Dae Hyun Chung v Google, Inc

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Dae Hyun Chung v Google, Inc 2020 NY Slip Op 31114(U) April 29, 2020 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 451373/2017 Judge: Kathryn E. Freed Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*[FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2020 11:28 AM] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 198 INDEX NO. 451373/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART HON. KATHRYN E. FREED IAS MOTION 2EFM Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X DAE HYUN CHUNG, INDEX NO. MOTION DATE Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 451373/2017 02/04/2020 002 -vGOOGLE, INC, ABC CORPORATION, IHATED HC, RAYMOND YANG DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS In this defamation action, defendant John Doe, identified in the caption as "IHATEDHC," moves to dismiss the second amended complaint of plaintiff Dae Hyung Chung ("Chung") based on the doctrine of the "case of the law and/or, pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7), for failure to state a cause of action." (Doc. 192). After a review of the motion papers, as well as the relevant statutes and case law, the motion, which is unopposed, is granted. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND: The underlying facts of this case are set forth in detail in the decision and order of this Court entered May 20, 2019 ("the 5/20/19 order") (Doc. 189), which dismissed the second amended complaint as against defendant Raymond Yang ("Yang") on the grounds that, inter alia, Chung failed to state a cause of action with respect to each of its claims: (1) libel; (2) tortious interference with contract and prospective economic advantage; and (3) injunctive relief (Doc. 451373/2017 CHUNG, DAE HYUN vs. GOOGLE, INC Motion No. 002 Page 1 of4 1 of 4 [*[FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2020 11:28 AM] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 198 INDEX NO. 451373/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2020 189). In the instant motion, IHATEDHC moves for the same relief awarded to Yang by the 5/20/19 order, arguing, inter alia, that the doctrine of the law of the case applies to the identical causes of action asserted against IHATEDHC (Doc. 196 at 9-10). LEGAL CONCLUSIONS: "'The doctrine of law of the case' is a rule of practice, an articulation of sound policy that, when an issue is once judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as Judges and courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are concerned" (Martin v City of Cohoes, 37 NY2d 162, 165 [ 1975] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Goldstein v Zabel, 146 AD3d 624, 631 [1st Dept 2017]). The doctrine "applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in [a] prior decision" (Baldasano v Bank of NY, 199 AD2d 184, 185 [1st Dept 1993]), and it "contemplates that the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the initial determination (PHH Mtge. Corp. v Burt, 176 AD3d 1242, 1243 [2d Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). This Court agrees that dismissal of the second amended complaint is warranted as against IHATEDHC under the doctrine of the law of the case. In the 5/20/19 order, this Court reasoned that the three causes of action asserted against Yang failed to state a cause of action because, inter alia, the blog posts that served as the basis for the libel claim constituted nonactionable opinion; that Chung failed to allege the existence of a contract so as to sustain his claim for tortious interference with contract and prospective economic advantage; and that he failed to establish the irreparable harm necessary for injunctive relief (Doc. 189). All of the allegations in the second amended complaint use the singular "defendant" and, thus, Chung fails to particularize whether the alleged defamatory statements were made by Yang or IHATEDHC. Since the underlying 451373/2017 CHUNG, DAE HYUN vs. GOOGLE, INC Motion No. 002 Page 2 of 4 2 of 4 [*[FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2020 11:28 AM] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 198 INDEX NO. 451373/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2020 allegations against Yang are identical to those asserted against IHATEDHC, the motion is granted (see Barklee 94 LLC v Oliver, 167 AD3d 415, 416 [1st Dept 2018]; Dart Direct, Inc. v Urban Express/NJ LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 30847[U], 2016 NY Misc LEXIS 1704, *8-9 [Sup Ct, NY County 2016]). The remaining arguments are either without merit or need not be addressed given the findings above. Therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that defendant IHATEDHC's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint based on the doctrine of the law of the case is granted without opposition, and the second amended complaint is dismissed; and it is further ORDERED that, within 20 days after this order is uploaded to NYSCEF, counsel for defendant IHATEDHC shall serve a copy of this order, with notice of entry, on plaintiff, as well as on the County Clerk (60 Centre Street, Room 141 B), in accordance with thee-filing protocol, who is directed to enter judgment accordingly; and it is further 451373/2017 CHUNG, DAE HYUN vs. GOOGLE, INC Motion No. 002 Page 3 of 4 3 of 4 [*!FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2020 11:28 AMI NYSCEF DOC. NO. 198 INDEX NO. 451373/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2020 ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court's website at the address www.nycourts.govisupctmanh)]; and it is further ORDERED that this constitutes the decision and order of the Court. 4/29/2020 DATE CHECK ONE: KATHRYNE. FREED, J.S.C. CASE DISPOSED GRANTED D DENIED APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN 451373/2017 CHUNG, DAE HYUN vs. GOOGLE, INC Motion No. 002 ~ NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED IN PART SUBMIT ORDER FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT D D OTHER REFERENCE Page4 of 4 4 of 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.