Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

¿ 

 

Plaintiff Yoan Koh (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants In S. Park, HN H. Lee, CIFIC Union International Inc. dba Compass Real Estate, Daniel Kim, Compass California Inc., and Does 1 to 50, alleging that in June 2020, Plaintiff entered into a residential purchase agreement with defendants to purchase a property at 1028 South Wilton Place, Los Angeles, California 90019. Defendants did not disclose at the time of the sale that (1) the garage converted into a living unit did not pass inspections by the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (“LADBS”), (2) repairs of the main residence after fire damage did not pass LADBS inspections, and (3) the value of the property was substantially less than the price he offered and paid due to the undisclosed defects. The complaint sets forth four causes of action for (1) failure to disclose, (2) intentional misrepresentation, (3) negligent misrepresentation, and (4) breach of fiduciary duty. 

Defendants Pacific Union International Inc. dba Compass Real Estate, Daniel Kim, and Compass California, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) move for the imposition of evidentiary and monetary sanctions against Plaintiff for his failure to comply with the Court’s March 19, 2024 and March 29, 2024 Orders to serve verified responses to discovery. 

The instant motion was served on Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Steven J. Barkin (“Mr. Barkin”) of the Law Offices of Steven J. Barkin, is no longer eligible to practice law in California as of July 2, 2024 according to the California State Bar. Further, as of July 27, 2024, Mr. Barkin’s license has been ordered inactive. In other words, Plaintiff is effectively in pro per at this time since his counsel is no longer eligible to represent him. The Court is skeptical that Plaintiff is aware of the State Bar’s action against Mr. Barkin, or that Plaintiff is aware of the instant motion seeking sanctions against him. 

Adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard are a requirement before sanctions may be issued under the due process clauses of the California and United States Constitutions. (E.g. Sole Energy Co. v. Hodges (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 199, 208; Barrientos v. City of Los Angeles (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 63, 70.) In light of the above, the Court orders Defendants to serve Plaintiff the moving papers directly in order to provide him notice and the opportunity to contest the motion, should he seek to do so.  

The Hearing on Motion for Sanctions is CONTINUED to _____________________ in Dept. 78 of Stanley Mosk Courthouse. Defendants are to serve and file proof of service on Plaintiff within the meaning of CCP § 1005(b).  

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: August 13, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.