Featured post

Kim Nguyen Latest Victim of LAPD’s Olympic Division

Kim Nguyen: LAPD Victim

This is Kim Nguyen a few moments after she “fell” out of an LAPD patrol car in the early hours of March 17, 2013. Her left bra strap is broken and top of her dress is pulled down to her waist.

Her jaw was shattered. She lost most of her front teeth. She had to be put in a medically induced coma because of bleeding to her brain. When she awoke days later, she found bruising on the inside of her thighs.

This is what she looked like two hours before she met the LAPD.

Kim Nguyen: LAPD Brutality Victim

What happened? After a night out in Koreatown, Nguyen and two male friends were waiting in a restaurant parking-lot for a designated driver to pick them up. Two LAPD officers drove by in a marked patrol car, stopped, and approached Nguyen.

After briefly questioning Nguyen and her friends, the officers left, but circled back, as Nguyen was running across the street toward a late-night cafe. She was then arrested for public intoxication on 6th Street between Oxford & Serrano. The officers refused to tell her friends where exactly she was being taken. Her friends were told they would need to call the police department to locate her.

On their way to taking her to jail, right after the patrol car passed through Olympic & Grand in downtown, Nguyen allegedly jumped or fell out.



What you see in the screenshot above is her on the street… That bruising on her face, the broken bra strap, and the pulled-down top of her dress were supposedly because of the fall.


The arresting officers have been identified as David E. Shin (신은총) and Jinseok Oh (오진석) of Olympic Division.

No one had any idea what happened on March 17 until the surveillance video was uncovered.

Unlike most other victims in the Koreatown area over the years who are undereducated or undocumented or have been made to disappear, Miss Nguyen has enough resources and cognizance of her rights to pursue legal suit. It was also very fortunate that video footage turned up that blatantly contradicted the official lies.

Miss Nguyen has a bachelor’s degree from UCLA and an MBA from Loyola Marymount University. She is still facing many surgeries as a result of the trauma of that night.

If you have information on this case or on other victims of LAPD’s Olympic Division, email policeabuse [@] koreatownla.org


TIMELINE OF EVENTS

March 17, 2013

The incident occurs. Paramedics say when they arrived, Ms. Nguyen was in handcuffs and sprawled on the street. The officers tell paramedics she fell out of their vehicle as they accelerated 10 mph from a stop at the traffic-lights intersection.

March 18

A family member of Ms. Nguyen files a citizen complaint with the LAPD.

Ms. Nguyen has been placed in a medically induced coma to prevent the bleeding from damaging her brain. She is in a coma for six days. When she awoke, she found bruises all over her body, including the inside of her thighs. Her jaw is wired shut for two months to allow it to heal.

June 19

LAPD’s Legal Affairs Division informs Internal Affairs of a “claim for damages” filed on behalf of Ms. Nguyen. Such action is understood to be a precursor to a civil lawsuit.

July 3

A civil lawsuit is filed by Ms. Nguyen’s lawyers at the Los Angeles Superior Court.

September 1

No movement on LAPD’s part. Ms. Nguyen’s lawyer goes public with a video that clearly shows the officers had lied in their statements to the paramedics.

LAPD tells the media that the department is nearing the end of their internal investigation, which they claimed to have initiated in March.

December 6

In a sworn deposition, Ms. Nguyen says one of the officers was groping her in the back of the patrol car in the minutes before she ended up on the pavement. Specifically, he was grabbing at her breasts, yanking at her ear to get her to face him, and pulling the inside of her left thigh, presumably to get her to open her legs.

January 9, 2014

No movement on LAPD’s part. Ms. Nguyen’s lawyer informs the media that she was deposed by the city attorney’s office in December. A video clip is aired that shows her talking about the officer’s attack on her person.

To this day, neither David E. Shin (신은총) nor Jinseok Oh (오진석) has been taken off the field. They continue to patrol the streets of Koreatown and Pico-Union, pulling over women for alleged traffic violations.

RELATED: LAPD Rape Cops’ Methods: Driver Officer + Partner Officer in Back Seat

Settlement of Class-Action Suit Vs. BCD Tofu House

UPDATE: The settlement was finally approved on February 10, 2015.

On March 20, 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by workers on behalf of all hourly employees (servers, cooks, busboys, etc.) against the owners and operators of the eight BCD Tofu House restaurants operated in California.

On January 15, 2015, the Court issued preliminary approval of a three million dollar ($3,000,000) settlement with the owners of the BCD Tofu House restaurants to settle the claims asserted in the class action.


