Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 21PSCV00336, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21PSCV00336 Hearing Date: March 23, 2023 Dept: L
1. Plaintiff Hyung Su
Ryu dba Alex Ryu’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
2. Defendants Jong Won Bok’s, Taijin USA’s, TJ
International Co. Ltd.’s and Teehee Socks, Inc’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.5 Against Plaintiff Hyung Su Ryu and
Plaintiff’s Attorneys, David Fu & Associates, David Fu, Esq. and Samuel
Jones, Esq., Jointly and Severally, in the Amount of $20,400 is DENIED.
3. Defendant Teehee Socks, Inc.’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff Hyung Su Ryu dba Alex Ryu’s Motion to Deem the Truth of
Matters and Genuineness of Documents Specified in Request for Admissions, Set
Two, to Defendant Taijin USA, Admitted and Conclusively Established is GRANTED.
Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280, subdivision (b), the court orders that the truth of
all specified matters and the genuineness of documents specified in the
Requests for Admissions, Set Two, propounded by Hyung to Taijin be deemed
admitted. Sanctions are awarded in the
reduced amount of $410.00 and are payable within 30 days of the date of the
hearing.
5. Plaintiff Hyung Su Ryu dba Alex Ryu’s Motion to Compel Responses to
Form Interrogatories, Set Two, for Defendant Taijin USA is GRANTED.
Taijin is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Hyung’s Form
Interrogatories, Set No. Two, within 20 days from the date of the hearing. Sanctions
are awarded in the reduced amount of $410.00 and are payable within 30 days of
the date of the hearing.
6. Plaintiff Hyung Su Ryu dba Alex Ryu’s Motion to Compel Responses to
Special Interrogatories, Set Two, for Defendant Taijin USA is GRANTED. Taijin
is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Hyung’s Special Interrogatories,
Set No. Two, within 20 days from the date of the hearing. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced
amount of $410.00 and are payable within 30 days of the date of the hearing.
7. Plaintiff Hyung Su Ryu dba Alex Ryu’s Motion to Compel Responses to
Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, for Defendant Taijin
USA is GRANTED. Taijin is to provide verified responses, without objections, to
Hyung’s Request for Production of Documents, Set No. Two, within 20 days from
the date of the hearing. Sanctions are
awarded in the reduced amount of $410.00 and are payable within 30 days of the
date of the hearing.
8. Plaintiff Hyung Su Ryu dba Alex Ryu’s Motion to Deem the Truth of
Matters and Genuineness of Documents Specified in Request for Admissions, Set
Two, to Defendant Teehee Socks, Inc., Admitted and
Conclusively Established is GRANTED. Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280, subdivision
(b), the court orders that the truth of all specified matters and the
genuineness of documents specified in the Requests for Admissions, Set Two,
propounded by Hyung to TSI be deemed admitted. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $410.00 and are payable
within 30 days of the date of the hearing.
10. Plaintiff Hyung Su Ryu dba Alex Ryu’s Motion to Compel Responses to
Special Interrogatories, Set Two, for Defendant Teehee Socks, Inc. is GRANTED.
TSI is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Hyung’s Special
Interrogatories, Set No. Two, within 20 days from the date of the hearing. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced
amount of $410.00 and are payable within 30 days of the date of the hearing.
11. Plaintiff Hyung Su Ryu dba Alex Ryu’s Motion to Compel Responses to
Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, for Defendant Teehee
Socks, Inc. is GRANTED. TSI is to provide verified responses, without
objections, to Hyung’s Request for Production of Documents, Set No. Two, within
20 days from the date of the hearing. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $410.00 and are
payable within 30 days of the date of the hearing.
12. Plaintiff Hyung Su Ryu dba Alex Ryu’s Motion to Deem the Truth of
Matters and Genuineness of Documents Specified in Request for Admissions, Set
Two, to Defendant Jong Won Bok, Admitted and Conclusively Established is GRANTED.
Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280, subdivision (b), the court orders that the truth of
all specified matters and the genuineness of documents specified in the
Requests for Admissions, Set Two, propounded by Hyung to Bok be deemed
admitted. Sanctions are awarded in the
reduced amount of $410.00 and are payable within 30 days of the date of the
hearing.
13. Plaintiff Hyung Su Ryu dba Alex Ryu’s Motion to Compel Responses to
Form Interrogatories, Set Two, for Defendant Jong Won Bok is GRANTED. Bok is to provide verified
responses, without objections, to Hyung’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. Two,
within 20 days from the date of the hearing. Sanctions are awarded in the
reduced amount of $410.00 and are payable within 30 days of the date of the
hearing.
14. Plaintiff Hyung Su Ryu dba Alex Ryu’s Motion to Compel Responses to
Special Interrogatories, Set Two, for Defendant Jong Won Bok is GRANTED. Bok is
to provide verified responses, without objections, to Hyung’s Special
Interrogatories, Set No. Two, within 20 days from the date of the hearing. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced
amount of $410.00 and are payable within 30 days of the date of the hearing.
15. Plaintiff Hyung Su Ryu dba Alex Ryu’s Motion to Compel Responses to
Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, for Defendant Jong
Won Bok is GRANTED. Bok is to provide verified responses, without objections,
to Hyung’s Request for Production of Documents, Set No. Two, within 20 days
from the date of the hearing. Sanctions
are awarded in the reduced amount of $410.00 and are payable within 30 days of
the date of the hearing.
16. Plaintiff Hyung Su Ryu dba Alex Ryu’s Motion to Deem the Truth of
Matters and Genuineness of Documents Specified in Request for Admissions, Set Two,
to Defendant TJ International Co., Ltd., Admitted and Conclusively Established
is GRANTED. Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280, subdivision (b), the court orders that
the truth of all specified matters and the genuineness of documents specified in
the Requests for Admissions, Set Two, propounded by Hyung to TJ International
be deemed admitted. Sanctions are
awarded in the reduced amount of $410.00 and are payable within 30 days of the
date of the hearing.
