This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/28/2020 at 00:20:19 (UTC).

CESAR ROMERO ET AL. VS LI-CHUAN SHIH ET AL.

Case Summary

On 02/10/2016 CESAR ROMERO filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against LI-CHUAN SHIH. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. MATZ and CURTIS A. KIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4933

  • Filing Date:

    02/10/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. MATZ

CURTIS A. KIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

ROMERO TATANA SPICAKOVA

ROMERO CESAR

ROMERO AN INDIVIDUAL TATANA SPICAKOVA

ROMERO AN INDIVIDUAL CESAR

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOICATION

U.S. BANK ROE 1

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

KO TUN-JEN

SHIH LI-CHUAN

KO AN INDIVIDUAL TUN-JEN

SHIH AN INDIVIDUAL LI-CHUAN

Not Classified By Court

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

GAINES & STACEY LLP

GOLDING JONATHAN FREDERICK

GOODKIN & LYNCH LLP

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

SONGTAD RANDALL COFFEE & HUMPHREY LLP

EDWARDS BRIAN SCOTT

HUMPHREY JANET ELIZABETH

Cross Defendant Attorney

FIDELITY NATIONAL LAW GROUP

 

Court Documents

Request for Judicial Notice

10/21/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

11/14/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Trial Brief

2/21/2020: Trial Brief

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-JURY TRIAL)

6/30/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-JURY TRIAL)

Request for Judicial Notice - PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE CURTIS A. KIN

7/15/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE CURTIS A. KIN

Notice - NOTICE OF FILING WRIT OF MANDATE REQUEST TO CLERK TO FILE IN TRIAL COURT (RULE OF COURT 8.486(E))

7/27/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF FILING WRIT OF MANDATE REQUEST TO CLERK TO FILE IN TRIAL COURT (RULE OF COURT 8.486(E))

Statement of Decision

9/28/2020: Statement of Decision

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE A MOTI...)

11/10/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE A MOTI...)

Other - - OTHER - COMPENDIUM OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL VOLUME 6 OF 6

11/13/2020: Other - - OTHER - COMPENDIUM OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL VOLUME 6 OF 6

Exhibit List

11/23/2020: Exhibit List

Exhibit List

11/23/2020: Exhibit List

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2016-07-11 00:00:00

7/11/2016: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2016-07-11 00:00:00

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Motion to Compel

4/7/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Motion to Compel

Motion for Summary Judgment

2/21/2018: Motion for Summary Judgment

Request for Judicial Notice

4/27/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Response

4/27/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Response

Amended Complaint

3/6/2019: Amended Complaint

Brief - Brief Notice of Errata to Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to Make Tardy Supplemental Expert Witness Designation and Supporting Documents

3/7/2019: Brief - Brief Notice of Errata to Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to Make Tardy Supplemental Expert Witness Designation and Supporting Documents

373 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/29/2021
  • Hearing01/29/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2020
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for New Trial - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2020
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Order (to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment and Enter Another and Different Judgment Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 663) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Motion for New Trial; Hearing on Motion for Order ...) of 12/23/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2020
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore (Buford James, CSR 9296); Filed by TUN-JEN KO, an individual (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for New Trial; Hearing on Motion for Order ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Order (to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment and Enter Another and Different Judgment Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 663) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for New Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • DocketReply (CESAR AND TATIANA ROMEROS? REPLY TO SHIH/KO?S OPPOSITION TO ROMERO?S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; DECLARATION OF CESAR ROMERO; DECLARATION OF DR. TATIANA ROMERO); Filed by CESAR ROMERO (Plaintiff); TATANA SPICAKOVA ROMERO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • DocketReply (CESAR AND TATIANA ROMEROS? REPLY TO SHIH/KO?S OPPOSITION TO ROMERO?S MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND VACATE JUDGMENT AND ENTER A NEW AND DIFFERENT JUDGMENT); Filed by CESAR ROMERO (Plaintiff); TATANA SPICAKOVA ROMERO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
571 More Docket Entries
  • 03/07/2016
  • DocketNotice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by CESAR ROMERO, an individual (Plaintiff); TATANA SPICAKOVA ROMERO, an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2016
  • DocketNotice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by CESAR ROMERO, an individual (Plaintiff); TATANA SPICAKOVA ROMERO, an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2016
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2016
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by CESAR ROMERO, an individual (Plaintiff); TATANA SPICAKOVA ROMERO, an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2016
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2016
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued (- VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 1) TRESPASS, 2) QUIET TITLE, AND 3) DECLARATORY RELIEF - RECEIPT: BUR462569009 02-10-16); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2016
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by CESAR ROMERO, an individual (Plaintiff); TATANA SPICAKOVA ROMERO, an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2016
  • DocketNotice of Order to Show Cause Re Failure to Comply with Trial Court Delay Reduction Act

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2016
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference ((no filed stamp))

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2016
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC064933    Hearing Date: January 31, 2020    Dept: E

MOTION TO BIFURCATE

[CCP §598]

Date:    1/31/20                            

Case: Cesar Romero, et al. v. Li-Chuan Shih, et al. (EC 064933)

