On 11/01/2018 WILD CHANG filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against AIRCOOL 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 Pending - Other Pending.
*******3354
11/01/2018
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
WENDY CHANG
CHANG WILD
TRINH JOHNSON
AIRCOOL INC.
MOEST ROBERT C
HSU ROGER C.
1/11/2021: Motion for Leave (name extension) - Motion for Leave Motion for Leave to File 1st Amended Complaint
1/11/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply to D's Opp to Motion to Compel POD-2
1/13/2021: Answer - Answer
1/14/2021: Objection (name extension) - Objection To Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents
1/14/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Nathan Behnam
1/20/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Aircool Inc...)
1/21/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Aircool Inc...) of 01/21/2021
11/18/2020: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion
12/10/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel Deposition Subpoenas for Prod of Biz Records
12/21/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Compel Requests for Production of Documents
12/22/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories
8/30/2019: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney
3/30/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
6/21/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
8/8/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail
8/12/2019: Subpoena & Proof of Service - Subpoena & Proof of Service Proof of Service Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records
3/22/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail
2/1/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service
Hearing06/23/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Leave (name extension)
Hearing06/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
Hearing03/25/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Joinder to Motion for Summary Judgment / Adjudication
DocketUpdated -- Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion: Filed By: Wild Chang (Plaintiff); Result: Denied; Result Date: 02/02/2021
DocketUpdated -- Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion: Filed By: Wild Chang (Plaintiff); Result: Denied; Result Date: 02/02/2021
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)
DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") Defendant Aircool Inc's Special Interrogatories (Set 2) --1789 scheduled for 02/02/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 02/02/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied
DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") Defendant Johnson Trinh's Special Interrogatories (Set 2) --0143 scheduled for 02/02/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 02/02/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied
DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") Defendant Aircool Inc's Special Interrogatories (Set 2) --1789 scheduled for 02/02/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26
DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") Defendant Johnson Trinh's Special Interrogatories (Set 2) --0143 scheduled for 02/02/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26
DocketAnswer; Filed by: Aircool Inc., (Defendant)
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Wild Chang (Plaintiff); As to: Johnson Trinh (Defendant); Service Date: 01/31/2019; Service Cost: 0.00; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Wild Chang (Plaintiff); As to: Johnson Trinh (Defendant); Service Date: 01/31/2019; Service Cost: 0.00; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Wild Chang (Plaintiff); As to: Aircool Inc., (Defendant); Johnson Trinh (Defendant)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Wild Chang (Plaintiff)
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/30/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/04/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
Case Number: 18STLC13354 Hearing Date: February 02, 2021 Dept: 26
Chang v. AirCool, Inc., et al.
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES;
(CCP § 2030.290)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Wild Chang’s (1) Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Johnson Trinh’s Responses To Special Interrogatories, Set Two; Request For Sanctions; And (2) Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Aircool, Inc.’s Responses To Special Interrogatories, Set Two; Request For Sanctions are DENIED. PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY DEFENSE COUNSEL SANCTIONS OF $980.00 WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Wild Chang (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for fraud against Defendants Johnson Trinh and AirCool, Inc. (“Defendants”) on November 1, 2018. On March 6, 2019, an Answer was filed but it is not clear on behalf of which Defendant. (Answer, filed 3/6/19.) The Answer is signed only by Defendant Trinh and could not have properly been made on behalf of a corporation. (Ibid.)
It was not until August 29, 2019 that Defendant AirCool obtained legal counsel. (Substitution of Counsel, filed 8/30/19.) Defendant filed the instant Motions to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions on October 14, 2020. Defendant AirCool filed an opposition on December 22, 2020 and Plaintiff replied on January 11, 2021.
On January 13, 2021, Defendants filed amended Answers.
Discussion
The Motion against Defendant Trinh is not supported by proper evidence. The declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel—only two paragraphs long—does not lay a foundation for or authenticate any of the exhibits attached to the Motion. (Motion, Moest Decl., ¶¶1-2.) Therefore, the Court finds there is insufficient evidence to grant the Motion to Compel Defendant Trinh’s responses to the special interrogatories.
