On 12/19/2016 KV ELECTRIC INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against FAIRVIEW EAST LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. MATZ and CURTIS A. KIN. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
LAURA A. MATZ
CURTIS A. KIN
KV ELECTRIC INC.
KO MIN SHANG
FAIRVIEW EAST LLC
HO TAI ON
UNI-GLORY DEVELOPMENT INC.
SEM CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INC.
CRAIG ALLYN JUE
TKACH JOHN ANTHONY
JUE CRAIG ALLYN
JOHN A. TKACH LAW OFFICE OF
HSU ROBERT CHIHMING
ROBERT C. HSU
HO ROLAND YIN-CHIA
ROLAND Y. HO
7/29/2020: Memorandum - MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM OF COSTS OF APPEAL
9/14/2020: Brief - BRIEF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND AND WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS
12/19/2016: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case
2/17/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: PROOF-SERVICE/SUMMONS
3/14/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: CROSS-COMPL FLD- NO SUMMONS ISSUED
3/17/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1/5/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MOTION TO COMPEL
3/13/2018: Motion for Summary Judgment
3/15/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE
4/4/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL-PARTIAL
6/19/2018: Minute Order
9/7/2018: Notice of Motion -
9/7/2018: Request for Judicial Notice
9/7/2018: Request for Judicial Notice -
9/7/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MOTION
11/16/2018: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore
1/16/2019: Notice - Notice Notice of Non Sur Reply by Defendants
2/19/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)
Hearing12/06/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing11/29/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing09/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Case Management Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by KV Electric Inc. (Plaintiff); MIN SHANG KO (Cross-Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by KV Electric Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (Notice of Posting Jury Fees); Filed by KV Electric Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (to Amend and Withdraw Admissions) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other to Amend and Withdraw Admissions)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil CaseRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons IssuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMotion (TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS ); Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-ComplRead MoreRead Less
DocketMotion; Filed by Fairview East LLC (Legacy Party); Tai On Ho (Legacy Party); Eric Ho (Legacy Party) et al.Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: EC065899 Hearing Date: October 02, 2020 Dept: E
MOTION TO AMEND AND WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS
Date: 10/2/20 (10:00 AM)
Case: KV Electric Inc. v. Fairview East LLC et al. (EC065899)
Plaintiff KV Electric Inc. and Cross-Defendants KV Electric Inc. and Min Shang Ko’s Motion to Amend and Withdraw Admissions is GRANTED.
Plaintiff and cross-defendants seek to have the Court withdraw the admissions deemed admitted which formed in part the basis for the ultimate entry of summary judgment in this matter. As noted in the Court’s February 19, 2019 order vacating the judgment, until the judgment was vacated, the Court was without jurisdiction to grant relief with respect to the discovery order on the requests for admission. On May 13, 2020, the Court of Appeal affirmed the February 19, 2019 order vacating the judgment. Remittitur was issued and filed with the Superior Court on July 31, 2020. The Court now has jurisdiction to rule on this motion.
CCP § 2033.300(a) states: “A party may withdraw or amend an admission made in response to a request for admission only on leave of court granted after notice to all parties.” CCP § 2033.300(b) states: “The court may permit withdrawal or amendment of an admission only if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.” The “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect” under CCP § 2033.300 have similar meanings as those words used in CCP § 473(b). (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1419.)
The Court of Appeal affirmed the Court’s prior finding that former counsel’s “complete” abandonment of his clients plaintiff/cross-defendant KV Electric Inc. (“KV Electric”) and cross-defendant Min Shang Ko with respect to the requests for admission and summary judgment motions warranted the vacating of the judgment. (Opinion at 2.) The Court of Appeal noted that while discovery (including the requests for admission at issue in this motion) was pending, former counsel “did not forward the discovery requests to [his clients]; did not advise them of the serious consequences of failing to respond; and did not inform them of the pending hearing on a motion to compel responses or its outcome, which included deeming crucial adverse facts true.” (Opinion at 4.)
The declarations of Min Shang Ko and current counsel, John A. Tkach, are similar in content to the declarations in support of the motion to vacate judgment. With respect to the requests for admission, cross-defendant Ko, the CEO of plaintiff/cross-defendant KV Electric, declares that it is unknown whether the discovery which was the subject of the February 16, 2018 orders was received by former counsel, but the discovery was never forwarded to KV Electric or Ko, who would have responded to the discovery. (Ko Decl. ¶¶ 6, 10.) The declaration also indicates that former counsel never advised his clients that the motion to compel responses was granted or that monetary sanctions were due. (Ko Decl. ¶ 9.) Ko further declares that neither he nor KV Electric were advised by former counsel of a pending motion for summary judgment or adjudication, and were not given the opportunity to file a response to the motion or seek relief from having the requests for admissions deemed admitted, which formed the basis of that motion for summary judgment or adjudication. (Ko Decl. ¶ 13.)
With respect to whether defendants/cross-complainant Fairview East, LLC and defendants Tai On Ho and Kevin Guo, will be substantially prejudiced by the withdrawal of the admissions, the incurring of fees and costs and delay in the finality of this action does not support denying relief, as previously found in the order vacating the judgment. Defendants have not demonstrated that evidence was lost after judgment was entered in their favor, such that withdrawing the admissions would be substantially prejudicial against defendants. (Aldrich v. San Fernando Valley Lumber Co. (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 725, 740.)
Because the declarations supporting the motion to vacate judgment and motion to withdraw admissions are similar, the same finding in the motion to vacate judgment that former counsel abandoned the clients supports the withdrawal of admissions.
Pursuant to CCP § 2033.300(b), based on the positive misconduct and complete abandonment of moving parties’ former counsel with respect to the requests for admission, the motion is GRANTED. (Carroll v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 892, 900.) The Court orders the withdrawal of the admission of all matters specified in defendant Fairview East, LLC’s Requests for Admissions (Set One) to plaintiff KV Electric, Inc. and cross-defendant Min Shang Ko, previously deemed admitted as true on February 16, 2018.
CCP § 2033.300(c)(2) allows the Court to impose conditions on the granting of the motion that are just, including an “order that the costs of any additional discovery be borne in whole or in part by the party withdrawing or amending the admission.” Defendants request that the Court award $21,800 in costs as a condition of granting the motion to withdraw admission to cover the discovery defendants must undertake. (Ho Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Defendants have not demonstrated that requiring plaintiff and cross-defendants to bear the cost of defendants’ discovery would be just. The Court recognizes defendants are not at fault for plaintiff and cross-defendants’ initial failure to respond to the request for admissions and to oppose the motion for summary judgment. That fault lies with plaintiff and cross-defendants’ former counsel; it does not lie with plaintiff and cross-defendants themselves. Thus, the interests of justice require defendants to incur the costs of discovery they otherwise would have incurred had counsel for plaintiff and cross-defendants not abandoned his clients.
Accordingly, defendants’ request for an order that plaintiff and cross-defendants advance defendants’ costs of discovery is denied.