 

TENATIVE RULING:

Defendants/cross-complainants Li-Chuan Shih’s and Tun-Jen Ko’s Motion to Bifurcate is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

With respect to bifurcating the claims for implied easement and for equitable easement, the Court, in its discretion, does not find that so doing would sufficiently promote economy or efficiency to warrant bifurcation, even taking into account that the first trial on implied easement would not include the presentation of evidence concerning the valuation of the subject property (which concerns only a trial on the equitable easement claim). At the bench trial set for March 9, 2020, the Court can hear all the evidence and then determine whether cross-complainants have the right to an implied or equitable easement, as well as what compensation, if any, to which plaintiffs would be entitled as a result. In addition, the Court would be able to address plaintiffs’ claims in that same trial. Accordingly, the motion to bifurcate the implied and equitable easement claims is DENIED.

With respect to defendants/cross-complainants’ motion to bifurcate punitive damages, they have a right to bifurcation under Civil Code § 3295(d). Thus, the motion to bifurcate plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is GRANTED. During the first phase of trial on the issue of liability and damages, the Court shall preclude plaintiffs Cesar Romero and Tatana Spicakova Romero from presenting any evidence of defendants/cross-complainants’ wealth, assets, incomes, or financial condition, unless and until the Court first finds defendants/cross-complainants guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.

Case Number: EC064933    Hearing Date: November 22, 2019    Dept: E

DISCOVERY MOTIONS (3)

Case: Cesar Romero, et al. v. Li-Chuan Shih, et al. (EC 064933)

As a threshold matter, the Court questions the relevance to either party of any evidence or discovery relating to various appraisal reports and related materials that loom largely as the subject of the instant motions. This case is essentially a boundary dispute between two neighbors, and the Court will determine at trial whether a particular strip of land (approximately 8 feet wide along the 157-foot border between the parties’ properties) belongs to the Romeros or the Shih-Kos. Relatedly, if the Court were to determine such land belongs to the Romeros, the Court must decide to what, if any, damages they are entitled for the Shih’s use and/or occupation of that land under theories of trespass and/or private nuisance. Viewing this case as such, it is hard to see how any appraisal report for the purported value of the strip of land at issue (whether styled as the value of the Shih-Ko’s encroachment or diminution of the Romero’s property value) is relevant to either question of (1) whether that land belongs to the Romeros or Shih-Kos or (2) by how much the Romeros have been damaged by the Shih-Kos’ use of that land over a finite period of time commencing in 2014.

While the Court believes that a reasonable and logical view of the case as a whole should render moot large swaths of the instant discovery disputes concerning real estate valuations that do not appear to have any relevance to what is actually at issue in this case, the Court rules as follows:

I. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS

With respect to Defendant and Cross-Complainant Li-Chuan Shih’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Cesar Romero and Tatana Romero’s Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One:

II. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Li-Chuan Shih’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Cesar Romero and Tatana Romero’s Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One is DENIED. As represented in the Reply, there remains only a dispute as to Request for Admission No. 8. The Court finds that the discovery sought exceeds the scope of the discovery permitted to be conducted as set forth in this Court’s May 22, 2019 order.

III. MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIN OF CESAR ROMERO

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Li-Chuan Shih’s Motion to Compel the Deposition Testimony of Cesar Romero is DENIED. The Court finds that the discovery sought exceeds the scope of the discovery permitted to be conducted as set forth in this Court’s May 22, 2019 order.

All monetary sanctions sought by moving party are DENIED.

Case Number: EC064933    Hearing Date: October 24, 2019    Dept: E

MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST

(CCP § 2034.61 et seq))

Date: 10/25/19

Case: Cesar Romero, et al. v. Li-Chuan Shih, et al. (EC 064933)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Li-Chuan Shih’s and Tun-Jen Ko’s Motion to Augment Expert Witness List is GRANTED, pursuant to CCP § 2034.620.

The Court has taken into account the extent to which plaintiffs Cesar and Tatana Spicakova Romero have relied on the original expert witness list and determined that plaintiffs will not be prejudiced in maintaining their action on the merits by the grant of this motion. The Court has further determined that the defendants’ failure to earlier designate (1) Brenda Wendt, (2) David Gribbin, and (3) Otis Hackett as experts was due to defense counsel’s surprise in learning of their undisclosed property valuations despite requesting from plaintiffs all appraisals of the plaintiffs’ property. (See Humphrey Decl. ¶ 11.) In this regard, the Court notes that ample information concerning these experts and their valuations were publicly available such that plaintiffs’ assertions of privilege and work-product appear not to be implicated by the instant request to designate such experts. Finally, the Court finds that defendants sought leave to augment promptly after learning of the experts and promptly so informed plaintiffs, including service of a copy of the proposed designation.

At the hearing on defendants’ motion, the Court shall entertain discussion from the parties on whether, pursuant to § 2034.620(d), it may be just to continue the current trial date and/or permit plaintiffs to designate additional experts in light of the grant of the instant motion. The Court does not find that granting plaintiffs’ request for costs and expenses in connection with opposing the motion is warranted or appropriate.