This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/04/2021 at 03:58:05 (UTC).

WILD CHANG VS AIRCOOL INC.,, ET AL.

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3354

  • Filing Date:

    11/01/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CHANG WILD

Defendants

TRINH JOHNSON

AIRCOOL INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MOEST ROBERT C

Defendant Attorney

HSU ROGER C.

 

Court Documents

Motion for Leave (name extension) - Motion for Leave Motion for Leave to File 1st Amended Complaint

1/11/2021: Motion for Leave (name extension) - Motion for Leave Motion for Leave to File 1st Amended Complaint

Reply (name extension) - Reply to D's Opp to Motion to Compel POD-2

1/11/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply to D's Opp to Motion to Compel POD-2

Answer - Answer

1/13/2021: Answer - Answer

Objection (name extension) - Objection To Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents

1/14/2021: Objection (name extension) - Objection To Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Nathan Behnam

1/14/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Nathan Behnam

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Aircool Inc...)

1/20/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Aircool Inc...)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Aircool Inc...) of 01/21/2021

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

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

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

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel Deposition Subpoenas for Prod of Biz Records

12/10/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel Deposition Subpoenas for Prod of Biz Records

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Compel Requests for Production of Documents

12/21/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Compel Requests for Production of Documents

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories

12/22/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

8/30/2019: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

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

3/30/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

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

6/21/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

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

Subpoena & Proof of Service - Subpoena & Proof of Service Proof of Service Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records

8/12/2019: Subpoena & Proof of Service - Subpoena & Proof of Service Proof of Service Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

3/22/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

2/1/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

38 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/23/2021
  • 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)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2021
  • Hearing06/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2021
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2021
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2021
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2021
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2021
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
59 More Docket Entries
  • 03/06/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Aircool Inc., (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2019
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2019
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Wild Chang (Plaintiff); As to: Aircool Inc., (Defendant); Johnson Trinh (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Wild Chang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/30/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2018
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

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.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer HSU ROGER C.