This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/27/2020 at 23:57:54 (UTC).

KV ELECTRIC INC. VS. FAIRVIEW EAST LLC, ET AL

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5899

  • Filing Date:

    12/19/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. MATZ

CURTIS A. KIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Respondents and Cross Defendants

KV ELECTRIC INC.

KO MIN SHANG

Defendants, Appellants and Cross Plaintiffs

GUO KEVIN

FAIRVIEW EAST LLC

HO ERIC

HO TAI ON

UNI-GLORY DEVELOPMENT INC.

SEM CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

CRAIG ALLYN JUE

JUE CRAIG ALLYN

TKACH JOHN ANTHONY

Appellant Attorney

JOHN A. TKACH LAW OFFICE OF

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

HO ROLAND YIN-CHIA

ROLAND Y. HO

HSU ROBERT CHIHMING

ROBERT C. HSU

 

Court Documents

Appeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - APPEAL DISMISSED B292397.

11/20/2018: Appeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - APPEAL DISMISSED B292397.

Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal - APPEAL - NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL, FILED 3/15/19

4/18/2019: Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal - APPEAL - NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL, FILED 3/15/19

Appeal - Reporter Appeal Transcripts - APPEAL - REPORTER APPEAL TRANSCRIPTS 3/15/19 B293674

6/27/2019: Appeal - Reporter Appeal Transcripts - APPEAL - REPORTER APPEAL TRANSCRIPTS 3/15/19 B293674

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: APPEAL)

10/23/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: APPEAL)

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/6/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Status Report

7/29/2020: Status Report

Memorandum - MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM OF COSTS OF APPEAL

7/29/2020: Memorandum - MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM OF COSTS OF APPEAL

Appeal - Remittitur - Affirmed - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - AFFIRMED B297061

7/31/2020: Appeal - Remittitur - Affirmed - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - AFFIRMED B297061

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: APPEAL)

8/4/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: APPEAL)

Other - - OTHER - REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN ON REMITTITUR

8/6/2020: Other - - OTHER - REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN ON REMITTITUR

Brief - BRIEF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND AND WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS

9/14/2020: Brief - BRIEF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND AND WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS

Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFF'S SUR REPLY

9/16/2020: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFF'S SUR REPLY

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION - OTHER TO AMEND AND WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS)

10/2/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION - OTHER TO AMEND AND WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS)

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

10/2/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

10/6/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

10/8/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Case Management Statement

11/13/2020: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

12/1/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

117 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/06/2021
  • Hearing12/06/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2021
  • Hearing11/29/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2021
  • Hearing09/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2020
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by KV Electric Inc. (Plaintiff); MIN SHANG KO (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2020
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by KV Electric Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2020
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Posting Jury Fees); Filed by KV Electric Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (to Amend and Withdraw Admissions) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other to Amend and Withdraw Admissions)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
212 More Docket Entries
  • 12/19/2016
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2016
  • DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2016
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2016
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2016
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2016
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2016
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2016
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2016
  • DocketMotion (TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS ); Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2016
  • DocketMotion; Filed by Fairview East LLC (Legacy Party); Tai On Ho (Legacy Party); Eric Ho (Legacy Party) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC065899    Hearing Date: April 30, 2021    Dept: E

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMANDS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

Date: 4/30/21 (10:00 AM)

Case: KV Electric Inc. v. Fairview East LLC et al. (EC065899)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Fairview East, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Demands for Production and Inspection of Documents, Set One from Plaintiff KV Electric, Inc. is GRANTED.

Although plaintiff KV Electric, Inc. represents that it served further responses after this motion was filed (Tkach Decl. ¶ 2), plaintiff did not provide a copy of the responses. Defendant Fairview East, LLC has not filed any reply indicating whether the further responses are sufficient. Accordingly, the Court addresses the sufficiency of the responses as presented by defendant in its moving papers.

Plaintiff’s responses to Demand for Production, Set One, Nos. 2 and 7 are representations of inability to comply because plaintiff states that it does not maintain responsive documents. Accordingly, the responses must comply with CCP § 2031.230. Plaintiff’s responses do not affirm that diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made. The responses also do not include the reason plaintiff cannot comply (e.g. because responsive documents have never existed, have been destroyed, lost, misplaced, stolen, or have never been, or are no longer, in plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control). If plaintiff knows or believes other natural persons or organizations to be in possession of responsive documents, plaintiff is required to set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization it knows or believes to have the requested documents.

To the extent that plaintiff is withholding documents that are protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges, plaintiff is required to serve a privilege log, pursuant to CCP § 2031.240(c)(1).