17. Plaintiff Hyung Su Ryu dba Alex Ryu’s Motion to Compel Responses to
Form Interrogatories, Set Two, for Defendant TJ International Co., Ltd. is GRANTED. TJ International is to provide
verified responses, without objections, to Hyung’s Form Interrogatories, Set
No. Two, within 20 days from the date of the hearing. Sanctions are awarded in
the reduced amount of $410.00 and are payable within 30 days of the date of the
hearing.
18. Plaintiff Hyung Su Ryu dba Alex Ryu’s Motion to Compel Responses to
Special Interrogatories, Set Two, for Defendant TJ International Co., Ltd. is GRANTED.
TJ International is to provide verified responses, without objections, to
Hyung’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. Two, within 20 days from the date of
the hearing. Sanctions are
awarded in the reduced amount of $410.00 and are payable within 30 days of the
date of the hearing.
19. Plaintiff Hyung Su Ryu dba Alex Ryu’s Motion to Compel Responses to
Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, for Defendant TJ
International Co., Ltd. is GRANTED. TJ International is to provide verified
responses, without objections, to Hyung’s Request for Production of Documents,
Set No. Two, within 20 days from the date of the hearing. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced
amount of $410.00 and are payable within 30 days of the date of the hearing.
Background
Case No. 21PSCV00336
Plaintiff Hyung Su Ryu dba Alex Ryu (“Hyung”) alleges as follows: Hyung was forced out from his own company
that he founded and built up, TeeHee Socks, Inc. (“TSI”). Hyung was fired and
deprived of his salary and stock dividends. TSI is being relocated to Nevada.
On January
10, 2022, the court related this instant case to Case No. 21PSCV01072; this
instant case was designated the lead case.
On April 22, 2022, Hyung filed a Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”),
asserting causes of action against Bok, Taijin, TJ International, TSI and Does
1-100 for:
1.
Breach
of Contract—Stock Purchase Agreement
2.
Breach
of Contract—Salary Agreement
3.
Fraud
4.
Breach
of Fiduciary Duty
5.
Involuntary
Dissolution
On May 19,
2022, the court related Case Nos. 21PSCV00336, 21PSCV01072 and 22PSCV00134;
this instant case was designated the lead case.
On September
8, 2022, the court related this instant case to Case No. 22PSCV00901; this
instant case was designated the lead case.
On September
26, 2022, the court sustained Bok’s, Taijin’s, TJ International’s and TSI’s
demurrer to the first cause of action in Hyung’s 4AC, without leave to amend.
On March 8,
2023, TSI, Taijin and TJ International filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint,
asserting causes of action against Hyung, Miri P. Ryu (“Miri”), Soxnet, Inc.
(“Soxnet”) and Roes 1-50 for:
1. Breach of Contract
2. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing
3. Fraud
4. Unfair Business Practices
A Case
Management Conference is set for March 23, 2023.
Case No. 21PSCV01072
Plaintiff
Soxnet alleges as follows: In approximately January 2015, Soxnet began
manufacturing, importing and selling socks at wholesale to TSI. TSI would sell
said socks at retail and would then pay Soxnet for the inventory it had been
sold. This pattern and practice continued into May 2019 when Bok, Taijin and TJ
International acquired a majority stake in TSI and became involved in its
management and operations. As of April 1, 2021, TSI stopped making payments for
unpaid wholesale inventory; the balance owed is $197,555.91. TSI also
discontinued using Soxnet as its wholesaler/supplier, which was shortly after
TSI, Bok, Taijin and TJ International terminated Hyung from his officer and
director positions at TSI.
Again, on
January 10, 2022, the court related this instant case to Case No. 21PSCV00336; Case No. 21PSCV00336
was designated the lead
case.
On April 22,
2022, Soxnet filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting causes of
action against TSI, Bok, TJ International, Taijin and Does 1-10 for:
1. Account Stated
2. Open Book Account
3. Work, Labor, Services, and Materials
Rendered
4. Breach of Contract
5. Intentional Interference with
Contractual Relations
On May 19,
2022, the court related Case Nos. 21PSCV00336, 21PSCV01072 and 22PSCV00134;
Case No. 21PSCV00336 was designated the lead case.
On September
26, 2022, the court sustained Bok’s, TJ International’s and Taijin’s demurrer
to the fifth cause of action in Soxnet’s FAC, without leave to amend.
A Case
Management Conference is set for March 23, 2023.
Case No. 22PSCV00134
TSI alleges as
follows: Hyung was the sole shareholder of TSI, as well as a director and
officer, at the time of TSI’s January 13, 2015 incorporation. On or about May
10, 2019, Hyung agreed in writing to sell 51% of the outstanding shares of TSI
to Taijin for $1,000,000.00; consequently, Hyung’s ownership interests
in TSI was reduced to 49%. Hyung continued to act as TSI’s officer and
director. Hyung was to be in charge of sales and inventory commencing June 1,
2019. On or about February 3, 2021, there was a dispute between TSI’s
shareholders. Hyung has, within the last four years, misappropriated the sales
of socks from TSI to Soxnet, which is a company wholly owned by Hyung and/or
his wife, Miri.
On May 19,
2022, the court related Case Nos. 21PSCV00336, 21PSCV01072 and 22PSCV00134;
Case No. 21PSCV00336 was designated the lead case.
On July 7, 2022,
Miri filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against TSI, Bok, TJ International, Taijin and Roes
1-100 for:
1.
Determination
of Status and of Fair Market Value for Dissenting Shares, and Appointment of
Appraiser
2.