Collectively, the lawsuit sought unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, and other damages on behalf of the approximately 1,500 hourly employees who worked at one or more of the BCD Tofu House restaurants owned and operated in California and who experienced one or more alleged violations of California labor law, including:

(1) BCD Tofu House’s failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked as a result of one or more of the following unlawful practices: (a) deducting money from employee’s wages supposedly for taxes but, instead, keeping the money for themselves and/or having the money that they deducted applied to their own tax obligations instead of the employee’s; (b) “rounding down” the amount of time the employee actually worked in a pay period; and/or (c) requiring employees to clock out at the end of their shift but continue to work for approximately thirty minutes to further clean and stock their stations, prepare for the next shift, as well as pool tips for redistribution, etc.;

(2) BCD Tofu House’s failure to pay all earned overtime wages;

(3) BCD Tofu House’s failure to pay employees one additional hour of minimum wage when the employee is required to work a split shift which is where the employee works more than one shift on a given day and the shifts are separated by more than one hour;

(4) BCD Tofu House’s failure to provide half-hour, uninterrupted, meal breaks during shifts in excess of 5 hours;

(5) BCD Tofu House’s failure to permit paid ten minute, uninterrupted breaks during shifts of 3.5 hours or more;

(6) BCD Tofu House’s failure to pay one hour of premium pay for each work day that an earned rest period is not permitted and/or a meal period is not provided;

(7) BCD Tofu House’s failure to pay the hourly employees all of their earned minimum wages, split shift wages, overtime wages, and premium pay at the time they are discharged or quit;

(8) BCD Tofu House’s failure to provide wage statements which accurately show all hours worked and all lawful deductions;

(9) BCD Tofu House engaging in Unlawful Business Practices; and

(10) Pursuing penalties on behalf of the employees under the Private Attorney General Act against BCD Tofu House.
The lawsuit sought unpaid wages and other damages on behalf of the non-exempt hourly employees who worked at any of the 8 BCD Tofu House restaurants operated in California at any time during the period of March 20, 2009 to December 31, 2014, who experienced one or more of the alleged violations of California labor law listed above.

The lawsuit sought unpaid wages and other damages on behalf of the non-exempt hourly employees who worked at any of the 8 BCD Tofu House restaurants operated in California at any time during the period of March 20, 2009 to December 31, 2014, who experienced one or more of the alleged violations of California labor law listed above.

California law provides that employees who are not permitted to take the meal and rest periods allowed under Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 5 must be paid one additional hour of pay for each day that the rest periods are not permitted, and one additional hour of pay for each day that the thirty minute meal periods are not provided. Further, California law provides that employees are entitled to overtime for shifts worked in excess of 8 hours in a given day OR over 40 hours in a given week. California law require an employer to provide, at no expense to the employee, all equipment and materials required for the performance of their job, including but not limited to, name tags, badges, flashlights, shirts and jackets. Further, an employer is required to pay an employee all of their earned wages on the day they are discharged or within 72 hours, if the employee quits. Lastly, an employer is required to provide its employees wage statements which accurately record all earned hours and the monetary rates applicable to each hour worked.

For details, visit http://bcdtofuhouselawsuit.com/english.html.

Food Recall: Ginseng Chicken Stew Pouches

Chicken Stew Pouches Sold in Koreatown Being Recalled

Class I Recall 023-2015
Health Risk: High

Korean Farm Inc. is recalling approximately 14,610 pounds of chicken stew products produced in the Republic of Korea that were not presented at the U.S. point of entry for inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has announced. Without the benefit of full inspection, a possibility of adverse health consequences exists.

The chicken stew items were produced on August 24, 2014, and February 24, 2014. The following products are subject to recall:

1.87-lb. pouches of “Ginseng Chicken Stew”
1.32-lb. pouches of “Ginseng Chicken Stew”

Food Recall: Ginseng Chicken Stew Pouches

Food Recall: Ginseng Chicken Stew Pouches

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number “DGA 14001” inside the Republic of Korea mark of inspection. These products were shipped to a retail locations and restaurants in Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington.

The problem was discovered by FSIS import personnel during routine monitoring of import shipments using the Public Health Information System (PHIS).

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Stephanie Rhee, Corporate Secretary, at (562) 789-9988.

Consumers with food safety questions can “Ask Karen,” the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


En Español

Clase I Recall 023-2015
Riesgo a la Salud: Alto

Los productos de estofado de pollo fueron producidos el 24 de agosto del 2014 y el 24 de febrero del 2014. Los siguientes productos están sujetos a esta retirada (los nombres están mencionados en inglés): [Etiqueta]

Bolsas de 1.87 libras de “Ginseng Chicken Stew”
Bolsas de 1.32 libras de “Ginseng Chicken Stew”

Food Recall: Ginseng Chicken Stew Pouches

Retirando Ginseng Chicken Stew

Los productos sujetos a esta retirada portan el número de establecimiento “DGA 14001” dentro del sello de inspección de la República de Corea. Esto productos fueron enviados fueron enviados a puntos de venta al por menor y restaurantes en Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, Oregón, Texas, Utah y Washington.

