Park v. Bender
| Decision Date | 30 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-2448 (RDM) |
| Parties | SHINOK PARK, Plaintiff, v. BRUCE M. BENDER, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Plaintiff Shinok Park, proceeding pro se, filed this action against her former attorney, Bruce Bender, for fraud unlawful detention of personal property, unjust enrichment malpractice, spoliation of evidence, and breach of fiduciary duties. Dkt. 1 at 6. Bender moves to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff's suit is barred under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Dkt. 7 at 2. Park has since moved to amend her complaint, Dkt. 17, which Bender opposes, Dkt. 21. For the reasons that follow, the Court will GRANT Bender's motion to dismiss and will DENY Park's motion for leave to amend the complaint as futile.
For purposes of the pending motion to dismiss, the following facts, which are largely taken from Plaintiff's complaint, are accepted as true. See Am. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 642 F.3d 1137, 1139 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The Court, moreover, takes judicial notice of the public records- included as attachments to Bender's motion to dismiss-that document the previous litigation between Park and Bender's law firm in Maryland state court and between Plaintiff and her former supervisor in D.C. Superior Court. See Capitol Servs. Mgmt., Inc. v. Vesta Corp., 933 F.3d 784, 789 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (); see also EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch., 117 F.3d 621, 624 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, [the Court] may consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, any documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint and matters of which [it] may take judicial notice.”).
In May 2017, Park retained Bender, an attorney at the Maryland law firm of Axelson, Williamowsky, Bender & Fishman, P.C. (“AWB&F”), to represent her in a then-ongoing civil suit in D.C. Superior Court against her former supervisor, Milan Brahmbhatt. Dkt. 1 at 1-2 (Compl. ¶¶ 1-2, 5); see also Dkt. 7-4 at 18. In that suit (“the sexual assault case”), Park alleged that, while Brahmbhatt was her supervisor at the World Bank, he engaged in sexual assault, battery, intentional inflection of emotional distress (“IIED”), blackmail, and tortious interference with contract and business relations-although the latter three counts had been dismissed by the D.C. Superior Court before Park retained Bender. Dkt. 1 at 2 (Compl. ¶ 5); Dkt. 7-4 at 5, 15. Beginning in February 2018, Bender also represented Park in the appeal of a civil defamation suit against Brahmbhatt and his lawyer, Peter Hansen, which was pending before the D.C. Court of Appeals at the time. Dkt. 1 at 1-2 (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 7). According to Park's complaint, Bender and Brahmbhatt had a “personal” relationship that Bender failed to disclose to Park, although she does not describe the nature of the relationship. Dkt. 1 at 2 (Compl. ¶ 6).
After Bender joined the sexual assault case as Park's attorney, a jury trial was set to proceed on the sexual assault, battery, and IIED counts. Dkt. 7-4 at 20. Park's concerns with Bender's representation arose, in the first instance, during pre-trial discovery. She alleges that Bender “misguided” her when he “advised [her] to lie during depositions,” Dkt. 1 at 2, 6 (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 39), “advised [her] that she could contact witnesses and encourage them to not attend [their own] depositions,” id. at 3 (Compl. ¶ 11), and “encouraged [her] to lie to the jury about the validity of certain evidence and facts,” id. (Compl. ¶ 15). Park was sanctioned with a $3,000 penalty for this conduct-a sanction that Bender allegedly later raised during trial “to the detriment of Plaintiff's credibility.” Id. at 3 (Compl. ¶¶ 12-13). She also contends that, during discovery, Bender precluded her from viewing evidence that he received from Google on her behalf, notwithstanding the fact that he shared that evidence with Peter Hansen, counsel for Brahmbhatt. Id. (Compl. ¶ 14).
In June 2018, Superior Court Judge Hiram Puig-Lugo presided over a ten-day jury trial on Park's remaining claims against Brahmbhatt. Id. at 2 (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8); Dkt. 7-4 at 30. During the trial, Bender allegedly continued to engage in misconduct: he allegedly “changed and altered Plaintiff's exhibits without discussing the changes with her” or showing her the final exhibits, id. at 4 (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 22-23), “submitted additional exhibits that [Park] had never seen or approved,” id. (Compl. ¶ 21), “failed to provide [her] with copies of . . . [27] defense exhibits,” id. (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25), and “continued to use and pay expert witnesses” against Park's express wishes, id. (Compl. ¶ 26). After the close of evidence and deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in Park's favor on her IIED claim, awarding her $15,000 in damages, id. at 3 (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17), and a verdict in Brahmbhatt's favor on the sexual assault and battery claims, id. (Compl. ¶ 16). The Court granted Brahmbhatt's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the IIED claim, however, and entered judgment in Brahmbhatt's favor. Id. (Compl. ¶ 18). Two months later, the Court also granted Brahmbhatt's motion for $150,000 in attorney's fees and costs-a sum Park alleges “amounted to around the fair market value of [her] investment rental condominium property at the time.” Id. at 5 (Compl. ¶ 30); Dkt. 7-4 at 34.