Failure
to Produce Employment Records Under Labor Code § 226(b)
3.
Failure
to Produce Personnel Records Under Labor Code § 1198.5
4.
Trademark
Infringement Under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)
5.
False
Designation of Origin Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
6.
Unfair
Competition Under Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.
7.
Common
Law Trademark Infringement
8.
Common
Law Unfair Competition
On August 22, 2022,
Miri dismissed the fourth through eighth causes of action in her
cross-complaint, without prejudice.
On August 22, 2022,
Hyung filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint, alleging causes of action against
TSI, Bok, TJ
International, Taijin and Roes 1-100 for:
1. Determination of Status and of Fair Market
Value for Dissenting Shares, and Appointment of Appraiser
2. Failure to Produce Employment Records Under
Labor Code § 226(b)
On October 27,
2022, TSI filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against
Hyung and Does 1-100 for:
1. Breach of Duty of Loyalty
2. Intentional Interference with Prospective
Economic Advantage
3. Negligent Interference with Prospective
Economic Advantage
4. Unfair Business Practices
A Case
Management Conference is set for March 23, 2023.
Case No.
22PSCV00901
Miri alleges
as follows: Miri owns the trademark known as “Teehee Kids” (“Mark”). TSI, Bok,
TJ International and Taijin have used and are using the Mark in commerce
to sell children’s socks in the United States and internationally via online
services such as Amazon.com without Miri’s consent.
On August 22,
2022, Miri filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against TSI, Bok, TJ
International, Taijin and DOES 1-100 for:
1. Trademark Infringement Under 15 U.S.C.
§ 1114(1)
2. False Designation of Origin Under 15
U.S.C. § 1125(a)
3. Unfair Competition Under Bus. &
Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.
4. Common Law Trademark Infringement
5. Common Law Unfair Competition
On September
8, 2022, the court related this instant case to Case No. 21PSCV00336; Case No.
21PSCV00336 was designated the lead case.
A Case
Management Conference is set for March 23, 2023.
1. Hyung’s
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Legal
Standard
“An injunction is a writ or order requiring a person to
refrain from a particular act. It may be granted by the court in which the
action is brought, or by a judge thereof; and when granted by a judge, it may
be enforced as an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 525.) “[A]n
injunction may be more completely defined as a writ or order commencing a
person either to perform or to refrain from performing a particular act.” (McDowell v. Watson (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th
1155, 1160.) “A preliminary injunction may be granted at any time before judgment upon
a verified complaint, or upon affidavits if the complaint in the one case, or
the affidavits in the other, show satisfactorily that sufficient grounds exist
therefor.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 527, subd. (a).)
“In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction,
the trial court considers who related factors: (1) the likelihood that the
plaintiff will prevail on the merits of its case at trial, and (2) the interim
harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as
compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the court grants
a preliminary injunction.” (14859
Moorpark Homeowner’s Ass’n v. VRT Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th
1396, 1402.) “The trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the
potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing
on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction.” (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4
Cal.4th 668, 678.) “Generally, weighing these factors lies within
the broad discretion of the superior court.” (County of Kern v. T.C.E.F., Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th
301, 315.)
Discussion
1. Any efforts to restructure or
reorganize TSI;
2. Any efforts to voluntarily dissolve or
wind down TSI;
3. Any efforts to sell, transfer, or
otherwise dispose of the assets of TSI, including but not
necessarily limited to any inventory
or intellectual property, and that if any such sale, transfer, or disposal or
such assets has occurred to have them returned to TSI pending resolution of
this action;
4. Any efforts to merge TSI with any
other entity; and
5. Any efforts to conceal the books and
corporate records from Hyung which prevent
Hyung from ascertaining the
whereabouts and disposition of TSI’s assets.
Evidentiary
Objections
The court
rules on Defendants’ evidentiary objections as follows: Sustained in full.
Merits
At the outset, the court notes that on March 7, 2022, Hyung
filed this instant “Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and
Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction Against Defendant Teehee Socks
Inc.” Judge Hernandez’s March 8, 2022 minute order reflects, in relevant part,
as follows:
“The Court reviews ex parte Moving Papers, Opposition, and
Objection in chambers, off the record.
After a discussion with Counsel, The Ex Parte Application
for Temporary Restraining Order and OSC re Preliminary Injunction filed by
Hyung Su aka Alex Ryu on 03/07/2022 is Denied.
The Court notes a Motion for Preliminary Injunction is RESERVED
for 03/16/2022.
On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion for
Preliminary Injunction scheduled for 03/16/2022 is advanced to this date and
continued to 03/23/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department O at Pomona Courthouse South.
Any Opposition and Reply to the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction are to be filed and served per Code . . .”
The March 23, 2022 scheduled hearing was subsequently
rescheduled to April 7, 2022. The court’s April 7, 2022 minute order reflects
that a “Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction” was held and taken under
submission. On April 12, 2022, Judge Hernandez issued a ruling resetting the
“Motion for Preliminary Injunction” for hearing on June 7, 2022, in order to
give Defendants “adequate time to file an opposition” and ordered that “[a]ny
opposition and/or
reply. . . be set per Code from the new hearing date of June
7, 2022.”
No additional briefing was filed post-April 12, 2022.
Defendants, in their opposition filed March 10, 2022, assert that Hyung only
reserved a March 16, 2022 hearing date for a Motion for Preliminary Injunction
but never actually filed or served an actual motion and that, to the extent the
aforementioned ex parte application is considered the moving papers, Hyung
failed to provide adequate notice. Hyung, in response, asserts that the court
on its own motion advanced the March 23, 2022 hearing date on the Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and expressly stated during the March 8, 2022 hearing
that Hyung could use his ex parte application as the moving papers for this
motion and that opposition and reply papers were to be filed per Code.
Hyung’s position appears consistent with Judge Hernandez’s
March 8, 2022 and April 7, 2022 minute orders; accordingly, the court considers
Hyung’s “Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show
Cause Re Preliminary Injunction Against Defendant Teehee Socks Inc.” as the
moving papers and proceeds to the merits:
1. Likelihood of Prevailing
On January 10, 2022, Hyung filed a verified TAC, alleging
causes of action against Bok, Taijin USA, TJ International, TSI and Does 1-100
for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Fraud; (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (4)
Conversion; (5) Wrongful Termination and (6) Involuntary Dissolution. Hyung
requested therein an “order staying any efforts to consolidate Defendant Teehee
Socks, Inc. with any other business entities until the resolution of this
litigation.” (Jones Decl., ¶ 3, Prayer, ¶ 6.)
Hyung has alleged, in relevant part, that he began to work
in import/export, and carved out a niche importing socks (TAC, ¶ 11); that in
about 2013, he conceived of a sock design and formed TSI, which owned the
designs for the socks and engaged factories in China and South Korea to make
the socks and sell them online (Id.); that he was TSI’s sole shareholder
and director (Id., ¶ 12); that by 2018 TSI had an annual sales volume of
approximately $10 million (Id.); that he and his wife, Miri, owned and
operated Soxnet, which was a wholesaler for TSI (Id., ¶ 6); that he met
Bok, who controlled several factories through Taijin and TJ International which
were producing socks for TSI (Id., ¶ 13); that Bok is an officer,
director and shareholder of TJ International and TJ International is Bok’s
alter ego (Id., ¶ 3); that Taijin is a wholly owned subsidiary of TJ
International (Id., ¶ 4); that Taijin is Bok’s alter ego and Bok is
Taijin’s sole officer and director (Id.); that in January 2019, Hyung,
on behalf of TSI and Soxnet, began orally discussing with Bok, both in his
individual capacity and in his capacity as officer and director for both Taijin
and TJ International, how they could combine resources and efforts to own,
control and share in the losses and profits of TSI together (Id., ¶ 15);
that they orally agreed Hyung and Bok would each draw a $10,000.00 monthly
salary for managing and operating TSI (Id., ¶ 16); that on February 24,
2019, they entered into a Joint Venture Agreement for conducting TSI’s business
together, wherein Taijin would contribute $1,000,000 to TSI and Taijin and TJ
International would pay up to $1,000,000 in invoices due to TSI’s Chinese
manufacturers (Id., ¶ 17); that on May 8, 2019, they entered into a
Stock Purchase Agreement, wherein Bok would purchase 51% of TSI’s stock through
Taijin and TJ International, Bok would be TSI’s Chief Executive Officer and
Hyung would be TSI’s Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and in charge of sales
and inventory (Id., ¶ 18); that in November, Bok orally offered to raise
Hyung’s monthly salary to $12,000.00 if Hyung would relinquish his duties and
responsibilities in marketing, managing and operating TSI for a two-year
period, to which Hyung agreed (Id., ¶ 27); that on February 3, 2021, Bok
wrongfully terminated Hyung as a director and officer of TSI on the basis that
Hyung was being overcompensated and that eliminating his salary would help
alleviate TSI’s supposedly substantial debt (Id., ¶¶ 30-33); that Hyung
was provided no proof that the amount of debt TSI had at that time was
supposedly “unsustainable” (Id., ¶ 31); that approximately ½ or more of
TSI’s debt at that time was accounts payable to Taijin, while approximately
$200,000.00 was payable to Soxnet and $150,000.00 was payable for an SBA loan (Id.);
that TSI has continued paying TJ International and Taijin (Id., ¶ 32); that Soxnet has not
received any payments since Hyung’s termination and is no longer being used as
TSI’s wholesaler (Id.); that on February 4, 2021, Hyung requested an
audit and production of TSI records, which has not been done/provided (Id.,
¶ 35) and that, based on information and belief, Defendants have relocated
TSI’s warehouse operations to Nevada and are in the process of setting up a
Nevada business entity for the purpose of merging or consolidating with TSI in
a further effort to deprive Hyung from having any further involvement in TSI’s
management and operations and to deprive him of his rights and ownership
interests in TSI (Id., ¶ 36).
Generally, the complaint must set forth a cause of action
for injunctive relief to support issuance of a TRO or PI. (Code Civ. Proc., §
526, subds. (a)(1)-(2).) Hyung, in his moving papers, fails to specifically
address the merits of any of his causes of action, let alone what cause of
action supports his request for injunctive relief.
2. Interim Harm
“[A]n irreparable injury is one for which either (1) its
pecuniary value is not susceptible to monetary valuation, or (2) the item is so
unique its loss deprives the possessor of intrinsic values not replacable by
money or in kind.” (Jessen v. Keystone Savins & Loan Assn. (1983)
142 Cal.App.3d 454, 457.) “An injunction cannot issue in a vacuum based on the proponents'
fears about something that may happen in the future. It must be supported by
actual evidence that there is a realistic prospect that the party enjoined
intends to engage in the prohibited activity.” (Korean Philadelphia
Presbyterian Church v. California Presbytery (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th
1069, 1084.)
2. Motion
for Sanctions
Legal
Standard
“A trial court may order a party, the party’s attorney, or
both, to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by
another party as a result of actions of tactics, made in bad faith, that are
frivolous or solely intended to cause delay.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd.
(a).)
“’Actions or tactics’ include, but are not limited to, the
making or opposing of motions or the filing and service of a complaint,
cross-complaint, answer, or other responsive pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5,
subd. (b)(1).) “’Frivolous’ means totally and completely without merit or for
the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5,
subd. (b)(2).)
“This section shall not apply to disclosures and discovery
requests, responses, objections, and motions.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (e).)
