Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lim v. Rajan

United States District Court, Third Circuit

September 18, 2013



Harvey Bartle III J.

Plaintiff David Bohyeon Lim ("Lim"), acting pro se, has filed this diversity[1]action asserting common law breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit claims against defendants Mathu Rajan ("Rajan"), STV Networks, Inc. ("STV"), Young K. Park ("Park"), the Law Offices of Young K. Park (the "Park Firm"), David B. Ahn ("Ahn"), and Phila Ilbo, Inc. ("Phila Ilbo").[2]The lawsuit involves the 2008 sale of assets of Korean Daily Tribune, Inc. ("Tribune"), a Korean newspaper, to STV, and an accompanying 2008 Employment Agreement between Lim and STV.

Two motions to dismiss are before the court. One, filed by Rajan, CEO of STV, contends that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He asserts that all of Lim's claims arise from the alleged breach of the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Employment Agreement and that he was not a party to either in his individual capacity. He also maintains that Lim was not a party in any individual capacity to the Purchase and Sale Agreement. The second motion to dismiss was filed by STV, also under Rule 12(b)(6). STV, like Rajan, argues that Lim was not a party in his individual capacity to the Purchase and Sale Agreement. It further contends that Lim's claims are barred in their entirety by Pennsylvania's four-year statute of limitations for contract and related actions.


When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008); Umland v. Planco Fin. Servs., Inc., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008). We must then determine whether the pleading at issue "contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim must do more than raise a "'mere possibility of misconduct.'" Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). Under this standard, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. On a motion to dismiss, the court may consider "allegations contained in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint and matters of public record." Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993) (citing 5A Charles Allen Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357, at 299 (2d ed. 1990)).


The following facts for present purposes are accepted as true or taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. In early 2008, Lim was "President, the sole Agent and sole Owner of" Tribune, a media and magazine business that had grown over nearly thirty years. On February 5, 2008, Tribune entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Purchase Agreement") with STV to sell all of Tribune's assets in exchange for "a number of [STV's] Common Stock with an aggregate Buyer's Common Stock Value equal to Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350, 000.00), $200, 000.00 in cash and assumption of [Tribune's] liability attached hereto as Exhibit A." Additionally, § 2.1(b) of the Purchase Agreement provided that Lim would be employed by STV according to terms to be set forth in a future employment agreement that would supersede the employment clause of the Purchase Agreement. The closing date was to be "as soon as practicable" after all closing conditions had been met.

The February 5, 2008 Purchase Agreement was executed for STV by Park as "General Counsel" and by Lim as Tribune's "President." An identical version of the Purchase Agreement, for some unexplained reason, was again executed on March 18, 2008, this time by Lim as President for Tribune and by Mathu Rajan as STV's "CEO." Section 12.5 of the Purchase Agreement expressly disclaims any third party beneficiary rights. It states that "[n]othing herein shall create or be deemed to create any third party beneficiary rights in any person or entity not a party hereto (including, without limitation, any employee or former employee of [Tribune] or its affiliates[)]." Lim is not named as a party in the Purchase Agreement.

There was also a separate one-page "Merger Agreement" executed on March 18, 2008 by Park as "General Counsel" for STV and Lim as "Chairman" for Tribune. It provides in Paragraph 2 that "[STV] shall pay Chairman Lim $200, 000 for the company building and $350, 000 in [STV] stocks for his 28.5 years of his contribution in managing the company." The Merger Agreement explains the sale of Tribune's assets to STV in summary fashion and adds that the "merger shall take effect starting April 1, 2008." Thus, the Purchase Agreement contemplates the payments for the purchase of assets on closing to be made to Tribune, whereas the Merger Agreement, executed on the same day, provides these same dollar payments to be made directly to Chairman Lim. It is not totally clear whether these agreements refer to the same or different consideration on closing.

Lim's promised Employment Agreement is dated April 1, 2008.[3]The Employment Agreement provides that Lim would be employed by STV as the "Associate Director of Operations for Chosun Daily Division" for a term of six years in exchange for, among other compensation: (1) a $60, 000 yearly salary, "payable in accordance with the Company's standard payroll procedures;" (2) options to purchase 300 STV shares at $39.17 per share that would vest in groups of 50 to 100 shares over the following 24 months, exercisable for 10 years from the date of the Employment Agreement; and (3) the tax-free reimbursement of Lim's COBRA medical expenses. From the time of the Employment Agreement's execution to November 2008, STV paid Lim $5, 000 per month and COBRA payments of $1, 011.80 per month.

Beginning in November 2008, Lim's monthly salary was reduced "unilaterally and without prior written consent" to $4, 500. Further reductions have followed such that Lim now claims $251, 250 with interest for unpaid salary through the March 2014 end of the six-year Employment Agreement. Similarly, Lim asserts that STV has not paid him for COBRA reimbursements since December 2008. He claims $50, 590 in past due benefits through February 2013 and $13, 153.40 for COBRA benefits through the end of the six-year employment term.

In addition to these amounts, Rajan and STV "have not paid $350, 000.00 in value of stock of [STV] to Plaintiff as agreed in the Agreement." Lim does not say if this liability stems from the Purchase Agreement, which grants $350, 000 in STV stock to Tribune, or the Merger Agreement, which appears to grant $350, 000 in STV stock to "Chairman Lim, " or both.[4]

Finally, since November 2008, Tribune's liabilities that STV assumed on closing in the Purchase Agreement have not been paid. STV assumed Tribune's liabilities, vaguely described in Exhibit A and incorporated by reference into the Purchase Agreement in § 2.1, on a Revolving Loan, Home Equity Loan, Deposit Money Loan, and 5th Street Building Deposit. STV began payment in April 2008. Payment ceased on the first three of these obligations in November 2008. Likewise, the 5th Street Building Deposit came due on April 8, 2012 and has not been paid. Lim claims that STV's failure to pay the Home Equity Loan resulted in the sale of his home at public auction on October 16, 2010 and the loss of his accumulated home equity. He further claims that the failure to pay the Revolving Loan has caused him several subsequent denials of credit. In total, Lim avers that he is owed $1, 411, 547.40 from all defendants for all claims.

Lim first contacted Park regarding STV's failure to honor "the Agreement" in November 2008. At that time Lim was told that "once [STV]'s financial situation had improved, all past due monies would be paid." Despite Lim's numerous subsequent attempts at correspondence with Rajan and Park in 2009 and 2012, in which he demanded action and threatened "to seek equitable remedy under the contracts, " Lim was unsuccessful in obtaining payment. He eventually learned on April 2, 2012 from Raja Rajan, Mathu Rajan's brother, that STV had sold Tribune "some time ago" due to management difficulties and that STV was in the process of being shut down as a company.[5]Lim filed his complaint in this court on March 15, 2013.


At the outset, we note that Lim has not alleged that Rajan is a Pennsylvania citizen. 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332(a). Simply pleading in this diversity action that he "regularly conducts business" in Pennsylvania is not sufficient. From the record before ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.