Hwang vs. Pie Venture, LLC

This lawsuit and the underlying incident do not appear to relate to the Enrollment Agreement or its breach, termination, enforcement, non-renewal, interpretation or validity. Further, this lawsuit and the underlying incident do not appear to relate to Plaintiff’s enrollment, departure, or educational experience at the school. Rather, the action relates to an assault that occurred by Plaintiff’s high school peers while off campus and during a golf team trip.

Defendant relies on Bigler v. Harker School (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 727, 732, a case in which the appellate court held the arbitration provision covering “any dispute involving the School” included the student plaintiff’s claim of battery against a teacher, whose alleged conduct occurred within the course and scope of his role as a teacher in his classroom on a school day concerning an academic performance the student brought to the teacher's attention. The arbitration provision here and the conduct at issue sufficiently differentiate this case from Bigler.

Accordingly, the court DENIES Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

Plaintiff to give notice.

13 Hwang vs. Pie Demurrer (re Answer) Venture, LLC The court SUSTAINS Plaintiffs TONY JIN HWANG and MAL SUK KIM’s demurrer to the following affirmative defenses contained in Defendants’ Answer: Nos. 2-3, 5-13, 15-19. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.20(a).) Five days leave to amend is GRANTED, except as to the 9th affirmative defense (re statute of limitations).

As to each of the affirmative defenses demurred to, Plaintiffs argue that “no facts are stated in connection with the purported defense.”

In a very belated response, Defendants state they “do not contest the demurrer” but request leave to file an amended answer. (Opp’n Br., filed 6/24/26.)

Defendants have attached a proposed amended answer to their late opposing papers. (Opp’n Br., Exh. A.) From a quick review of the proposed amended answer, it appears that Defendants have not added (nor deleted) any affirmative defenses and they have added some factual allegations in connection with most of the asserted defenses.

One of the affirmative defenses clearly remains deficient – the 9th affirmative defense for statute of limitations. Indeed, it is arguably more deficient than before. The proposed amended answer merely adds the following underlined language: “Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations if so applicable after discovery.” No statute of limitations is identified. As such, leave to amend is not granted as to the demurrer to the 9th affirmative defense.