Discussion
Bok, Taijin,
TJ International and TSI (collectively, “Defendants”) move the court for an
order sanctioning Hyung and his counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount
of $20,400.00, on the basis that Hyung made Defendants prepare 16 oppositions
to 16 untimely filed motions, only to then withdraw the motions “at the
eleventh hour.”
The motion is
summarily denied, on the basis that Code of Civil Procedure section
128.5 does not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses,
objections, and motions.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (e) [emphasis added].)
3. TSI’s Motion
for Preliminary Injunction
Legal
Standard
See Motion
#1.
Discussion
TSI seeks a
preliminary injunction against Hyung and his respective agents, servants,
employees, and representatives, including but not limited to Soxnet and Miri,
and all persons acting in concert or participating with them, requiring them to
provide direct, full, complete and unbridled access to TSI of the applicable
Amazon user account through which TSI does business.
TSI’s motion
is summarily denied. The motion was filed on June 28, 2022; at that time, TSI
had not filed any cross-complaint or alleged any cause of action against
Plaintiff in this lawsuit. A preliminary injunction “is not, in itself, a cause
of action. Thus, a cause of action must exist before injunctive relief may be
granted.” (MaJor v. Miraverde Homeowners Assn. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th
618, 623.
4. Motion
to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted Re: Taijin
Legal
Standard
A response to requests for admission is due 30 days after
service. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2033.250, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom requests for
admission are directed fails to serve a
timely response, . . .[t]he requesting 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. . .” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) “The court
shall make this order, 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, subd. (c).)
“It is mandatory
that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party or attorney, or
both,
whose failure to
serve a timely response to requests for admission
necessitated this motion.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
Discussion
Hyung moves the court for an order deeming the truth of all
matters specified in Hyung’s Request for Admissions, Set No. Two served on
August 2, 2022 and the genuineness of documents specified therein admitted and
conclusively established as against Taijin. Hyung further seeks sanctions
against Taijin and its counsel of record in the amount of $1,537.27.
Hyung’s counsel Samuel H. Jones (“Jones”) represents as
follows: The subject discovery was served on August 2, 2022. (Jones Decl., ¶ 2,
Exh. A.) On September 1, 2022, Taijin’s counsel Sam Muriella (“Muriella”)
contacted Jones to meet and confer for a potential motion for protective order
regarding the subject discovery. (Id., ¶ 3). Jones has attached an email
chain dated September 1 & 2, 2022 between Muriella and himself;
importantly, in an email sent at 3:32 p.m. on September 2, 2022, Jones wrote:
“I will prepare a pared down list of RFAs, SROGS, and RFPDs
and send them to you by Wednesday next week. You take a look at them and call
me if you have any questions and see if we can’t work out any disagreements on
them so that we are not having to meet and confer even more after we get those
responses. If everything’s kosher, we set a new date for responses to those
requests. If we can’t agree, you have until 9/20/2022 to either respond to the
original requests or file your motion for protective order. Let me know if that
works for you. Thanks” (Id., ¶ 3, Exh. B.)
Muriella, in response, advised, “That works for me.” (Id.)
On September 7, 2022, Jones sent Muriella and Taijin’s counsel Frederick W. Lee
(“Lee”) a proposed list of pared down discovery requests from the discovery
requested propounded on August 2, 2022. (Id., ¶ 4.) Neither Muriella nor
Lee discussed the proposed list with Jones before September 20, 2022 and no
agreement was reached regarding setting a new date for responses to the
proposed list of pared down discovery requests. (Id.) Taijin provided no
responses to the subject discovery by September 20, 2022. (Id., ¶ 5.) On
September 21, 2022, Jones sent an email to Lee and Muriella, advising that he
had not received discovery responses by September 20, 2022 and asking if/when
he would be receiving them. (Id., ¶ 6). Lee, in turn, advised that he was
unaware of any outstanding discovery requests and sought a 2 week extension. (Id.)
Muriella responded:
“As for the discovery responses, they were previously due on
September 6, 2022, but we granted you an extension to respond by yesterday (see
the email chain between me and Sam Muriella from September 2, 2022, in which
you were copied). Since you have not timely responded, you have waived the
right to raise objections, among other rights. That being said, we will give
you a two-week extension from September 20, 2022, but only on the condition
that you provide objection-free, code-compliant, and substantive responses and
documents to all requests in our second set of discovery requests. Please
advise how you intend to proceed. Thank you.” (Id., ¶ 6, Exh. C
[Emphasis added]).
On September 24, 2022, Muriella sent Jones an email, stating
therein that “there was no agreement to provide responses, let alone by 9/23,
to the revised second set of discovery requests. Instead, I indicated that I
would review those . . .” (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. D.) On October 3, 2022, Jones
sent Muriella and Lee an email, advising that:
“[a]s a friendly reminder, you were to provide us with
responses or serve a motion for protective order by 9/20/2022 if we couldn't
come to an agreement regarding a pared down set of discovery requests from our
second set that we served two months ago (see below). I provided you with our
proposed set of pared down requests on 9/7/2022, but received no response from
you or anyone from your office. Since no agreement was reached on that matter,
your responses or motion for protective order were due 9/20/2022. As such, you
have waived any right to object to our requests or move for a protective order.
Please note that this if we do not receive full, complete, substantive,
objection-free and code-compliant responses by this Friday, October 7, 2022, we
will file motions to compel responses.” (Id., ¶ 8, Exh. E.)
Jones received no response to the above email and that his
firm received no discovery responses by October 7, 2022. (Id., ¶ 9.) On
October 12, 2022, Muriella called Jones to discuss the outstanding discovery requests,
during which time Jones advised Muriella that since Taijin had failed to
respond by September 20, 2022, it had waived its time to object. (Id., ¶
10). During this conversation, Muriella refused to acknowledge that responses
were due by September 20, 2022. (Id.) No responses to the subject
discovery served on August 2, 2022 have been received as of the October 19,
2022 motion filing date. (Id., ¶ 11).