El problema fue descubierto por el personal de importación de FSIS durante actividades rutinarias de monitoreo de cargas de importación usando el Sistema de Información sobre Salud Pública (Public Health Information System (PHIS) por sus siglas en inglés).

Ni FSIS ni la compañía han recibido informes de reacciones adversas por causa del consumo de estos productos. Cualquier persona que tenga dudas o preocupaciones relacionadas con alguna reacción alérgica a este producto deberá comunicarse con su proveedor de servicios de salud.

FSIS conduce rutinariamente cotejos de efectividad para asegurarse que la compañía notifique a sus clientes acerca de la retirada y esté tomando los pasos necesarios para que el producto ya no esté disponible a los consumidores. Cuando esté disponible, se publicará el listado de distribución al por menor en la página web de FSIS: www.fsis.usda.gov/avisos.

Los consumidores y miembros de la prensa que tengan preguntas acerca de esta retirada pueden contactar a Stephanie Rhee, Secretaria Corporativa, al (562) 789-9988.

Los consumidores que aun tengan preguntas pueden utilizar el servicio de “Pregúntele a Karen”, la representante virtual de FSIS disponible 24 horas al día en pregunteleakaren.gov o vía teléfono inteligente en m.pregunteleakaren.gov. Servicios de chat en vivo están disponibles de lunes a viernes de 10 a.m. a 4 p.m. (hora del este). El número libre de costos para la Línea de Información sobre Carnes y Aves del USDA: 1-888-674-6854, disponible en inglés y en español, está disponible de 10 a.m. a 4 p.m. (hora del este) de lunes a viernes. Mensajes sobre la inocuidad de alimentos están disponibles 24 horas al día. El sistema en línea de monitoría electrónica de querellas de consumidores está disponible 24 horas al día en: www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.

Hanmi Bank vs. Assi Market, Daniel Rhee

Notice posted to Assi Market on 8th Street dated January 26, 2015.

L.A. County Court Order requires the named receiver to take possession and control of the defendant’s property, including the Assi Market at 3525 West 8th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90005.

HANMI BANK VS ASSI IRVINE MARKET LLC ET AL

Case Type: Breach Contrct/Warnty (Sellr Pltf) (General Jurisdiction)

 

PARTIES

ASSI IRVINE MARKET LLC – Defendant/Respondent

DOES 1 THROUGH 30 – Defendant/Respondent

EPPORT RICHMAN & ROBBINS LLP – Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

FRANK DAVID M. – Receiver

HANMI BANK – Plaintiff/Petitioner

RHEE SUNG CHUL – Defendant/Respondent

01/26/2015 Undertaking (UNDER SECTION 529 CCP $1000.00 )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

01/26/2015 Undertaking ($25,000.00 )
Filed by Receiver

01/26/2015 Miscellaneous-Other (CIVIL DEPOSIT $60.00 )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

01/26/2015 Undertaking (UNDER SECTION 566 (b) $10,000.00 )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

01/23/2015 Declaration (OF CHRISTOPHER R. NELSON )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

01/23/2015 Ex-Parte Application (FOR APPTMNT OF RECVR, OSC AND TRO )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

01/23/2015 Declaration (OF JINYOUNG KIM LEE )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

01/23/2015 First Amended Complaint
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

01/23/2015 Request for Judicial Notice
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

01/23/2015 Declaration (OF RECVR )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

01/23/2015 Nomination (OF RECVR )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

01/23/2015 Notice-Case Management Conference
Filed by Clerk

01/23/2015 Order (APPTING RECVR AND OSC AND TRO )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

01/09/2015 Proof-Service/Summons (P/S SUNG CHUL RHEE )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

01/09/2015 Proof-Service/Summons (P/S ASSI IRVINE MARKET, LLC )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

12/19/2014 Points and Authorities (in support of ex parte )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

12/19/2014 Declaration (of Nelson in support of ex parte )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

12/19/2014 Complaint

12/19/2014 Expte Rt Attach Ord & Iss Writ/NR
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

12/19/2014 Declaration (of Kim in support of ex parte )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr


Proceedings Held (Proceeding dates listed in descending order)

01/23/2015 at 08:30 am in Department 85, James C. Chalfant, Presiding
Exparte proceeding – Granted

12/19/2014 at 08:30 am in Department 86, Joanne O’Donnell, Presiding
Exparte proceeding – Granted in Part