CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC vs KOREAN FARM, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850; Evid. Code, § 500.) A triable issue of material fact exists if the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the nonmoving party. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.) “A party cannot avoid summary judgment by asserting facts based on mere speculation and conjecture, but instead must produce admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact.” (LaChapelle v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 977, 981.)

“The papers are to be construed strictly against the moving party and liberally in favor of the 22CV018811: CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC vs KOREAN FARM, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by Rhee Bros. Inc., a Maryland Corporation (Defendant) CRS# A-18811-063 in Department 520 opposing party; any doubts regarding the propriety of summary judgment are to be resolved in favor of the opposing party.” (Kulesa v. Castleberry (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 103, 112.)

The pleadings play a key role in a summary judgment motion and serve the purpose of delimiting the scope of summary judgment and framing the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment proceeding. (White v. Smule (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 346, 354.) The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues and to frame “the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment proceeding.”(FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima(1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381.) “Accordingly, the burden of a defendant moving for summary judgment only requires that he or she negate the theories of liability as alleged in the complaint; that is, a moving party need not refute liability on some theoretical possibility not included in the pleadings.” (Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co.(2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 486, 493.)

DISCUSSION

The issue in this motion, as well as co-Defendant's virtually similar Motion for Summary Judgment, is whether Defendant is covered under Proposition 65’s definition of a “person in the course of doing business”. (Health and Safety Code section 25249.11(b).)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case for alleging that it violated Proposition 65 because Plaintiff has not offered evidence that it conducted business in California in the manner alleged by Plaintiff. (MPA, p. 17:15-26.) Defendant claims that Plaintiff cannot create a triable issue of material fact given that its discovery responses reflect an “evidentiary void” and it relies on speculation. (Id. at pp. 18:20-22, 24:17-20.)

In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that it need only show that Defendant’s actions lead to exposures to California consumers, but that it can also show that Defendant “manufactur[ed], distribut[ed], promot[ed], or [sold]” the subject products of dried vegetable and dried kelp in California. (Complaint ¶¶ 12, 18, 45.) Contrary to Defendant’s arguments, Plaintiff claims that the definition of “manufacture” includes control of packaging and the labeling process; and “distribution” constitutes dispersal of the products to various retailers in California. (Oppo., pp. 17:18 fn. 6, 18:11-15; MPA, pp. 20:17-18, 23:14-19, 24:23-25:7.)

The parties dispute whether Lee v. Amazon (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 200 supports Plaintiff’s position that the scope of liability is broad under California product liability law and extends to all entities in the chain of distribution of a product without specifically consisting of actions that constitute “business operations” within California. (Oppo., p. 2:1-10; Reply p. 4:3-16; Lee v. Amazon (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 200, 232.) Both parties argue that the other contradicts their previous allegations. Defendant claims that Plaintiff concedes that Defendant was not an importer and so forth by implication in its Complaint, where Plaintiff references that

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV018811: CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC vs KOREAN FARM, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by Rhee Bros. Inc., a Maryland Corporation (Defendant) CRS# A-18811-063 in Department 520 Defendant(s) “covered the warning label affixed to the products by the manufacturer, . . . packager, importer, supplier or distributor[.]” (Reply, p. 8:1 fn. 2; Complaint ¶¶ 34, 45.) Plaintiff states that Defendant admitted in its prior discovery responses that it engaged in sales of the products at issue into California. (Oppo., p. 5:4-6.) There is more merit to Plaintiff’s argument. Plaintiff appear to have the stronger argument.

In its supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s Special interrogatories Nos. 37 and 38, Defendant includes among the retailers to which it sold its products, Galleria Market, which is a supermarket with stores only in California. (Compendium, vol. 2, Yeroushalmi Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. G, p. 10; RJN 22.) Although Defendant argues that it never admitted to selling or shipping products to retailers in California because the discovery requests concerned nationwide sales, this argument appears to fail. (Reply, p. 5:4-7.)

Certainly, there are chain stores that appear to have branches in other states that are listed in the discovery response to SPROG No. 37 “For each VERSION OF PRODUCT 1 that YOU SOLD during RELEVANT PERIOD 1, IDENTIFY THE RETAILER[S]”, but Defendant does not address Plaintiff's argument - inclusion of Galleria Market is evidence of its product sales to California markets. (Ibid.; for instance, Han nam Chain and Good Fortune Supermarket, which also have stores in New Jersey and New York respectively.)

Thus, at a minimum, this is sufficient to find a triable issue of material fact as to whether Defendant constitutes a “person doing business” within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 25249.11(b) to fall under Proposition 65 such that its actions resulted in exposures to California consumers.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Sanctions

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions – sought in passing in a footnote – under CCP section 437c(j) against Defendant is denied. (Oppo., p. 17:18, fn. 6.)

OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

Defendant’s objections to portions of Willard Bayer, Walter Meneses and Reuben Yeroushalmi’s supporting declarations and accompanying exhibits are overruled.

Plaintiff’s objections to portions of the Gregory Berlin and Robin Rhee supporting declarations and accompanying exhibits are overruled.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV018811: CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC vs KOREAN FARM, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by Rhee Bros. Inc., a Maryland Corporation (Defendant) CRS# A-18811-063 in Department 520

NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on June 5, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on June 4, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.