The court further notes that on January 31, 2023, Judge
Hernandez denied Bok’s, Taijin’s, TJ International’s and TSI’s motion for
protective order against having to provide responses to the subject discovery;
in doing so, the court extensively referenced the communications set forth
above and concluded that “it appears from the information presented that
Muriella did not communicate with Jones after Jones sent out the revised
discovery requests on September 7, 2022 and that, based on this lack of
communication, Jones believed that the August 2, 2022 discovery requests were
operative and that responses to same were overdue.”
Taijin, in opposition, merely reasserts its position that
the “pared down” set of discovery sent to Muriella by Jones on September 7,
2022 is the operative set of discovery and that it is not obligated to respond
to the discovery served August 2, 2022. This position was previously rejected
by Judge Hernandez and is rejected by the court now.
The motion, then, is granted. Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280, subdivision (b),
the court orders that the truth of all specified matters and the genuineness of
documents specified in the Requests for Admissions, Set Two, propounded by Hyung
to Taijin be deemed admitted.
Sanctions
Hyung seeks sanctions against Taijin
and its counsel in the amount of $1,537.27 [calculated as follows: 0.9 hours
preparing motion, plus 1 hour reviewing opposition, plus 1 hour preparing
reply, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $375.00/hour, plus $61.65 motion filing
fee, plus $13.12 filing fee].
Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and
in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total
and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work
performed in connection with the pending motion is $410.00 (i.e., 1 hour at
$350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days of
the date of the hearing.
5. Motion
to Compel Form Interrogatories Re: Taijin
Legal
Standard
A response to interrogatories is due
30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.
(a).) “If a party to whom
interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, . . . [t]he
party propounding the interrogatories
may move for an order compelling response to the
interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2030.290, subd. (b).)
The court
shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney
who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories,
unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial
justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction
unjust . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)
Discussion
Hyung moves the court for
an order compelling Taijin to serve full and complete verified answers,
without objections, to Hyung’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. Two. Hyung further
seeks sanctions against Taijin and its counsel of record in the amount of
$1,649.77.
See discussion
Re: Motion #1.
The motion is
granted. Taijin is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Hyung’s Form
Interrogatories, Set No. Two, within 20 days from the date of the hearing.
Sanctions
Hyung
seeks sanctions against Taijin and its counsel in the amount of $1,649.77
[calculated as follows: 1.2 hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour reviewing
opposition, plus 1 hour preparing reply, plus 1 hour attending hearing at
$375.00/hour, plus $61.65 motion filing fee, plus $13.12 filing fee].
Utilizing
a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the
court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs
incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is
$410.00 (i.e., 1 hour at $350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are
payable within 30 days of the date of the hearing.
6. Motion
to Compel Special Interrogatories Re: Taijin
Legal
Standard
See Motion #2.
Discussion
Hyung moves
the court for an order compelling Taijin to serve full and complete
verified answers, without objections, to Hyung’s Special Interrogatories, Set
No. Two. Hyung further seeks sanctions against Taijin and its counsel of record
in the amount of $1,649.77.
See discussion Re: Motion #1.
The motion is granted. Taijin is to provide verified responses, without
objections, to Hyung’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. Two, within 20 days
from the date of the hearing.
Sanctions
Hyung seeks sanctions against
Taijin and its counsel in the amount of $1,649.77 [calculated as follows: 1.2
hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour reviewing opposition, plus 1 hour preparing
reply, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $375.00/hour, plus $61.65 motion filing
fee, plus $13.12 filing fee].
Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and
in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total
and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work
performed in connection with the pending motion is $410.00 (i.e., 1 hour at
$350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days of
the date of the hearing.
7. Motion
to Compel Request for Production of Documents Re: Taijin
Legal
Standard
A response to a request for production
of documents is due 30 days after service. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a
party to whom a request for production of documents is
directed fails to serve a timely
response to it, the party making the demand may move for an
order compelling response to the
demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)
The court
shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who
unsuccessfully makes or opposes such a
motion to compel, unless it finds that the one subject to
the sanction acted with substantial
justification or that other circumstances make the imposition
of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)
Discussion
Hyung moves
the court for an order compelling Taijin to serve full and complete
verified answers, without objections, to Hyung’s Request for Production of
Documents, Set No. Two. Hyung further seeks sanctions against Taijin and its
counsel of record in the amount of $1,612.27.
See discussion Re: Motion #1.
The motion is granted. Taijin is to provide verified responses, without
objections, to Hyung’s Request for Production of Documents, Set No. Two, within 20 days from the date
of the hearing.
Sanctions
Hyung seeks sanctions against
Taijin and its counsel in the amount of $1,612.27 [calculated as follows: 1.1
hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour reviewing opposition, plus 1 hour preparing
reply, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $375.00/hour, plus $61.65 motion filing
fee, plus $13.12 filing fee].
Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and
in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total
and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work
performed in connection with the pending motion is $410.00 (i.e., 1 hour at
$350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days of
the date of the hearing.
8. Motion
to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted Re: TSI
Legal
Standard
See Motion #1.
Discussion
Hyung moves the court for an order deeming the truth of all
matters specified in Hyung’s Request for Admissions, Set No. Two served on
August 2, 2022 and the genuineness of documents specified therein admitted and
conclusively established as against TSI. Hyung further seeks sanctions against
TSI and its counsel of record in the amount of $1,537.27.
See discussion Re: Motion #1.
