes of proceedings of the shareholders and the
board and committees of the board.” The court clarified, however,
“We need not precisely define the shareholder right of inspection
in all situations. This is a marriage dissolution proceeding, not a
shareholder inspection action. The shareholder rights support
[the wife’s] claim to third party discovery, but [the wife’s] rights
here and another shareholder’s rights in other situations are not
necessarily coextensive. Our resolution of this issue rests on the
combination of [the wife’s] need to discover the records, the
legislatively declared policy in favor of disclosure, and the
shareholder right of inspection. Given the strong public policy in
favor of fair child and spousal support awards and a fair division
of community assets, we believe that the ‘accounting books and
records’ discoverable in this proceeding should be construed to
encompass the records reasonably related to this purpose.”
(Schnabel, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 717.) The court continued,
“Here, all requested documents were relevant to the corporation’s
value and the parties’ financial status.” (Ibid.)
       Han also cites Austin v. Turrentine (1939) 30 Cal.App.2d
750 (Austin), in which both the plaintiffs alleged that the
defendants had engaged in fraud involving investment in a joint
venture oil company. The plaintiffs, who sought an accounting,
requested the production of company books and records at a
defendant’s deposition; the trial court largely denied the request.

                                31
(30 Cal.App.2d at p. 756.) The Court of Appeal determined that
the plaintiffs had “a right to an accounting,” and therefore the
plaintiffs were entitled to inspect “such books, papers, records,
journals and entries as, in the light of the pleadings and issues,
may be material and pertinent.” (Id. at p. 763.) The court
discussed the plaintiffs’ allegations and stated, “We believe from
the undisputed facts, the pleadings and proof, that it may be
fairly inferred that a trust relationship is involved and that the
books and documents contain evidence material to plaintiffs’
cause of action.” (Id. at p. 764.)
       Han additionally cites Mooney v. Bartenders Union Local
No. 284 (1957) 48 Cal.2d 841 (Mooney), in which the plaintiff, a
union member, asked the court to compel his union to allow
inspection of certain union financial records. The union argued
that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust all required remedies with
the union before filing his action. (48 Cal.2d at p. 843.) The
Court of Appeal, comparing the case to stockholder inspection
actions, found that “it was unnecessary for [the plaintiff] to
exhaust the appellate procedure required by the [the union’s]
constitution before applying to the courts for relief.” (Id. at p.
845.)
       Han argues that these cases, as well as cases from other
jurisdictions, involve “the meaning of the exact same terms
‘accounting books and records.’” However, she ignores the
contexts of these cases, and makes no argument about why the
reasoning of these cases applies here. We find these cases are
distinguishable. As the Supreme Court in Schnabel specifically
noted, its analysis was unique to the marital dissolution context
and is not necessarily applicable to a shareholder action
generally. Moreover, KAFLA’s financial information does not

                                32
impact Han personally, as did the community property shares in
Schnabel. In addition, Han is not entitled to an accounting, as in
Austin; her sole cause of action was for the inspection of records
under sections 6330 and 6333. And although the court in Mooney
mentioned stockholder actions, its holding was limited to whether
the plaintiff was required to exhaust other remedies, which is not
relevant here. (See, e.g., Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno
(2013) 57 Cal.4th 1109, 1160 [“it is axiomatic that cases are not
authority for propositions not considered”].)
       In short, Han cites no authority suggesting that she was
entitled under section 6333 to inspect more than the ledgers and
journals KAFLA produced pursuant to Order 1.
       2.     Meeting minutes of the Election Committee
       Han agrees that KAFLA “produced the minutes of the
board meetings and election committee meetings.” (See § 6333
[“The . . . minutes of proceedings of the members and the board
and committees of the board shall be open to inspection . . . .”].)
She asserts, however, that the trial court should have also
required KAFLA to produce transcripts from “chat rooms” used
by members of the election management committee. She asserts
that because the election committee used the chat room to
communicate, “the discussions in the chat room should be
deemed proceedings” subject to inspection under section 6333.
       The trial court held that chat room records were not
encompassed by section 6333. We find no error in this ruling.
Han asserts that “proceedings” constitute “an official record of
things said or done,” but she offers no suggestion that the chat
room was used for committee “proceedings” as opposed to
informal conversation. Indeed, the only evidence Han relies upon
is a page purportedly from the chat room, giving notice about the