The motion is GRANTED to the extent that plaintiff’s further responses served on March 17, 2021 do not comply with CCP § 2031.230 or plaintiff is withholding documents due to claims of privilege. Plaintiff KV Electric, Inc. is ordered to serve further responses to Demands for Production, Set One, Nos. 2 and 7 and any privilege log on defendant Fairview East, LLC no later than fifteen (15) days hereof.

For failing to comply with discovery obligations without substantial justification and thereby forcing defendant Fairview East, LLC to file this motion, the Court imposes a total of $865.80 in monetary sanctions on plaintiff KV Electric, Inc. and counsel of record for two (2) hours of work at an hourly rate of $395, plus $61.65 for the motion filing fees and $14.15 for the electronic service fee. Monetary sanctions shall be paid to defendants’ counsel of record within thirty (30) days hereof.

Case Number: EC065899    Hearing Date: February 19, 2021    Dept: E

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO:

(1) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE FROM CROSS-DEFENDANT MIN SHANG KO;

(2) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE FROM CROSS-DEFENDANT MIN SHANG KO; AND

(3) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE FROM PLAINTIFF KV ELECTRIC, INC.

Date: 2/19/21 (10:00 AM)

Case: KV Electric Inc. v. Fairview East LLC et al. (EC065899)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Fairview East, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One from Cross-Defendant Min Shang Ko is GRANTED.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Fairview East, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One from Cross-Defendant Min Shang Ko is GRANTED.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Fairview East, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One from Plaintiff KV Electric, Inc. is GRANTED.

I. DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT FAIRVIEW EAST, LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE FROM CROSS-DEFENDANT MIN SHANG KO

In response to Requests for Admission, Set One, Nos. 1-12, cross-defendant Min Shang Ko responded to each request, “Responding party is unaware of any agreement between defendants and cross-defendant Min Shang Ko. Requesting party is directed to the responses of KV Electric Inc.” This boilerplate response does not comply with CCP § 2033.220 because Ko neither admits the matters in the requests that Ko purports to be true, denies the matters in the requests that Ko purports to be untrue, nor specifies the matters in the requests as to the truth of which Ko lacks sufficient information or knowledge, as required by CCP § 2033.220(b).

Ko argues that the requests are irrelevant because any contract was between plaintiff/cross-defendant KV Electric, Inc. (“KV Electric”) and defendant/cross-complainant Fairview East, LLC (“Fairview”). Here, however, the same attorney represents both KV Electric and Ko, which means that counsel can and must, on behalf of Ko, admit, deny, or specify the matters within the requests as to the truth of which counsel lacks sufficient information or knowledge, as required by CCP § 2033.220(b). (See Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 11–12 [“A party may be examined as to any matter not privileged which is relevant to the subject matter of the action, including the identity and location of parties having knowledge of relevant facts . . . . Even if the names and addresses of the witnesses were known only to the attorneys they would have to be disclosed on a proper interrogatory addressed to the party”].)

Ko also argues that Fairview failed to adequately meet and confer before filing this motion. In a meet and confer email from Fairview’s counsel to Ko’s counsel dated December 16, 2020, Fairview stated that the responses did not comply with CCP § 2033.230. (Ho Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. 2 at 2.) Despite this well taken assertion, Ko failed to respond by the deadline of December 21, 2020 set forth in the email. (Ho Decl. ¶ 3.) Even if Fairview provided only a few days to respond to the email, Fairview proposed that Ko extend Fairview’s deadline to file a motion to compel further responses to allow the parties to meet and confer. (Ho Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. 2 at 3.) Ko still failed to provide any response to the meet and confer email. (Ho Decl. ¶ 3.) The Court finds that Fairview adequately met and conferred prior to the filing of this motion.

The motion is GRANTED. Cross-defendant Min Shang Ko is ordered to serve verified further responses, without objection, to defendant/cross-complainant Fairview East, LLC’s Requests for Admission, Set One, Nos. 1-12 within fifteen (15) days of this ruling.

For failing to comply with discovery obligations without substantial justification and thereby forcing defendant/cross-complainant Fairview East, LLC to file this motion, the Court imposes a total of $865.80 in monetary sanctions on counsel of record for cross-defendant Min Shang Ko for two (2) hours of work at an hourly rate of $395.00, plus $61.65 for the motion filing fee and $14.15 for the electronic service fee. No sanctions are imposed against cross-defendant Min Shang Ko because the notice of motion does not state Ko as a party against whom monetary sanctions are sought, as required by CCP § 2023.040. Monetary sanctions shall be paid to defendants’ counsel of record within thirty (30) days hereof.

II. DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT FAIRVIEW EAST, LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE FROM CROSS-DEFENDANT MIN SHANG KO

Fairview seeks further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, No. 17.1 with respect to Requests for Admission, Set One, Nos. 1-12. Ko’s response for each Request for Admission was “No response provided. The request was objected to.” Fairview maintains that the responses to the Requests for Admission discussed above should be construed as denials and therefore, Ko was obligated to respond to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.

Fairview’s position is not quite right, as Ko did not expressly object to the subject Requests for Admissions. Indeed, it is hard to construe Ko’s responses (however lacking) as constituting objections because Ko utterly fails to articulate any basis for any purported objection (e.g., relevance, burden, privilege, etc.). Regardless, Ko must provide further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, because Ko’s responses to the subject Requests for Admissions most certainly do not constitute “an unqualified admission” and Ko fails to provide any valid objection or basis not to comply.

In opposition, Ko asserts that, if he were to provide substantive responses with respect to the Requests for Admission, Fairview would view the responses as a concession that Ko is the alter ego of KV Electric. (Opp. at 4.) However, Ko can clarify that he is responding as the owner of KV Electric, which does not, of itself, establish an alter ego relationship between Ko and KV Electric.

The motion is GRANTED. Cross-defendant Min Shang Ko is ordered to serve verified further responses, without objection, to defendant/cross-complainant Fairview East, LLC’s Form Interrogatory, Set One, No. 17.1 as to Requests for Admissions, Set One, Nos. 1-12 within fifteen (15) days of this ruling.

For failing to comply with discovery obligations without substantial justification and thereby forcing defendant/cross-complainant Fairview East, LLC to file this motion, the Court imposes a total of $865.80 in monetary sanctions on counsel of record for cross-defendant Min Shang Ko for two (2) hours of work at an hourly rate of $395.00, plus $61.65 for the motion filing fee and $14.15 for the electronic service fee. No sanctions are imposed against cross-defendant Min Shang Ko because the notice of motion does not state Ko as a party against whom monetary sanctions are sought, as required by CCP § 2023.040. Monetary sanctions shall be paid to defendants’ counsel of record within thirty (30) days hereof.

III. DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT FAIRVIEW EAST, LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE FROM PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT KV ELECTRIC, INC.

Fairview seeks further responses from plaintiff KV Electric to Form Interrogatory, Set One, Nos. 15.1 and 17.1.

With respect to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, KV Electric states that it will serve supplemental responses prior to the hearing on this motion. To ensure that KV Electric serves supplemental responses, the motion as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 is granted.

Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 seeks facts, witnesses, and documents supporting KV Electric’s affirmative defenses to Fairview’s Cross-Complaint. KV Electric maintains that the information is protected by the attorney work product doctrine. However, Fairview is entitled to conduct contention discovery, including asking KV Electric to state facts, witnesses, and documents supporting their affirmative defenses. (Burke v. Sup. Ct. (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 281, citing Singer v. Sup. Ct. (1960) 54 Cal.2d 318, 323-25 [“Discovery necessarily serves the function of ‘testing the pleadings,’ i.e., enabling a party to determine what his opponent's contentions are and what facts he relies upon to support his contentions”].) Even if KV Electric asserted affirmative defenses to avoid a waiver, KV Electric is obligated to state the facts, witnesses, and documents supporting the affirmative defenses. (CCP § 2017.010 [“Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.”]; CCP § 2030.220(a) [“Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits”].) If KV Electric cannot identify any facts, witnesses, or documents supporting an affirmative defense, KV Electric must state so.

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff/cross-defendant KV Electric, Inc. is ordered to serve verified further responses, without objection, to defendant/cross-complainant Fairview East, LLC’s Form Interrogatory, Set One, No. 15.1 as to the First through Twelfth Affirmative Defenses and Form Interrogatory, Set One, No. 17.1 as to Requests for Admissions, Set One, Nos. 1-12 within 15 days of this ruling.

For failing to comply with discovery obligations without substantial justification and thereby forcing defendant/cross-complainant Fairview East, LLC to file this motion, the Court imposes a total of $1,275.80 in monetary sanctions on plaintiff KV Electric, Inc. and counsel of record for three (3) hours of work at an hourly rate of $395.00, plus $61.65 for the motion filing fees, $15 for telephonic appearance fee, and $14.15 for the electronic service fee. Monetary sanctions shall be paid to defendants’ counsel of record within thirty (30) days hereof.

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)

TENTATIVE RULING:

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.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where FAIRVIEW EAST LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer TKACH JOHN ANTHONY