With respect to the Motion against Defendant AirCool, the Opposition admits that Defendant AirCool was served with two sets of interrogatories. (Opp., Benham Decl., ¶3 and Exhs. 1-2.) Upon obtaining counsel who determined that both sets of interrogatories were identical (which Plaintiff admits) Defendants served responses. (Id. at ¶5 and Exh. 3.)
Plaintiff now brings the Motion on the grounds that Defendant AirCool only served responses to the first set of special interrogatories, which Plaintiff had withdrawn prior to the appointment of defense counsel, but has yet to serve responses to the second set of special interrogatories. The Court does not approve of this gamesmanship by Plaintiff. Despite having received responses to the interrogatories, Plaintiff seeks to compel responses based on the irrelevant distinction between the first and second sets.
Additionally, Plaintiff failed to meet and confer prior to the filing of the Motion against AirCool, blindsiding defense counsel. (Opp., Behnam Decl., ¶6.) While no meet and confer requirement exists for a motion to compel initial responses, Plaintiff has essentially already been served with initial responses to the discovery at issue. If Plaintiff took issue with the responses, a meet and confer effort should have been made and then a motion to compel further responses brought. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) Plaintiff’s filing of a motion to compel initial responses after receipt of Defendant AirCool’s responses was disingenuous.
Therefore, the Court awards Defendant AirCool, Inc. sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c) in the amount of $980.00. (Opp., Behnam Decl., ¶13.)
Conclusion
Plaintiff Wild Chang’s (1) Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Johnson Trinh’s Responses To Special Interrogatories, Set Two; Request For Sanctions; And (2) Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Aircool, Inc.’s Responses To Special Interrogatories, Set Two; Request For Sanctions are DENIED. PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY DEFENSE COUNSEL SANCTIONS OF $980.00 WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
Defendants to give notice.
Case Number: 18STLC13354 Hearing Date: January 20, 2021 Dept: 26
Chang v. AirCool, Inc., et al.
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND SANCTIONS
(CCP §§ 2031.300, 2023.010)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Wild Chang’s (1) Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Johnson Trinh’s Responses To Request For Production Of Documents; Request For Sanctions; And (2) Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Aircool, Inc.’s Responses To Request For Production Of Documents; Request For Sanctions are DENIED.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Wild Chang (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for fraud against Defendants Johnson Trinh and AirCool, Inc. (“Defendants”) on November 1, 2018. On March 6, 2019, an Answer was filed but it is not clear on behalf of which Defendant. (Answer, filed 3/6/19.) The Answer is signed only by Defendant Trinh and could not have properly been made on behalf of a corporation. (Ibid.)
It was not until August 29, 2019 that Defendant AirCool obtained legal counsel. (Substitution of Counsel, filed 8/30/19.) Defendant filed the instant Motions to Compel Responses to Request for Production and Request for Sanctions on October 14, 2020. Defendant AirCool filed an opposition on December 21, 2020 and Plaintiff replied on January 11, 2021.
On January 13, 2021, Defendant Trinh filed an Answer and Defendant AirCool filed a First Amended Answer.
Discussion
The Motion is not supported by proper evidence. The declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel—only two paragraphs long—does not lay a foundation for or authenticate any of the exhibits attached to the Motion. (Motion, Moest Decl., ¶¶1-2.) In fact, Defendant AirCool disputes that it was ever served with the Request for Production. (Opp., Behnam Decl., ¶¶3-5.) Nor did Plaintiff’s counsel respond to the meet and confer effort by re-serving the Requests for Production prior to filing these Motions. (Id. at ¶4.) Therefore, the Court finds the Motions lack sufficient basis to be granted.
To the extent the opposition treats these motions as motions to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 and seek sanctions under the same, the request is denied. The Motions are brought to compel original responses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300. (Motions, pp. 4:27-5:3.)
Conclusion
Plaintiff Wild Chang’s (1) Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Johnson Trinh’s Responses To Request For Production Of Documents; Request For Sanctions; And (2) Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Aircool, Inc.’s Responses To Request For Production Of Documents; Request For Sanctions are DENIED.
Moving party to give notice.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases