Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 21STCV35370, Date: 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35370    Hearing Date: February 21, 2023    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Plaintiff Bow Tie Realty & Investment, Inc.’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Bow Tie Realty & Investment, Inc.’s Request for Sanctions against Defendant Caroline S. Lee and her attorney Jack Karpeles is GRANTED in the amount of $1,560.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

This is an action for declaratory relief and fraudulent transfer. The Complaint alleges as follows.

On September 16, 2019, Plaintiff Bow Tie Realty & Investment, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) was awarded judgment against Defendant Caroline S. Lee (“Lee”) in the amount of $672,892.19 in Caroline S. Lee v. Jong Han Lee, et al., Case No. BC697147 (“First Lawsuit”). That judgment included an award based on a claim of fraud arising out of Lee’s fraudulent inducement to enter a contract. (Complaint ¶ 7.)

A second lawsuit between the parties also resulted in a judgment in favor of Plaintiff on June 21, 2021, in the amount of $46,903.69. That judgment was rendered in Bow Tie Realty & Investment v. Caroline Lee, et al., Case No. 20STCV14403 (“Second Lawsuit”). Plaintiff alleges that this Second Lawsuit was filed based on claimed fraudulent transfers by Caroline S. Lee. (Complaint ¶ 8.)

A supersedeas bond was posted by the Defendant Lee in the First Lawsuit. (Complaint ¶ 8.) This resulted in the Second Lawsuit becoming moot, and therefore Plaintiff dismissed that suit, without prejudice, although it has a money judgment from the Second Lawsuit which remains. (Complaint ¶ 8.)

In attempting to enforce the Second Judgment (for $46,903.69) Plaintiff learned that Caroline S. Lee has engaged in other fraudulent transfers. One such transfer is a July 9, 2020 transfer to Defendant Chung Soonkyo, LLC, a limited liability company that Lee owns. (Complaint ¶ 9.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On September 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Complaint.

On October 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed three Notices of Lis Pendens.

On November 4, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens.

On February 2, 2022, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens and granted Plaintiff’s Request for Monetary Sanctions against Plaintiff.

On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions.

No Opposition has been filed.

DISCUSSION 

I.                 MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

Plaintiff moves to deem their requests for admission served on October 24, 2022, admitted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280.

Section 2033.280, subdivision (b) states a “party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).” The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) 

Monetary sanctions are mandatory against a party, attorney, or both whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).) 

Here, Plaintiff’s Counsel Chad Biggins (“Biggins”) attests that Plaintiff served upon Defendant the first round of Requests for Admission on October 24, 2022. (Biggins Decl. ¶ 2.) On December 7, 2022, Biggins contacted opposing counsel regarding the status of the missing discovery. (Biggins Decl. ¶ 3.) Defense Counsel mentioned a medical issue, but has not followed up. (Ibid.) As of January 17, 2023, the discovery responses have not been provided and are two months overdue. (Id. ¶ 4.)

As the discovery responses have not been provided, and as no Opposition has been filed, Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is GRANTED.  

Additionally, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendant Caroline Lee and her Counsel, Jack Karpeles.

Monetary sanctions are mandatory pursuant to CCP section 2033.280(c). Biggins requests sanctions in the amount of $2,310, representing three hours of work billed at $750 an hour, and the $60 filing fee for this motion.

While the Court finds Biggins’ billing rate reasonable, it notes that Biggins included one hour to draft a Reply. As no Opposition was filed, the Court deducts one hour from the total.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Bow Tie Realty & Investment, Inc.’s Request for Sanctions against Defendant Caroline S. Lee and her attorney Jack Karpeles is GRANTED in the amount of $1,560.

DATED: February 21, 2023 

___________________________ 

Hon. Robert S. Draper 

Judge of the Superior Court