This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/12/2021 at 01:16:40 (UTC).

HIBU, INC. VS WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, P.L.C

Case Summary

On 11/04/2019 HIBU, INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, P L C. 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 Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0176

  • Filing Date:

    11/04/2019

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HIBU INC.

Defendant

WILSHIRE LAW FIRM P.L.C

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BEMIS GARY A

Defendant Attorney

SAADIAN BOBBY

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

6/22/2021: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

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

7/23/2020: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration in Support of Motions for Order Establishing Truth of Facts and Genuineness of Documents

7/23/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration in Support of Motions for Order Establishing Truth of Facts and Genuineness of Documents

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Hearing

8/17/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Hearing

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Thiago M. Coelho

1/22/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Thiago M. Coelho

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition HRG: 1/28/2021 Opposition to Motion for an Order

1/22/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition HRG: 1/28/2021 Opposition to Motion for an Order

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Notice of Motion and Motion for a...)

1/28/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Notice of Motion and Motion for a...)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

2/1/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Trial Brief - Trial Brief

3/15/2021: Trial Brief - Trial Brief

Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)

4/30/2021: Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)

Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

4/30/2021: Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

Answer - Answer

1/16/2020: Answer - Answer

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/20/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Complaint - Complaint

11/4/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

11/4/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/4/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

11/4/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

11/4/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

6 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/25/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 08/10/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 06/25/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by hibu, Inc. on 11/04/2019, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by hibu, Inc. as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Notice of Settlement: Status Date changed from 04/30/2021 to 04/30/2021; As To Parties: WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, P.L.C (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 08/10/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/03/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 04/30/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/07/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 04/29/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2021
  • DocketTrial Brief; Filed by: hibu, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2021
  • DocketPursuant to the request of moving party, Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal (CCP 473) scheduled for 04/27/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party on 03/09/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: hibu, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
8 More Docket Entries
  • 01/16/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, P.L.C (Defendant); As to: hibu, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: hibu, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, P.L.C (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 11/20/2019; Service Cost: 63.50; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/03/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/07/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: hibu, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, P.L.C (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: hibu, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, P.L.C (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: hibu, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, P.L.C (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC10176    Hearing Date: January 28, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:   Thu., January 28, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Hibu, Inc. v. Wilshire Law Firm, P.L.C. COMPL. FILED: 11-04-19

CASE NUMBER:     19STLC10176 DISC. C/O:    04-03-21

NOTICE:   OK DISC. MOT. C/O:     04-18-21

TRIAL DATE: 05-03-21

PROCEEDINGS:     MOTION FOR AN ORDER ESTABLISHING TRUTH OF ALL FACTS AND GENUINENESS OF ALL DOCUMENTS SPECIFIED IN REQUEST FR ADMISSIONS AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Hibu, Inc.

RESP. PARTY: Defendant Wilshire Firm, P.L.C.

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS  

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Hibu, Inc.’s Motion to an Order Establishing the Truth of All Facts and Genuineness of All Documents Specified in the Request for Admissions is DENIED AS MOOT. However, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $585.00 to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

SERVICE

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on July 23, 2021 [   ] Late [   ] None

REPLY: None filed as of January 26, 2021 [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

 

On November 4, 2019, Plaintiff Hibu, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract, open book account, and account stated against Defendant Wilshire Law Firm, P.L.C. (“Defendant”). Defendant filed its Answer on January 16, 2020.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for an Order Establishing Truth of all Facts and Genuineness of all Documents Specified in Request for Admissions and for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”) on July 23, 2020. Defendant filed an Opposition on January 22, 2021. No reply brief was filed.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

 

A. Requests for Admission

 

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)  “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The 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, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).)  A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

Here, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Admission, Set One, on February 13, 2020 by regular mail. (Mot., Carter Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. 1.) Although not statutorily required, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a meet and confer letter regarding the lack of responses on June 30, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 8, Exh. 2.) As of the date of this Motion, Plaintiff states Defendant did not provide any responses to the discovery. (Id. at ¶ 9.)

In Opposition, Defendant argues the Court may relieve a party from waiver where the responses to the discovery were inadvertently omitted but subsequently resolved the problem by serving code-compliant responses. (Oppo., p. 2:3-17.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may relieve a party from waiver of any objections due to untimely responses if both (1) the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Defendant argues that, although counsel received the Requests for Admission on February 20, 2020, they were improperly calendared and assigned to Thiago Coelho (“Coelho”), an attorney who did not believe himself to be responsible for this matter. (Oppo., p. 2:3-17, Thiago Decl., ¶ 2.) Coelho states he did not purposefully refuse to respond to the discovery but simply failed to allocate the task to the appropriate attorney. (Id.) On January 22, 2021, responses to the Requests for Admission were served via overnight mail and email. (Id., Exh. A.) Having reviewed the responses served, the Court finds them to be in substantial compliance with Section 2033.210. Notably, Plaintiff did not file a reply arguing Defendant’s responses are insufficient or inadequate. Thus, the Court finds it appropriate to relieve Defendant from waiver of objections under Section 2033.280, subdivision (a). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to deem the Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against Defendant is DENIED AS MOOT.

 

B. Request for Sanctions  

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).)

Plaintiff seeks sanctions of $1,810.00, based on 4 hours of attorney time billed at $350.00 per hour and one filing fee of $60.00. (Mot., Carter Decl., ¶ 12.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of this Motion and the lack of reply. The Court finds $585.00, based on 1.5 hours of attorney time and one filing fee, to be reasonable.

III. Conclusion & Order

 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Hibu, Inc.’s Motion to an Order Establishing the Truth of All Facts and Genuineness of All Documents Specified in the Request for Admissions is DENIED AS MOOT. However, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $585.00 to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of service of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice. 
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where HIBU INC FORMERLY KNOWN AS YELLOW BOOK SALES AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY INC is a litigant

Latest cases where WILSHIRE LAW FIRM PLC A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SAADIAN BOBBY ESQ.