INDEX NO.

707726/2015

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2015 05:10 PM

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2015

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF QUEENS
_________________________________________
:
CHANG JIN PARK,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
v.
:
:
HEATHER HYUN-AH CHO,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:

Index No. 707726/2015

DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, on December 16, 2015, Justice Robert L. Nahman
entered a judgment in Do Hee Kim v. Heather Hyun-Ah Cho, et al., Index No. 702206/2015
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. Queens County), dismissing all claims asserted in that action based on forum non
conveniens grounds. As Justice Nahman summarized:
In the case at bar both the plaintiff and the defendants reside in Korea, the other
first class passenger who witnessed the incident is located in Korea, the other
employees of Korean Air Lines reside in Korea, all of plaintiffs medical
treatment occurred in Korea, the physicians who treated plaintiff reside in Korea,
virtually all of the evidence is located in Korea, the Korean authorities already
acted to assert their interest in this matter by investigating the incident, criminally
charging and convicting defendant Heather Hyun-Cho and Korea is an available
alternative forum. Although plaintiffs counsel has stated that plaintiffs
physicians would consent to jurisdiction in New York, the fact remains that all of
the Korean witnesses are all beyond New Yorks subpoena power. It appears that
the only cause of action not available to plaintiff in Korea is plaintiffs claim for
punitive damages.
Additionally, although plaintiff contends that Korea is not a viable forum since
she would not receive a fair trial, based upon the criminal conviction of defendant
Heather Hyun-Cho and the negative media attention that defendants received,
plaintiffs contention is conclusory and without merit.
Order, Dkt No. 41 at 4 (Dec. 16, 2015). A full copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit A.

As Defendant Cho has explained in earlier filings (see, e.g., Memo. at 1-2; Reply at 20),
Parks Complaint in this action is simply a repetition of the same allegations and claims made by
plaintiff Do Hee Kim (Kim) in the action before Justice Nahman. Both cases raise the same
factual and legal forum non conveniens grounds for dismissal, and the factors identified by
Justice Nahman apply with equal force to Park and should lead to the same result in his case.1
Moreover, the dismissal of Kims action bolsters the argument for dismissing Parks
claims for an additional reason. The forum non conveniens doctrine heavily favors resolving
related cases in the same jurisdiction in order to minimize the burdens on the parties and the
courts and to maximize efficiency and convenience. See, e.g., Globalvest Mgmt. Co. v. Citibank,
N.A., 2005 WL 1148687 at *8 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. May 12, 2005) (New York courts
routinely dismiss cases on forum non conveniens grounds where there is a prior related
litigation pending in a foreign jurisdiction); see also World Point Trading PTE, Ltd. v. Credito
Italiano, 225 A.D.2d 153, 161 (1st Dept 1996) (granting dismissal because a related case was
pending in Italy and the attendant risk that conflicting rulings might be issued by courts of two
jurisdictions). Importantly, Parks first resort to a civil remedy was his filing of a workers
compensation claim in Korea. See Application for Benefits, Exhibit 2 to the Affidavit of Sona
Kim (August 19, 2015). That action alone supports resolving Parks parallel civil claims in
Korea. Now this argument has even greater force in light of Justice Nahmans ruling, since both
Parks workers compensation claim and Kims related civil claims may proceed only in Korea.

Indeed, the case for forum non conveniens dismissal of Parks claims is even stronger
than it was for Kim. Kim had asserted claims against both Heather Hyun-Ah Cho and Korean
Air, and in her opposition to dismissal, Kim had argued that Korean Airs regular conduct of
business in New York favored retaining the case. Park, in contrast, has asserted claims only
against Cho, a private Korean citizen with two small children and no present contacts with New
York. See Reply at 8.

As Cho stated in her Reply, [t]he [Kim and Park] cases raise overlapping factual and
legal questions, and resolving them simultaneously in Korea will avoid the duplication of proof
involving witnesses and documents and conserve valuable judicial resources by not having
similar and some identical issues litigated on both sides of the world. Reply at 20 (quoting
Ilusorio v. Ilusorio-Bildner, 103 F. Supp. 2d 672, 676 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). Justice Nahman has
ruled that Kims claims may not be brought in New York, but that Korea is an available and
viable alternative forum. Similarly, Korea is a viable alternative forum for Parks identical
claims, which would enable[] more efficient conduct of pretrial discovery, save[] witnesses time
and money in both trial and pretrial proceedings, and avoid[] duplicative litigation and
inconsistent results, thereby eliminating unnecessary expense to the parties while at the same
time serving the public interest. Nieves v. American Airlines, 700 F. Supp. 769, 774 (S.D.N.Y.
1988) (where plaintiffs instituted action in Puerto Rico, allowing a related lawsuit to remain in
New York would be wasteful and unnecessarily duplicative).
Because the claims advanced by Kim and Park relate to the same events, raise the same
factual and legal issues, and will rely on the same evidence, the interest of maximizing efficiency
and conveniencewhich lies at the heart of forum non conveniensclearly favors resolution of
both cases in a single forum. In light of Justice Nahmans ruling, that forum can only be Korea.
As with Kims case, Parks action should be dismissed with prejudice in New York.
Date: December 22, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

Matthew D. Ingber
MAYER BROWN LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Tel. (212) 506-2500
Email: mingber@mayerbbrown.com

/s/ Richard Ben-Veniste

Richard Ben-Veniste
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel. (202) 263-3000
Email: rben-veniste@mayerbrown.com

Attorneys for Defendant Heather Hyun-Ah Cho

3