The motion is granted. Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280, subdivision (b),
the court orders that the truth of all specified matters and the genuineness of
documents specified in the Requests for Admissions, Set Two, propounded by Hyung
to TSI be deemed admitted.
Sanctions
Hyung seeks sanctions against TSI
and its counsel in the amount of $1,537.27 [calculated as follows: 0.9 hours
preparing motion, plus 1 hour reviewing opposition, plus 1 hour preparing
reply, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $375.00/hour, plus $61.65 motion filing
fee, plus $13.12 filing fee].
Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and
in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total
and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work
performed in connection with the pending motion is $410.00 (i.e., 1 hour at
$350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days of
the date of the hearing.
9. Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories Re: TSI
Legal Standard
See Motion #2.
Discussion
Hyung moves
the court for an order compelling TSI to serve full and complete
verified answers, without objections, to Hyung’s Form Interrogatories, Set No.
Two. Hyung further seeks sanctions against TSI and its counsel of record in the
amount of $1,649.77.
See discussion
Re: Motion #1.
The motion is
granted. TSI is to provide verified responses,
without objections, to Hyung’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. Two, within 20
days from the date of the hearing.
Sanctions
Hyung
seeks sanctions against TSI and its counsel in the amount of $1,649.77
[calculated as follows: 1.2 hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour reviewing
opposition, plus 1 hour preparing reply, plus 1 hour attending hearing at
$375.00/hour, plus $61.65 motion filing fee, plus $13.12 filing fee].
Utilizing
a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the
court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs
incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is
$410.00 (i.e., 1 hour at $350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are
payable within 30 days of the date of the hearing.
10. Motion
to Compel Special Interrogatories Re: TSI
Legal
Standard
See Motion #2.
Discussion
Hyung moves
the court for an order compelling TSI to serve full and complete
verified answers, without objections, to Hyung’s Special Interrogatories, Set
No. Two. Hyung further seeks sanctions against Taijin and its counsel of record
in the amount of $1,649.77.
See discussion Re: Motion #1.
The motion is granted. TSI is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Hyung’s
Special Interrogatories, Set No. Two, within 20 days from the date of the
hearing.
Sanctions
Hyung seeks sanctions against TSI
and its counsel in the amount of $1,649.77 [calculated as follows: 1.2 hours
preparing motion, plus 1 hour reviewing opposition, plus 1 hour preparing
reply, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $375.00/hour, plus $61.65 motion filing
fee, plus $13.12 filing fee].
Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and
in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total
and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work
performed in connection with the pending motion is $410.00 (i.e., 1 hour at
$350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days of
the date of the hearing.
11. Motion
to Compel Request for Production of Documents Re: TSI
Legal
Standard
See Motion #4.
Discussion
Hyung moves
the court for an order compelling TSI to serve full and complete
verified answers, without objections, to Hyung’s Request for Production of
Documents, Set No. Two. Hyung further seeks sanctions against TSI and its
counsel of record in the amount of $1,612.27.
See discussion Re: Motion #1.
The motion is granted. TSI is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Hyung’s
Request for Production of Documents,
Set No. Two, within 20 days from the date of the hearing.
Sanctions
Hyung seeks sanctions against TSI
and its counsel in the amount of $1,612.27 [calculated as follows: 1.1 hours
preparing motion, plus 1 hour reviewing opposition, plus 1 hour preparing
reply, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $375.00/hour, plus $61.65 motion filing
fee, plus $13.12 filing fee].
Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and
in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total
and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work
performed in connection with the pending motion is $410.00 (i.e., 1 hour at
$350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days of
the date of the hearing.
12. Motion
to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted Re: Bok
Legal
Standard
See Motion #1.
Discussion
Hyung moves the court for an order deeming the truth of all
matters specified in Hyung’s Request for Admissions, Set No. Two served on
August 2, 2022 and the genuineness of documents specified therein admitted and
conclusively established as against Bok. Hyung further seeks sanctions against
Bok and his counsel of record in the amount of $1,537.27.
See discussion Re: Motion #1.
The motion is granted. Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280, subdivision (b),
the court orders that the truth of all specified matters and the genuineness of
documents specified in the Requests for Admissions, Set Two, propounded by Hyung
to Bok be deemed admitted.
Sanctions
Hyung seeks sanctions against Bok
and its counsel in the amount of $1,537.27 [calculated as follows: 0.9 hours
preparing motion, plus 1 hour reviewing opposition, plus 1 hour preparing
reply, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $375.00/hour, plus $61.65 motion filing
fee, plus $13.12 filing fee].
Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and
in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total
and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work
performed in connection with the pending motion is $410.00 (i.e., 1 hour at
$350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days of
the date of the hearing.
13. Motion
to Compel Form Interrogatories Re: Bok
Legal
Standard
See Motion #2.
Discussion
Hyung moves
the court for an order compelling Bok to serve full and complete
verified answers, without objections, to Hyung’s Form Interrogatories, Set No.
Two. Hyung further seeks sanctions against Bok and his counsel of record in the
amount of $1,649.77.
See discussion Re: Motion #1.
The motion is granted. Bok is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Hyung’s Form
Interrogatories, Set No. Two, within 20 days from the date of the hearing.
Sanctions
Hyung seeks sanctions against Bok
and his counsel in the amount of $1,649.77 [calculated as follows: 1.2 hours
preparing motion, plus 1 hour reviewing opposition, plus 1 hour preparing
reply, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $375.00/hour, plus $61.65 motion filing
fee, plus $13.12 filing fee].
Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and
in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total
and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work
performed in connection with the pending motion is $410.00 (i.e., 1 hour at
$350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days of
the date of the hearing.
14. Motion
to Compel Special Interrogatories Re: Bok
Legal
Standard
See Motion #2.
