This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/12/2021 at 06:16:28 (UTC).

H&S ELECTRIC INC. VS US-MOST INC.

Case Summary

On 08/11/2020 H S ELECTRIC INC filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against US-MOST INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GRACIELA FREIXES. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******7632

  • Filing Date:

    08/11/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

GRACIELA FREIXES

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

H&S ELECTRIC INC.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

US-MOST INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorney

YOUNG MARK T.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

REITER CHARLES D

 

Court Documents

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

9/29/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted; Or...)

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

8/26/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing Re Plaintiff H&S Electric Inc's Motion to Deem Admitted Requestes For Admission and For Sanctions Against Defendant US Most and OSC Hearing r

8/27/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing Re Plaintiff H&S Electric Inc's Motion to Deem Admitted Requestes For Admission and For Sanctions Against Defendant US Most and OSC Hearing r

Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of June 23, 2021 order

6/23/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of June 23, 2021 order

Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

6/23/2021: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)

6/23/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

4/27/2021: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/27/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

4/27/2021: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re Reassignment to Limited Civil Non-Collections Hub)

11/25/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re Reassignment to Limited Civil Non-Collections Hub)

Amended Cross-Complaint - Amended Cross-Complaint (1st)

11/16/2020: Amended Cross-Complaint - Amended Cross-Complaint (1st)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order/Non-Appearance Case Review) of 11/19/2020

11/19/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order/Non-Appearance Case Review) of 11/19/2020

Answer - Answer

9/24/2020: Answer - Answer

Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

9/24/2020: Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

Notice of Trial - Notice of Trial

9/25/2020: Notice of Trial - Notice of Trial

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

9/4/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Complaint - Complaint

8/11/2020: Complaint - Complaint

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

8/11/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

15 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/11/2023
  • Hearing08/11/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2022
  • Hearing02/10/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2021
  • Hearing11/17/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Legal Representation of Defendant scheduled for 11/17/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • DocketNotice of Continued Hearing; Filed by: H&S Electric Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: US-Most Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted; Or...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted scheduled for 09/29/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 09/29/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Order to Show Cause Re: Legal Representation of Defendant scheduled for 09/29/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 11/17/2021 09:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2021
  • DocketNotice of Continuance of Hearing Re Plaintiff H&S Electric Inc's Motion to Deem Admitted Requestes For Admission and For Sanctions Against Defendant US Most and OSC Hearing re Legal Representation of Defendant set By Court; Filed by: H&S Electric Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: US-Most Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted scheduled for 09/29/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
32 More Docket Entries
  • 09/24/2020
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by: US-Most Inc. (Defendant); As to: H&S Electric Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: H&S Electric Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: US-Most Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 scheduled for 08/17/2021 at 08:30 AM in Chatsworth Courthouse at Department F43

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Graciela Freixes in Department F43 Chatsworth Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: H&S Electric Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: US-Most Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: H&S Electric Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: US-Most Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: H&S Electric Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: US-Most Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740); Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • DocketThe case is placed in special status of: Collections Case (CCP 3.740)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20CHLC17632 Hearing Date: September 29, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nTO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant\r\nH&S Electric, Inc.

\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

Plaintiff\r\nH&S Electric, Inc.’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against\r\nDefendant US-Most, Inc. is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also\r\nGRANTED in the amount of $666.60 to be paid to Plaintiff’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] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed\r\n(CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of September\r\n27, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof September 27, 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 August 11, 2020, Plaintiff H&S Electric, Inc.\r\n(“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant US-Most, Inc. (“Defendant”).\r\nDefendant filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff on September\r\n24, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On November 19, 2020, the Hon. Graciela Freixes at the\r\nChatsworth Courthouse found this action was not a collections case and on\r\nNovember 25, the action was assigned to this limited jurisdiction department.\r\n(11/19/20 Minute Order; 11/25/20 Minute Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s Counsel Charles Reiter of Reiter Gruber LLP\r\nfiled a motion to be relieved, which was granted by the Court on June 23.\r\n(6/23/21 Minute Order.) Counsel gave notice of the Court’s order that same day.\r\n(6/23/21 Notice of Ruling.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On August 3, Plaintiff filed the\r\ninstant Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission, Set One, and for\r\nSanctions (the “Motion”). No opposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

At the initial August 26 hearing,\r\nthe Court found this Motion was filed less than 16 court days before the\r\nhearing in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. (8/26/21 Minute\r\nOrder.) The Court also noted that Defendant, a corporation, was now a\r\nself-represented party and that a corporation could not appear in court except\r\nthrough licensed counsel. (Id.)\r\nAs a result, the Court set an OSC re Legal Representation, ordered Defendants\r\nto file proof it had retained new legal counsel, and warned that failure to do\r\nso could result in its Answer and Cross-Complaint being stricken. (Id.) That same day, Plaintiff served notice of the Court’s continuance and\r\nthe OSC. (8/27/21 Notice of Continuance.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

To date, Defendant has\r\nnot filed any supplemental papers regarding its legal representation as\r\nrequested.

