Torres: No reason to delay final judgment vs Quichochos

Attorney Robert T. Torres, counsel for businesswoman Jung Ja Kim, says there are no reasons to require the federal court to further delay the issuance of a final judgment in Kim’s racketeering lawsuit against lawyer Ramon K. Quichocho and his wife, his law firm, and their company.

Torres said that Kim unequivocally and amply satisfied both the open-ended and close-ended criteria to establish a pattern of racketeering in this case as reflected in the unanimous verdict issued by the jury and the wealth of evidence supporting it.

Given the “pattern” of repeatedly using debit and credit cards to establish and maintain Latte Stone’s operations and the use of wire transfers to get hold of and operate Kim’s property, the acts were “related” as the use of the wires were regular, not sporadic, and the perpetrators as well as the victim were the same, said Torres.

Torres gave these arguments to oppose the Quichochos’ motion for a judgment in their favor notwithstanding the verdict.

Torres said there were substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict that Quichocho, his wife Frances, Quichocho’s law office, and Karissa LLC violated and conspired to violate the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act.

The Quichochos asserted that Kim failed to present any evidence that the predicate acts “were the same or similar in purpose, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission.”

Torres disagreed, saying this is a hollow and unsupported assertion.

He said the defendants, in their motion, purposefully choose to ignore the substantial evidence of the scheme to take over and destroy Kim’s businesses: an appropriate RICO claim.

The jury trial in Kim’s racketeering lawsuit against Quichocho and co-defendants lasted almost two months.

The nine jurors reached a unanimous verdict on March 28, 2014, holding the defendants liable to pay $2.4 million in damages to Kim.

The jury, however, found Kim liable to pay Quichocho and his law firm $48,221.67 in legal fees.

Quichocho and co-defendants, through counsel Michael Dotts, had asked the court to issue a judgment favoring them despite the jury’s guilty verdict.

Quichocho and Dotts said that Kim failed to present any evidence related to money laundering or wire fraud.

Furthermore, Quichocho and Dotts said, Kim failed to show a pattern of racketeering activity.

In the alternative, the Quichochos asked the court for a new trial based on juror misconduct.