Discussion
Hyung moves
the court for an order compelling Bok to serve full and complete
verified answers, without objections, to Hyung’s Special Interrogatories, Set
No. Two. Hyung further seeks sanctions against Bok and his counsel of record in
the amount of $1,649.77.
See discussion Re: Motion #1.
The motion is granted. Bok is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Hyung’s
Special Interrogatories, Set No. Two, within 20 days from the date of the
hearing.
Sanctions
Hyung seeks sanctions against Bok
and his counsel in the amount of $1,649.77 [calculated as follows: 1.2 hours
preparing motion, plus 1 hour reviewing opposition, plus 1 hour preparing
reply, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $375.00/hour, plus $61.65 motion filing
fee, plus $13.12 filing fee].
Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and
in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total
and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work
performed in connection with the pending motion is $410.00 (i.e., 1 hour at
$350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days of
the date of the hearing.
15. Motion
to Compel Request for Production of Documents Re: Bok
Legal
Standard
See Motion #4.
Discussion
Hyung moves
the court for an order compelling Bok to serve full and complete
verified answers, without objections, to Hyung’s Request for Production of
Documents, Set No. Two. Hyung further seeks sanctions against Bok and his
counsel of record in the amount of $1,612.27.
See discussion Re: Motion #1.
The motion is granted. Bok is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Hyung’s
Request for Production of Documents,
Set No. Two, within 20 days from the date of the hearing.
Sanctions
Hyung seeks sanctions against Bok
and his counsel in the amount of $1,612.27 [calculated as follows: 1.1 hours
preparing motion, plus 1 hour reviewing opposition, plus 1 hour preparing
reply, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $375.00/hour, plus $61.65 motion filing
fee, plus $13.12 filing fee].
Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and
in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total
and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work
performed in connection with the pending motion is $410.00 (i.e., 1 hour at
$350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days of
the date of the hearing.
16. Motion
to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted Re: TJ International
Legal
Standard
See Motion #1.
Discussion
Hyung moves the court for an order deeming the truth of all
matters specified in Hyung’s Request for Admissions, Set No. Two served on
August 2, 2022 and the genuineness of documents specified therein admitted and
conclusively established as against TJ International.
Hyung further seeks sanctions against TJ International and
its counsel of record in the amount of $1,537.27.
See discussion Re: Motion #1.
The motion is granted. Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280, subdivision (b),
the court orders that the truth of all specified matters and the genuineness of
documents specified in the Requests for Admissions, Set Two, propounded by Hyung
to TJ International be deemed admitted.
Sanctions
Hyung seeks sanctions against TJ
International and its counsel in the amount of $1,537.27 [calculated as
follows: 0.9 hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour reviewing opposition, plus 1
hour preparing reply, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $375.00/hour, plus
$61.65 motion filing fee, plus $13.12 filing fee].
Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and
in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total
and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work
performed in connection with the pending motion is $410.00 (i.e., 1 hour at
$350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days of
the date of the hearing.
17. Motion
to Compel Form Interrogatories Re: TJ International
Legal
Standard
See Motion #2.
Discussion
Hyung moves
the court for an order compelling TJ International to serve full and
complete verified answers, without objections, to Hyung’s Form Interrogatories,
Set No. Two. Hyung further seeks sanctions against TJ International and its
counsel of record in the amount of $1,649.77.
See discussion Re: Motion #1.
The motion is granted. TJ International is to provide verified responses, without objections, to
Hyung’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. Two, within 20 days from the date of the
hearing.
Sanctions
Hyung seeks sanctions against TJ
International and its counsel in the amount of $1,649.77 [calculated as
follows: 1.2 hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour reviewing opposition, plus 1
hour preparing reply, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $375.00/hour, plus
$61.65 motion filing fee, plus $13.12 filing fee].
Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and
in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total
and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work
performed in connection with the pending motion is $410.00 (i.e., 1 hour at
$350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days of
the date of the hearing.
18. Motion
to Compel Special Interrogatories Re: TJ International
Legal
Standard
See Motion #2.
Discussion
Hyung moves
the court for an order compelling Bok to serve full and complete
verified answers, without objections, to Hyung’s Special Interrogatories, Set
No. Two. Hyung further seeks sanctions against TJ International and its counsel
of record in the amount of $1,649.77.
See discussion Re: Motion #1.
The motion is granted. TJ International is to provide verified responses, without objections, to
Hyung’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. Two, within 20 days from the date of
the hearing.
Sanctions
Hyung seeks sanctions against TJ
International and its counsel in the amount of $1,649.77 [calculated as
follows: 1.2 hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour reviewing opposition, plus 1
hour preparing reply, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $375.00/hour, plus
$61.65 motion filing fee, plus $13.12 filing fee].
Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and
in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total
and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work
performed in connection with the pending motion is $410.00 (i.e., 1 hour at
$350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days of
the date of the hearing.
19. Motion
to Compel Request for Production of Documents Re: TJ International
Legal
Standard
See Motion #4.
Discussion
Hyung moves
the court for an order compelling TJ International to serve full and
complete verified answers, without objections, to Hyung’s Request for
Production of Documents, Set No. Two. Hyung further seeks sanctions against TJ
International and its counsel of record in the amount of $1,612.27.
See discussion Re: Motion #1.
The motion is granted. TJ International is to provide verified responses, without objections, to
Hyung’s Request for Production of Documents, Set No. Two, within 20 days from the date of the hearing.
Sanctions
Hyung seeks sanctions against TJ
International and its counsel in the amount of $1,612.27 [calculated as
follows: 1.1 hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour reviewing opposition, plus 1
hour preparing reply, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $375.00/hour, plus
$61.65 motion filing fee, plus $13.12 filing fee].
Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and
in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total
and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work
performed in connection with the pending motion is $410.00 (i.e., 1 hour at
$350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days of
the date of the hearing.