This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/22/2021 at 08:04:44 (UTC).

ANTONIO GONZALEZ VS NATURE PAGODA

Case Summary

On 02/18/2020 ANTONIO GONZALEZ filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against NATURE PAGODA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1545

  • Filing Date:

    02/18/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

GONZALEZ ANTONIO

Defendants

NATURE PAGODA

SHYANDER K LIU

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorneys

WANG JERRY K.

TRAN HUNG BAN

 

Court Documents

Notice (name extension) - Notice (AMENDED) NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

9/22/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice (AMENDED) NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

9/15/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

Notice (name extension) - Notice Of Entry Of Order

9/17/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice Of Entry Of Order

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF ENTRY OF ORDER

9/17/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF ENTRY OF ORDER

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

9/14/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

8/10/2021: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF JERRY WANG, ESQ. AND EXHIDITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES AGAINST PLAINTIFF ANTONIO GONZALEZ AS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

8/10/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF JERRY WANG, ESQ. AND EXHIDITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES AGAINST PLAINTIFF ANTONIO GONZALEZ AS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF JERRY K. WANG, ESQ. AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET NO. ONE ADMITTED AND REQUEST F

8/10/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF JERRY K. WANG, ESQ. AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET NO. ONE ADMITTED AND REQUEST F

Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

8/10/2021: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

8/10/2021: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF JERRY K. WANG, ESQ. AND EXHffiiTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AGAINST PLAINTIFF ANTONIO GONZALEZ AS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET

8/10/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF JERRY K. WANG, ESQ. AND EXHffiiTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AGAINST PLAINTIFF ANTONIO GONZALEZ AS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

5/7/2021: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))

6/10/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL

6/30/2021: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

7/1/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

7/8/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Answer - Answer

3/25/2020: Answer - Answer

Answer - Answer

3/17/2020: Answer - Answer

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/21/2023
  • Hearing02/21/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2022
  • Hearing02/04/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2021
  • DocketNotice (AMENDED) NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER; Filed by: Liu Family Trust Erroneously Sued As SHYANDER K LIU (Defendant); As to: Antonio Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2021
  • DocketNotice Of Entry Of Order; Filed by: Liu Family Trust Erroneously Sued As SHYANDER K LIU (Defendant); As to: Antonio Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2021
  • DocketNotice OF ENTRY OF ORDER; Filed by: Liu Family Trust Erroneously Sued As SHYANDER K LIU (Defendant); As to: Antonio Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted scheduled for 09/15/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 09/15/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 09/14/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 09/14/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 09/14/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 09/14/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
29 More Docket Entries
  • 02/19/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/21/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/17/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Antonio Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Antonio Gonzalez (Plaintiff); As to: NATURE PAGODA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2020
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Antonio Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Antonio Gonzalez (Plaintiff); As to: NATURE PAGODA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Antonio Gonzalez (Plaintiff); As to: NATURE PAGODA (Defendant); SHYANDER K LIU (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC01545 Hearing Date: September 15, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nTO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE,\r\nADMITTED AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant\r\nLiu Family Trust, erroneously sued as Shyander K. Liu

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 2033.280)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Liu Family Trust’s Motion to\r\nDeem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission, Set One,\r\nAdmitted is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the\r\namount of $549.15 to be paid to Defendant Liu Family Trust’s counsel within\r\nthirty (30) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of\r\nSeptember 13, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof September 13, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff Antonio Gonzalez\r\n(“Plaintiff”), in pro per, filed an action alleging violations of the Unruh\r\nCivil Rights Act against Defendants Nature Pagoda and the Liu Family Trust\r\nerroneously sued as Shyander K. Liu (“Liu Family Trust”). Defendant Liu Family\r\nTrust filed an Answer on March 17, 2020 and Defendant Nature Pagoda filed its\r\nAnswer on March 25, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Liu Family Trust filed the instant Motion to\r\nDeem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted\r\nand for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). No opposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard & Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A. Requests for\r\nAdmission

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30\r\ndays after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd.\r\n(a).) “If a party to whom requests for\r\nadmission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] waives\r\nany objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the\r\nprotection for work product…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The\r\nrequesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents\r\nand the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as\r\nwell as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).) A motion\r\ndealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses,\r\ndoes not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding\r\nparty. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home\r\nEstates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds\r\nin Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21\r\nCal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters\r\ndeemed admitted must be made. (Brigante\r\nv. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Defendant Liu Family Trust served Plaintiff with\r\nRequests for Admission, Set One, on March 23, 2021 via regular mail. (Mot.,\r\nWang Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) On July 8, moving Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff\r\na meet and confer letter regarding the overdue responses. (Id. at ¶ 6, Exh. 2.) As of\r\nthe date this Motion was filed, no responses had been served. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Thus, Defendant Liu Family Trust is entitled to an order\r\ndeeming the Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

