This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/20/2020 at 09:52:29 (UTC).

MOL (AMERICAN) INC., VS INTER AUTO TRADE INC.,

Case Summary

On 11/06/2018 MOL AMERICAN INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against INTER AUTO TRADE 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 WENDY CHANG. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3537

  • Filing Date:

    11/06/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MOL AMERICAN INC.

Defendant

INTER AUTO TRADE INC. AKA INTERNATIONAL AUTO TRADING

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SAKAMAKI FRANCIS TOSHISHIGE

Defendant Attorneys

HIRANO RONALD M

POK SEONG LOK CHARLES

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions; Order to Show Ca...)

7/9/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions; Order to Show Ca...)

Motion for Leave (name extension) - Motion for Leave Motion for Leave to Re-Open Discovery

6/2/2020: Motion for Leave (name extension) - Motion for Leave Motion for Leave to Re-Open Discovery

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

11/25/2019: 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

Notice (name extension) - Notice Continuance and OSC

11/25/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice Continuance and OSC

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Order to Show Ca...)

12/9/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Order to Show Ca...)

Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

1/17/2020: Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

1/22/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

2/20/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Status of Defendants Corporate Counsel)

3/2/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Status of Defendants Corporate Counsel)

Notice of Appearance - Notice of Appearance

3/16/2020: Notice of Appearance - Notice of Appearance

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/1/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

7/31/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

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

8/8/2019: 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 by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

5/10/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

5/16/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Summons - Summons on Amended Complaint (1st)

11/8/2018: Summons - Summons on Amended Complaint (1st)

Summons - Summons on Complaint

11/6/2018: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/6/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

35 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/28/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/15/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/28/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/09/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/28/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketOn the Amended Complaint (1st) filed by MOL (American) Inc., on 11/08/2018, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by MOL (American) Inc., as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2020
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by: Inter Auto Trade Inc., (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions; Order to Show Ca...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions scheduled for 07/09/2020 at 09:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 07/09/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Status of Defendant?s Corporate Counsel scheduled for 07/09/2020 at 09:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 07/09/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Leave to Re-Open Discovery After the Initial Trial Date scheduled for 07/09/2020 at 09:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 07/09/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2020
  • DocketReply Defendant's Rebuttal to Plaintiff's Opposition; Filed by: Inter Auto Trade Inc., (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2020
  • DocketReply MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES RE: PLAINTIFF?S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF FRANCIS SAKAMAKI; Filed by: MOL (American) Inc., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
60 More Docket Entries
  • 11/08/2018
  • DocketSummons on Amended Complaint (1st); Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by: MOL (American) Inc., (Plaintiff); As to: Inter Auto Trade Inc., (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: MOL (American) Inc., (Plaintiff); As to: Inter Auto Trade Inc., (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: MOL (American) Inc., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/05/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/09/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2018
  • DocketUpdated -- First Amended Complaint: Status Date changed from 11/08/2018 to 11/06/2018

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC13537    Hearing Date: July 09, 2020    Dept: 26

Mol (American), Inc. v. Inter Auto Trade, et al.

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2023.010, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Mol (American), Inc.’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Mol (American), Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for common counts against Defendant Inter Auto Trade, Inc. (“Defendant”) on November 6, 2018. A First Amended Complaint was filed on November 8, 2018. Defendant filed an Answer on January 14, 2019.

On August 12, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion compelling Defendant’s responses to discovery requests within 20 days.

On December 31, 2019, the Court granted the motion of defense counsel to withdraw from representation. The Court also set an Order to Show Cause Re: Status of Defendant’s Corporate Counsel for March 2, 2020. Notice of the Court’s December 31, 2019 order was served on both parties by the Court. On January 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions (“the Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

At the initial hearing on the Motion for Terminating Sanctions, the Court noted that it was not properly noticed and that Defendant was recently without legal representation. The Court continued the hearing on the Motion to March 18, 2020 and scheduled an Order to Show Cause Re Status of Defendant’s Corporate Counsel. On March 16, 2020, Defendant filed a Notice of Appearance through counsel of record.

Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion for Terminating Sanctions and a Motion to Re-Open Discovery on June 2, 2020. Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of the Motion on June 29, 2020.

Legal Standard

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subds. (d), (g); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) The court should look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether terminating sanctions are appropriate. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) “The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions due to Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court’s August 12, 2019 order requiring Defendant to serve responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One and Form Interrogatories, Set One within 20 days. The August 12, 2019 order also required Defendant to pay monetary sanctions of $420.00 to Plaintiff within 30 days. Per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.250, 2030.290, 2031.250 and 2031.290, the responses were to be without objection and verified.

