On 05/19/2016 PATTERSON BUILDERS filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MARTIN HSU. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GLORIA WHITE-BROWN. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
****8455
05/19/2016
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Pomona Courthouse South
Los Angeles, California
GLORIA WHITE-BROWN
PATTERSON BUILDERS
DOES 1-10
HSU MARTIN
CARLTON ANDREW C.
CARLTON ANDREW CHARLES
TKACH JOHN A. ESQ.
10/4/2016: Case Management Statement
10/17/2016: Minute Order
6/26/2017: Unknown
6/28/2017: Motion to Bifurcate
7/5/2017: Notice of Ruling
7/31/2017: Statement of the Case
8/9/2017: Jury Instructions
8/9/2017: Other -
8/9/2017: Unknown
8/18/2017: Unknown
10/2/2017: Unknown
10/17/2017: Unknown
10/18/2017: Unknown
10/25/2017: Unknown
11/1/2017: Notice of Ruling
7/12/2018: Proof of Service by Mail
11/27/2018: Motion re:
4/10/2019: Notice
Notice (Proof of Electronic Service); Filed by MARTIN HSU (Defendant)
Notice (Notice of Ruling and Order Thereon); Filed by MARTIN HSU (Defendant)
at 08:30 AM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (Requesting Superior Court to Have Omitted Portions of the Record Be Prepared, Certified and Sent to Reviewing Court) - Held - Motion Granted
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other Requesting Superior Court to Have O...)); Filed by Clerk
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Requesting Superior Court to Have O...) of 04/03/2019); Filed by Clerk
Order (Tentative Ruling); Filed by Clerk
Certificate of Mailing for ([Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Requesting Superior Court to Have O...)]); Filed by Clerk
Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk
Motion re: (Defendant Martin Hsu's Notice of Motion and Motion Requesting the Superior to Court to Have Omitted Portions of the Record be Prepared, Certified and Sent to Reviewing Court); Filed by MARTIN HSU (Defendant)
Appeal Record Delivered (Supplemental clerk's); Filed by Clerk
Minute order entered: 2016-10-17 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk
Notice; Filed by MARTIN HSU (Defendant)
Case Management Statement; Filed by MARTIN HSU (Defendant)
Case Management Statement; Filed by PATTERSON BUILDERS (Plaintiff)
Answer; Filed by MARTIN HSU (Defendant)
Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by PATTERSON BUILDERS (Plaintiff)
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
Summons (on Complaint)
Complaint; Filed by PATTERSON BUILDERS (Plaintiff)
Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by PATTERSON BUILDERS (Plaintiff)
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:
Breach of Written Contract
Breach of Oral Contract
Common Count for Work, Labor and Services Based on Reasonable Value
Account Stated
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:
Breach of Written Contract
Breach of Oral Contract
Common Count for Work, Labor and Services Based on Reasonable Value
Account Stated
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.