B. Request for Sanctions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a)\r\nprovides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a\r\nparty engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable\r\nexpenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that\r\nconduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to\r\nsubmit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010,\r\nsubd. (d).) Furthermore, it is “mandatory that the Court impose a monetary\r\nsanction…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely\r\nresponse to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc.,\r\n§ 2033.280, subd. (c).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure\r\nto respond to Defendant’s discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process.\r\nIn addition, the Court is required to impose a monetary sanction on Plaintiff for\r\nhis failure to respond to the Request for Admissions under Code of Civil\r\nProcedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant seeks sanctions of\r\n$1,036.65 based on three hours of attorney time billed at $325.00 and one\r\nfiling fee of $61.65. (Mot., Wang Decl., ¶¶ 9-10.) However, the amount sought\r\nis excessive given the simplicity of this Motion and the lack of opposition and\r\nreply. The Court finds $549.15, based on 1.5 hours of attorney time and one\r\nfiling fee, to be reasonable.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant\r\nLiu Family Trust’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests\r\nfor Admission, Set One, Admitted is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for sanctions\r\nis also GRANTED in the amount of $549.15 to be paid to Defendant Liu Family\r\nTrust’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'b'

Case Number: 20STLC01545 Hearing Date: September 14, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: (1)\r\nMOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE,\r\nAND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(2)\r\nMOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR\r\nSANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant\r\nLiu Family Trust, erroneously sued as Shyander K. Liu

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION\r\nOF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Liu Family Trust’s (1)\r\nMotion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and\r\n(2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, are\r\nGRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections\r\nwithin thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant’s requests for\r\nsanctions are also GRANTED in the amount of $773.30 to be paid to Defendant’s\r\ncounsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of\r\nSeptember 10, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof September 10, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff Antonio Gonzalez\r\n(“Plaintiff”), in pro per, filed an action alleging violations of the Unruh\r\nCivil Rights Act against Defendants Nature Pagoda and the Liu Family Trust\r\nerroneously sued as Shyander K. Liu (“Liu Family Trust”). Defendant Liu Family\r\nTrust filed an Answer on March 17, 2020 and Defendant Nature Pagoda filed its\r\nAnswer on March 25, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Liu Family Trust filed the instant (1) Motion\r\nto Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request\r\nfor Sanctions and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories,\r\nSet One, and Request for Sanctions (collectively, the “Motions”) on August 10.\r\nNo oppositions were filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard & Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A. Request for Production & Interrogatories

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for\r\nproduction of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to\r\nwhom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does\r\nnot provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order\r\ncompelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b);\r\nCode Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to\r\nmake any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product\r\nprotection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses\r\nto interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing\r\ndiscovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd.\r\n(a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are\r\nrequired before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants\r\n(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Defendant Liu Family Trust\r\nserved Plaintiff with Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and\r\nSpecial Interrogatories, Set One, on March 23, 2021 via regular mail. (Motions,\r\nWang Decl., ¶¶ 3, Exhs., 1.) Moving Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff a meet\r\nand confer letter regarding the overdue responses on July 8. (Id. at ¶¶\r\n4, Exhs. 2.) As of the date of these Motions were filed, Plaintiff had not\r\nresponded. (Id. at ¶¶ 5.) Thus, Defendant Liu Family Trust is entitled\r\nto an order compelling Plaintiff to serve verified responses without\r\nobjections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

B. Sanctions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a)\r\nprovides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a\r\nparty engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable\r\nexpenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that\r\nconduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or\r\nsubmit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010,\r\nsubd. (d).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure\r\nto respond to Defendant’s discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving Defendant seeks sanctions of\r\n$2,073.30 based on six hours of attorney time billed at $325.00 per hour and\r\ntwo $61.65 filing fees. (Motions, Wang Decl., ¶¶ 6.) However, the amount sought\r\nis excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical Motions and the\r\nlack of opposition and reply. The Court finds $773.30, based on two hours of\r\nattorney time and two filing fees, to be reasonable.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant\r\nLiu Family Trust’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of\r\nDocuments, Set One, and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special\r\nInterrogatories, Set One, are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified\r\nresponses without objections within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.\r\nDefendant’s requests for sanctions are also GRANTED in the amount of $773.30 to\r\nbe paid to Defendant’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer WANG JERRY K.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer TRAN HUNG BAN