                                33
time and date for a meeting. KAFLA represented in the trial
court that it produced all meeting minutes in its possession.
Thus, the court’s determination that KAFLA complied with
section 6333 with respect to meeting minutes is supported by
substantial evidence.
       3.    Records of the names, addresses, and voting rights of
             members
       Han further contends the trial court erred in denying her
request for the names, addresses, and voting rights of KAFLA
members. (See § 6330, subd. (a)(1) [a member may “[i]nspect and
copy the record of all the members’ names, addresses and voting
rights”].) Han argues the trial court erred when it relied on
KAFLA’s representation that it does not maintain any member
lists.
       The parties agree that according to KAFLA’s publicly
available bylaws, the members of KAFLA consist of all Korean
Americans living in Los Angeles County, and all adult members
may vote. Han asserts, however, that members were required to
register before voting in the 2020 election, and she points to
evidence she submitted in the trial court that some members
filled out the voting registration form. She argues KAFLA should
be required to provide all 2020 voter registration information to
her. KAFLA maintains that it has no information to provide,
pointing to An’s declaration stating that KAFLA did not “register
any voters for the 2020 election.”
       Han describes the information she is seeking, but she offers
no argument or authority as to why she is entitled to the 2020
registration information—to the extent it exists—under section
6330. The “voting rights” of the members are made clear in the
bylaws, and Han offers no authority suggesting she is entitled to

                                34
information about particular members’ specific activity involving
any one election. Moreover, although she contends some
members filled out registration forms in 2020, one of her main
contentions is that no election was held in 2020. An stated that
KAFLA did not register any voters for the election, and nothing
in the record suggests that KAFLA actually gathered or
maintained such information. As the trial court noted, there was
no “evidence that such records were maintained and capable of
being produced.” The court’s order regarding the voting rights of
members is therefore supported by substantial evidence.
B.    The trial court’s reconsideration of Order 1
      After the trial court granted KAFLA’s motion for judgment
on the pleadings, Han filed her motion for additional documents.
Addressing this motion in Order 2, the court stated in its
tentative ruling that Han “seeks to enforce her right to inspection
under Corporations Code sections 6330 and 6333.” The court
added in a footnote, “Whether [Han] intended reconsideration is
unclear. The court elects to treat the motion akin to a motion to
enforce.”8 The court then denied Han’s motion, but stated that it
would reconsider Order 1.
      Han argues this was erroneous. She notes that the trial
court stated in Order 1 that its order was “without prejudice to
[Han] seeking other records through a request that is
appropriately tailored.” She asserts, “Treating [Han’s] second
request . . . as a motion for reconsideration was improper because

8     A court that issues a writ may make “any orders necessary
and proper” to compel enforcement of the writ. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 1097; see also King v. Woods (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 571, 577-
578.)

                                35
. . . Order 1 expressly stated it was without prejudice for properly
tailored requests for additional records.”
        A trial court’s ruling on a motion for reconsideration is
reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. (New York
Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.) In
reviewing an enforcement order for a writ, “at issue is whether
the trial court erred either in concluding that [the respondent]
had failed to comply with the Writ or in fashioning the specifics of
its Enforcement Order.” (Robles v. Employment Development
Dept. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 530, 546.)
        Here, we find no error under either standard. Han sought
the production of documents under sections 6330 and 6333, and
Order 1 addressed that contention. Han then moved to inspect
additional documents that she asserted she was entitled to
review under section 6333. The court’s tentative ruling makes
clear that the court considered whether Han was entitled to the
additional documents she sought. The court even went a step
further, requesting briefing regarding reconsideration as to
whether Order 1 should be expanded. The court clearly
considered Han’s arguments, and ruled on them. Nothing
suggests that the court denied the motion because Han was
barred from requesting additional records. Han has not
demonstrated that she was entitled to a different procedure than
the one the court followed.
        Moreover, Han does not contend that the court would have
reached a different conclusion had it approached the motion
differently. Thus, Han does not suggest she was prejudiced by
the court deciding her motion in this way. (See, e.g.,
Mireskandari v. Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP (2022) 77

                                36
Cal.App.5th 247, 265 [“Prejudice ‘is never presumed but must be
affirmatively demonstrated by the appellant’”].)
C.     The appointment of inspectors or auditors
       Finally, Han asserts the trial court erred by denying her
request to appoint independent inspectors or auditors. Section
6336 allows a superior court to appoint an inspector or auditor
“[u]pon refusal of a lawful demand for inspection.” (§ 6336, subd.
(a).) In Order 2, the trial court denied Han’s request for
appointment of an auditor on the grounds that KAFLA had not
failed to comply with a lawful inspection demand.
       Han argues this was an abuse of discretion, because
KAFLA did not comply with sections 6330 and 6333 in that its
“production of accounting records [was] deficient,” and “the
ledgers and journals produced are grossly incomplete and
inconsistent.” As discussed above, Han has not demonstrated
that she was entitled to the additional documents she seeks.
Thus, she has not shown that KAFLA failed to comply with a
lawful demand for inspection, which would support the
appointment of an auditor. We therefore find no error in the
court’s ruling, which was supported by substantial evidence.
                           DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed. KAFLA is entitled to its costs on
appeal.
  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                           COLLINS, J.

We concur:

CURREY, P.J.                                    ZUKIN, J.

                               37