PATTERSON BUILDERS VS MARTIN HSU

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC068455    Hearing Date: January 23, 2020    Dept: J

HEARING DATE: Thursday, January 23, 2020

NOTICE: OK

RE: Patterson Builders v. Hsu (KC068455)

______________________________________________________________________________

Defendant/Judgment Debtor Martin Hsu’s MOTION TO VACATE ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSE TO POST JUDGMENT INTERROGATORIES

Responding Party: Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor, Patterson Builders

Tentative Ruling

Defendant/Judgment Debtor Martin Hsu’s Motion to Vacate Order Compelling Response

to Post Judgment Interrogatories is DENIED. Sanctions are declined.

Background

Plaintiff Patterson Builders (“Plaintiff”), a licensed general contractor, entered into a contract with Defendant Martin Hsu (“Hsu”) wherein Plaintiff agreed to perform general contracting services in the remodeling of Hsu’s residential property located at 1423 N. Sunset Avenue in Azusa (“subject property”). Plaintiff alleges that Hsu has failed to pay it. On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Hsu for:

1. Breach of Written Contract

2. Breach of Oral Contract

3. Common Count for Work, Labor and Services Based on Reasonable Value

4. Account Stated

5. Open Book Account

   On August 31, 2017, judgment was filed. On November 13, 2017, Hsu filed a “Notice of Appeal.” On January 2, 2020, the remittitur was filed (affirmed).

Legal Standard

CCP § 473(d) provides that “[t]he court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own

motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to confirm to the

judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set

aside any void judgment or order.”

Discussion

Hsu moves the court, per CCP § 473(d), for an order vacating the court’s October 31, 2019 order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Compelling Response to Post Judgment Interrogatories (“Post-Judgment Motion to Compel.”)

Hsu contends that Plaintiff was obligated to serve the subject underlying discovery and Post-Judgment Motion to Compel on attorney John A. Tkach (“Tkach”), that Plaintiff failed to effectuate service of either the underlying discovery or the Post-Judgment Motion to Compel on Tkach, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the Post-Judgment Motion to Compel or to grant Plaintiff any of its requested relief, such that the October 31, 2019 order is void.

Hsu’s position is erroneous. A judgment creditor may propound interrogatories to the judgment debtor in the manner provided by CCP §§ 2030.010-2030.410, requesting information to aid in enforcement of a money judgment. (CCP § 708.020(a).) When a writ, notice, order, or other paper is required to be served under the Enforcement of Judgments Law (EJL), it must be served on the debtor instead of the debtor’s attorney unless the debtor has filed, with the court and served it on the judgment creditor, a request that service on it be made to the debtor’s attorney. (CCP § 684.020(a),(b)(1).) CCP § 684.020 is in the same title—Enforcement of Judgments—as CCP § 708.020.

The motion is DENIED.

Sanctions

Plaintiff’s CCP § 128.5 sanctions request is improper, inasmuch as it must be brought as a separately noticed motion and comply with the 21-day safe harbor provision.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions pursuant to CCP § 2030.290 is denied, inasmuch as the instant motion was not brought pursuant to that provision.

Case Number: KC068455    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: J

HEARING DATE: Thursday, October 31, 2019

NOTICE: OK

RE: Patterson Builders v. Hsu (KC068455)

______________________________________________________________________________

Judgment Creditor Patterson Builders’ MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING

RESPONSE TO POST JUDGMENT INTERROGATORIES AND IMPOSING

SANCTIONS ON JUDGMENT DEBTOR MARTIN HSU

Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 10/21/19, 8:49 a.m.; due 10/18/19)

Tentative Ruling

Judgment Creditor Patterson Builders’ Motion for Order Compelling Response to Post

Judgment Interrogatories and Imposing Sanctions on Judgment Debtor Martin Hsu is

GRANTED. Hsu is ordered to serve on Patterson verified responses, without objections, to

Patterson’s Special Interrogatories, Set One within 20 days. Sanctions are awarded in the

reduced amount of $661.65 and payable within 30 days

Background

Plaintiff Patterson Builders (“Plaintiff”), a licensed general contractor, entered into a contract with Defendant Martin Hsu (“Hsu”) wherein Plaintiff agreed to perform general contracting services in the remodeling of Hsu’s residential property located at 1423 N. Sunset Avenue in Azusa (“subject property”). Plaintiff alleges that Hsu has failed to pay it. On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Hsu for:

1. Breach of Written Contract

2. Breach of Oral Contract

3. Common Count for Work, Labor and Services Based on Reasonable Value

4. Account Stated

5. Open Book Account

   On August 31, 2017, judgment was filed. On September 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed its “Notice of Entry of Judgment” and served same via mail. On November 13, 2017, Hsu filed a “Notice of Appeal.”

Legal Standard

A judgment creditor may propound interrogatories to the judgment debtor in the manner provided by CCP §§ 2030.010-2030.410, requesting information to aid in enforcement of a money judgment. The debtor must answer the interrogatories in the manner and within the time provided by CCP §§ 2030.010-2030.410. (CCP § 708.020(a).) Interrogatories a judgment creditor propounds to a judgment debtor may be enforced to the extent practicable in the same manner as interrogatories in civil actions. (CCP § 708.020(c).)

A response to interrogatories is due 30 days after service. (CCP § 2030.260(a).) If a party to

whom the interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the party propounding

the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP §

2030.290(b).) The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney

who unsuccessfully makes or opposes such a motion to compel, unless it finds that the one

subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the

imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP § 2030.290(c).)

Discussion

Patterson moves the court for an order compelling Hsu to respond to Patterson’s Special

Interrogatories, Set No. One. Patterson also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount

of $1,936.65 against Hsu.

On August 8, 2019, Patterson mail-served the subject discovery. (Alberola Decl., ¶2, Exh. A.) On September 20, 2019, Patterson’s counsel Edward Alberola (“Alberola”) sent a letter to Hsu, advising Hsu of his failure to respond to the subject discovery and requesting that Hsu provide responses, without objections, by September 30, 2019. (Id., ¶4, Exh. B.) As of the date of Patterson’s counsel’s declaration, no responses have been received. (Id., ¶3.)

The motion is GRANTED. Hsu is ordered to serve on Patterson verified responses, without

objections, to Patterson’s Special Interrogatories, Set One within 20 days.

Sanctions

Patterson seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,936.65 [calculated as follows: 2 hours preparing motion, plus 3 hours travel/appearance time at $375.00/hour, plus $61.65 filing fee].

The court determines that the amount of sanctions requested are excessive. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $661.65 [i.e., 2 hours at $300.00/hour, plus $61.65 filing fee]. Sanctions are payable within 30 days.