\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, Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendant’s former\r\ncounsel with Requests for Admission, Set One, on June 17 via email. (Mot., Aird\r\nDecl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Defendant did not serve any responses. (Id. at ¶¶\r\n3, 5.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for\r\nAdmission, Set One, admitted against Defendant. (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 Defendant’s failure\r\nto respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process.\r\nIn addition, the Court is required to impose a monetary sanction on Defendant for\r\nits failure to respond to the Requests for Admission under Code of Civil\r\nProcedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff seeks sanctions of\r\n$1,466.00 based on 4 hours of attorney time billed at $400.00 per hour and one\r\nfiling fee of $66.60. (Mot., Aird Decl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff appears to have\r\nmiscalculated the total based on the time spent. In any case, the Court finds\r\nPlaintiff’s request excessive given the simplicity of this Motion and the lack\r\nof opposition and reply. The Court finds $666.60, based on 1.5 hours of\r\nattorney time and one filing fee of $66.60, 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

Plaintiff\r\nH&S Electric, Inc.’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against\r\nDefendant US-Most, Inc. is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also\r\nGRANTED in the amount of $666.60 to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within\r\nthirty (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: 20CHLC17632 Hearing Date: August 26, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nTO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant\r\nH&S Electric, Inc.

\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

Due to lack of proper notice, Plaintiff\r\nH&S Electric, Inc.’s Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission and for\r\nSanctions against Defendant US-Most, Inc. is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 at\r\n10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least five (5)\r\ndays before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file a proof of service\r\ndemonstrating Defendant was given adequate notice of this hearing.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In addition, the Court sets an OSC re\r\nLegal Representation of Defendant for SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. also at\r\nthe SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least five (5) court days before the OSC hearing,\r\nDefendant must file proof of retention of counsel. Failure to do so will result\r\nin Defendant’s Answer and Cross-Complaint being stricken.

\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

[ \r\n ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c,\r\n1005(b)) NO

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of August 24,\r\n2021 [ ] Late [X]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof August 24, 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& Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On August 11, 2020, Plaintiff\r\nH&S Electric, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant US-Most,\r\nInc. (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint against\r\nPlaintiff on September 24, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On November 19, 2020, the Hon.\r\nGraciela Freixes at the Chatsworth Courthouse found this action was not a\r\ncollections case and on November 25, the action was assigned to this limited\r\njurisdiction department. (11/19/20 Minute Order; 11/25/20 Minute Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s Counsel Charles Reiter\r\nof Reiter Gruber LLP filed a motion to be relieved, which was granted by the\r\nCourt on June 23. (6/23/21 Minute Order.) Counsel gave notice of the Court’s\r\norder that same day. (6/23/21 Notice of Ruling.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On August\r\n3, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission,\r\nSet One, and for Sanctions (the “Motion”). No opposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

As an\r\ninitial matter, the Court finds Plaintiff gave Defendant insufficient notice of\r\nthis Motion. Specifically, Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision\r\n(b), provides that all moving and supporting papers must be filed and served at\r\nleast 16 court days before the hearing, plus an additional five days if served\r\nvia mail to a California address.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Because\r\nthis Motion was scheduled for hearing for August 26, the earliest it could have\r\nbeen served was July 30. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Because\r\nit was not served until August 3 via mail, Defendant was deprived of proper\r\nnotice. Accordingly, this hearing is CONTINUED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court also notes that Defendant, a corporation, is\r\nnow a self-represented party. (6/23/21 Minute Order.) A corporation, however, may not appear in court\r\nexcept through licensed counsel. Since the passage of the State Bar Act in\r\n1927, persons may represent their own interests in legal proceedings, but may\r\nnot represent the interests of another unless they are active members of the\r\nState Bar. [Citation.]” (Hansen v. Hansen (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 618,\r\n621.) An entity must be represented by a lawyer in legal proceedings and may\r\nnot represent itself (either directly or through a non-lawyer agent) in\r\nlitigation, as such an act would be the unauthorized practice of law. (See\r\ne.g. Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002)\r\n99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101) (corporation); Albion River Watershed Protection\r\nAss’n v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (1993) 20 Cal. App.\r\n4th 34, 37 (unincorporated association); Aulisio v. Bancroft (2014) 230\r\nCal. App. 4th 1518, 1519-20 (trustee for trust).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Thus, the\r\nCourt also sets an OSC re Legal Representation of Defendant for SEPTEMBER 29,\r\n2021 at 10:30 a.m. At least five (5) court days before the OSC hearing,\r\nDefendant must file proof it is represented by an attorney. Failure to do so will\r\nresult in its Answer and Cross-Complaint being stricken.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Due to lack of proper notice,\r\nPlaintiff H&S Electric, Inc.’s Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for\r\nAdmission and for Sanctions against Defendant US-Most, Inc. is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER\r\n29, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At\r\nleast five (5) days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file a\r\nproof of service demonstrating Defendant was given adequate notice of this\r\nhearing.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In addition, the Court sets an OSC re\r\nLegal Representation of Defendant for SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. also at\r\nthe SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least five (5) court days before the OSC\r\nhearing, Defendant must file proof of retention of counsel. Failure to do so\r\nwill result in Defendant’s Answer and Cross-Complaint being stricken.

\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 where US-MOST INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer REITER CHARLES D