CHANGDUK CHO v. SUNG NAM CHOI

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.



                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-0230-16T4


CHANG DUK CHO,

        Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SUNG NAM CHOI,

     Defendant-Respondent.
_____________________________

CHANG DUK CHO,

        Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MYUNGSOO KIM,

     Defendant-Respondent.
____________________________

CHANG DUK CHO,

        Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

HUNG SEO MOON,

     Defendant-Respondent.
_____________________________
CHANG DUK CHO,

     Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

EDWIN HAHN,

     Defendant-Respondent.
______________________________

KITAE KIM, JA YOUNG SHIN,
MYONG S. SHIN, KEUM PYO,
YOON SANG KIM, CHUNG WOO KIM,
YOUNG HO LEE, EDWARD LEE,
IN J. LEE, AHN JEH YONG,
CHANG DUK CHO, DUK SOON CHO,
and YUNG HO LEE,

     Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

SUNGNAM CHOI, and THE CANAAN
KOREAN COMMUNITY CHURCH,

     Defendants-Respondents.
_______________________________

         Submitted March 13, 2018 – Decided April 3, 2018

         Before Judges Fasciale, Sumners and Moynihan.

         On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
         Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-
         4246-15.

         Song Law Firm, LLC, attorneys for appellants
         (Howard Z. Myerowitz and M. Ari Jacobson, on
         the briefs).

         Cole Schotz, PC, attorneys for respondents
         (Edward S. Kiel and Eric S. Latzer, of counsel
         and on the brief).


                                  2                         A-0230-16T4
PER CURIAM

      Kitae Kim, Ja Young Shin, Myong S. Shin, Keum Pyo, Yoon Sang

Kim, Chung Woo Kim, Young Ho Lee, Edward Lee, In J. Lee, Ahn Jeh

Yong,   Chang   Duk   Cho    (Cho),    Duk    Soon    Cho,   and   Yung   Ho   Lee

(collectively plaintiffs) appeal from a February 19, 2016 order

consolidating numerous matters; a March 4, 2016 order dismissing

plaintiffs' complaint against Reverend Sungnam Choi (Rev. Choi)

and the Canaan Korean Community Church (the Church); and an April

29, 2016 order denying plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

Cho appeals a June 10, 2016 order denying his motion to amend his

individual complaints against Rev. Choi, Myungsoo Kim (Kim), Hung

Seo Moon (Moon), and Edwin Hahn (Hahn) (collectively defamation

defendants); and a June 10, 2016 order dismissing Cho's complaints

against Rev. Choi and Kim.1

      Plaintiffs were members of the Church when it hired Rev. Choi

to serve as its pastor.             The Church – a member of the Korean

Methodist    Church   –     hired    Rev.    Choi    in   accordance   with    the

procedures and criteria set forth in the Book of Discipline of the

Korean Methodist Church.        Plaintiffs filed suit against Rev. Choi

and the Church concerning the hiring of Rev. Choi.




1
    Cho does not appeal the dismissal of Moon and Hahn.

                                        3                                 A-0230-16T4
     Nearly a year after the Church hired Rev. Choi, Cho provided

a loan to the Church.         A promissory note that provided that the

Church executed a mortgage to secure repayment, and a security

agreement, were executed in connection with the loan.                       Cho,

independently, brought individual actions against the defamation

defendants regarding their alleged statements about Cho's loan.

     Plaintiffs contend the judge improperly consolidated numerous

matters.      Rule   4:38-1(a)   authorizes      consolidation     of   actions

"involving a common question of law or fact arising out of the

same transaction or series of transactions."               A trial judge has

the discretion to grant or deny a party's motion to consolidate,

and we will not disturb the judge's decision absent an abuse of

that discretion.     Moraes v. Wesler, 
439 N.J. Super. 375, 378 (App.

Div. 2015).