After the return of the jury verdict, Bender contacted Park, alleging that she owed him over $160,000 in previously undiscussed fees. Id. at 4 (Compl. ¶ 27). He indicated, moreover, that he would halt his representation of her in the defamation appeal if she did not pay his fees within two weeks. Id. at 4 (Compl. ¶ 28). Park declined to pay the fees, and Bender “stopped representing [her] in her trial case and appeal.” Id. at 4 (Compl. ¶ 29).[1] Bender then allegedly “became unresponsive,” “refusing to respond to Plaintiff's emails and phone calls” or to “her requests for copies of her trial exhibits and case files used in both the trial and appeal cases.” Dkt. 1 at 5 (Compl. ¶ 31). He continued to send Park legal bills, however, which he “claimed were for continued representation and finance charges on her outstanding balance.” Id. (Compl. ¶ 32). In October 2019, after Park had retained a new attorney, Bender responded to Park's emails, stating that he had “given [her] all of her exhibits” and “demanded $1,500 for the production of said exhibits.” Id. (Compl. ¶ 33).
Not until November 2019 did Bender and Brahmbhatt's attorney send Park a selection of final trial exhibits via email, at which point Park apparently discovered that Bender “had made damaging changes to her original draft exhibits” and that “exhibits she had never before seen or had the opportunity to reply to had been used in the trial.” Id. (Compl. ¶¶ 34-35). Although Park has appealed the jury verdict in the sexual assault case to the D.C. Court of Appeals, her “appeal remains in jeopardy because Defendant continues to withhold over 30 exhibits from [her]”-indeed, the Court of Appeals has already once dismissed the appeal without prejudice because Park was “unable to prepare her appeal brief and appendix without copies of the trial exhibits from [Bender].” Id. (Compl. ¶¶ 36-37).
In May 2019, AWB&F sued Park in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. See Dkt. 7-2 at 2. AWB&F sought recovery of unpaid attorney's fees under two retention agreements it had entered with Park: one as to the sexual assault case against Brahmbhatt and one as to the defamation appeal. Dkt. 7-3 at 2-3. After a failed attempt to remove the suit to federal court, Park answered and filed a counterclaim, which she later amended (the “Maryland counterclaims”). Id. at 4-5; Dkt. 7-2 at 6-9. In her amended counterclaims, Park brought claims against AWB&F for breach of contract (Count I), professional negligence (Count II), breach of fiduciary duties (Count III), evidence spoliation (Count IV), and intentional misrepresentation (Count V). Dkt. 7-1 at 8-18.
The Maryland counterclaims centered on Bender's representation of Park, both during the sexual assault case and the defamation appeal. Id. Much like the complaint in this case, the Maryland counterclaims recounted Park's retention of Bender, the jury trial, the resulting dispute about Bender's fees, Bender's unresponsiveness after trial, Bender's alleged manipulation and withholding of exhibits from Park, and the effect of Bender's conduct on her ability to pursue her appeal. Id. at 1-8. The counterclaims allege, on these points, that AWB&F breached its contract with Park and engaged in professional negligence when it, through its principals, “failed to amend the complaint against Mr Brahmbhatt,” “failed to produce an appeal argument on the dismissal of the defamation case through summary judgment,” “failed to timely address the issues regarding the fabrication/authenticity of certain [evidence],” “failed to prepare and advise Ms. Park properly regarding her testimony,” “instructed Ms. Park to provide false testimony,” “altered Ms. Park's medical record without her knowledge,” and “litigated Ms. Park's sexual assault case in a way which subjected her to sanctions in the amount of $153,000,” among other actions. Id. at 9-14. As a direct and proximate result of these actions, Park asserted that she “suffered significant damages, including . . . loss[es] in the defamation case appeal and the sexual assault case.” Id. at 11,...
To continue reading
Request your trial