The opposition does not attach a copy of the responses served for the Court to evaluate. Instead, the responses are attached to the Reply as Exhibits A and B. Having reviewed the responses, the Court finds Defendant made a good faith attempt to provide discovery responses. Any objections made therein are boilerplate, preliminary objections that are not applied to any specific discovery request. (Reply, Exhs. A-B.) The Court finds that terminating sanctions are not warranted here given that Defendant served responses upon obtaining new counsel and filed an opposition (albeit minimal) to the Motion. Nor can Defendant’s failure to pay the monetary sanctions be the basis for granting a motion for terminating sanctions. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610.) Plaintiff’s concerns that the responses are inadequate or incomplete may be addressed through a motion to compel further responses.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff MOL (American), Inc’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant to give notice.

MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

(CCP § 2023.010, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:  

Defendant Inter Auto Trade’s Motion to Reopen Discovery is MOOT. 

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Mol (American), Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for common counts against Defendant Inter Auto Trade, Inc. (“Defendant”) on November 6, 2018. A First Amended Complaint was filed on November 8, 2018. Defendant filed an Answer on January 14, 2019. Trial in this matter was initially scheduled for May 5, 2020. On April 1, 2020, following the Superior Court of California’s response to the state of emergency presented by the global COVID-19 pandemic, the Court continued trial in this matter to October 15, 2020. Under paragraph 9 of the General Order issued on April 14, 2020 by the Presiding Judge Re COVID-19 Pandemic, all pre-trial dates are continued consistent with the continued trial date. Therefore, the motion and discovery cut-off dates previously attached to the May 5, 2020 were automatically continued to run with the October 15, 2020 trial date.

The discovery cutoff date is September 15, 2020 and the discovery motion cutoff date is September 30, 2020.

Defendant Inter Auto Trade’s Motion to Reopen Discovery is MOOT.

 

Moving party to give notice. 

Case Number: 18STLC13537    Hearing Date: February 19, 2020    Dept: 26

Mol (American), Inc. v. Inter Auto Trade, et al

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2023.010, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Mol (American), Inc.’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is CONTINUED TO MARCH 18, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, PLAINTIFF IS TO SERVE DEFENDANT WITH THE MOTION PAPERS AND NOTICE OF NEW HEARING DATE, AND TO CONCURRENTLY FILE PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE SAME WITH THE COURT. FAIULRE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR OR DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Mol (American), Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for common counts against Defendant Inter Auto Trade, Inc. (“Defendant”) on November 6, 2018. A First Amended Complaint was filed on November 8, 2018. Defendant filed an Answer on January 14, 2019.

On August 12, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion compelling Defendant’s responses to discovery requests within 20 days.

On December 31, 2019, the Court granted the motion of defense counsel to withdraw from representation. The Court also set an Order to Show Cause Re: Status of Defendant’s Corporate Counsel for March 2, 2020. Notice of the Court’s December 31, 2019 order was served on both parties by the Court. On January 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions. To date, no opposition has been filed.

The Motion for Terminating Sanctions is not accompanied by a proof of service. The document titled “Proof Of Service By Mail” and filed concurrently with the Motion does not actually include a signed and dated proof of service. Nor is any such proof of service attached to the Motion itself. Accordingly, the Court cannot find that Defendant was given proper notice of the Motion and hearing date. Failure to give notice of a motion is not only a violation of the statutory requirements but of due process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.)

The Court additionally notes that it recently granted defense counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation, leaving Defendant, a corporation, within legal representation. An Order to Show Cause Re Status of Defendant’s Corporate Counsel is set for March 2, 2020. The Court is not inclined to rule on the merits of the Motion for Terminating Sanctions until after the Order to Show Cause.

Based on the foregoing, the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is CONTINUED TO MARCH 18, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, PLAINTIFF IS TO SERVE DEFENDANT WITH THE MOTION PAPERS AND NOTICE OF NEW HEARING DATE, AND TO CONCURRENTLY FILE PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE SAME WITH THE COURT. FAIULRE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR OR DENIED.

 

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC13537    Hearing Date: December 09, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

(CCP § 284(2); CRC Rule 3.1362)

TENTATIVE RULING

Motion of Attorney Ronald M. Hirano, Esq. of Quan Cohen & Hirano LLP to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Inter Auto Trade, Inc. is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. The Court previously addressed problems with Moving Party’s declaration regarding service of the motion papers and the lack of a proposed order as required by Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1362. To date, no supplemental papers have been filed correcting these issues.

Court clerk to give notice.