     Plaintiffs contend the judge improperly consolidated the four

defamation    complaints.        We   disagree.      The    four   defamation

complaints    are    nearly   identical,    as    they   contain    the     same

allegations and share factually similar events concerning Cho's

loan to the Church.     In each complaint, Cho asserts that the named

defendant defamed Cho by claiming he "took advantage of the

[C]hurch's dire financial situation to leverage favorable terms

of the loan" in the presence of hundreds of church members on four

particular dates.       The judge did not abuse his discretion in

                                       4                                A-0230-16T4
consolidating the four defamation complaints because Cho's actions

against the defamation defendants arose out of the same events and

involve a common question.

       As to the consolidation of the four defamation complaints

with Cho's complaint against Rev. Choi and the Church, we agree

with   plaintiffs      that   the   judge       abused   his    discretion.        The

complaints arose out of separate events and facts.                     The complaints

did not share any commonality, as Cho's complaint against Rev.

Choi and the Church included counts of fraud, breach of contract,

infliction of emotional distress, consumer fraud, and negligent

hiring, while plaintiffs asserted defamation.                      Plaintiffs sought

relief regarding Rev. Choi's credentials and the Church's hiring

of him, while Cho sought relief for statements made about him

regarding his loan to the Church.

       The judge's improper consolidation, however, was harmless

because the judge properly adjudicated the remaining motions.                        We

affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the judge.                         We

add the following brief remarks.

       Contrary   to      plaintiffs'      assertion,        the    judge   properly

dismissed plaintiffs' complaint against Rev. Choi and the Church

pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(a) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

"New    Jersey    cases     have    long       held   that     civil    courts    lack

jurisdiction over spiritual matters and the administration of

                                           5                                  A-0230-16T4
church affairs that do not affect the civil or property rights of

individuals."       Chavis v. Rowe, 
93 N.J. 103, 109 (1983).             Courts

are prohibited from reviewing "a church's core right to decide who

(and    in   what   manner   he   or   she)   may   propagate   its   religious

beliefs," McKelvey v. Pierce, 
173 N.J. 26, 42 (2002), as such

review would entangle the government in "questions of religious

doctrine, polity, and practice," Jones v. Wolf, 
443 U.S. 595, 603

(1979).

       Plaintiffs disputed Rev. Choi's qualifications to serve as

the Church's pastor, and challenged the Church's hiring of Rev.

Choi.     The Church is subject to the Book of Discipline of the

Korean Methodist Church, and plaintiffs' claims required the court

to resolve the matter in accordance with it. Regardless of whether

the Church was regulated by the Book of Discipline, the judge

properly determined that the Church, and not the court, "retains

the authority to decide purely ecclesiastical issues, including

whether Rev[.] Choi was properly credentialed to serve as a pastor

of the Church."

       Regarding Cho's defamation assertions, the judge properly

determined that the alleged statements               by Rev. Choi and Kim

expressing that Cho would place liens of the Church's property in

the case of default and that it was Cho's intent to do so were not

defamatory. An amendment to Cho's complaint would have been futile

                                        6                               A-0230-16T4
because the amended claims would have failed. See Notte v. Merchs.

Mut. Ins. Co., 
185 N.J. 490, 501 (2006).

     The statements regarding the lien were true conditions that

Cho and the Church agreed upon when Cho provided the Church with

the loan.     The parties executed a deed in lieu of foreclosure

expressly permitting Cho to take immediate title of the Church's

property in the event of default.        As the "truth is a full defense

to a cause of action for defamation," Senisch v. Carlino, 
423 N.J.

Super. 269, 278 (App. Div. 2011), Cho could not recover from these

statements.    Similarly, the statement regarding Cho's intent to

"take over" the Church is a statement of opinion.            "Unlike false

statements    of   fact,   expressions    of    opinion,   no     matter   how

insulting, are actionable only if they imply the existence of

undisclosed defamatory facts on which the opinion was based."

Karnell v. Campbell, 
206 N.J. Super. 81, 89 (App. Div. 1985).              Cho

could not recover from Kim's statement as it was an opinion based

on the terms of the loan agreement.

     In   determining      that   each   of    the   statements    were    not

defamatory, the judge properly found that Cho failed to state a

claim for which relief could be granted under Rule 4:6-2(e), denied

Cho's motion to amend his complaint, and granted the defamation

defendants' cross-motion to dismiss.

     Affirmed.

                                     7                                A-0230-16T4