This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/23/2019 at 08:34:20 (UTC).

PATTERSON BUILDERS VS MARTIN HSU

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8455

  • Filing Date:

    05/19/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GLORIA WHITE-BROWN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

PATTERSON BUILDERS

Defendants

DOES 1-10

HSU MARTIN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

CARLTON ANDREW C.

CARLTON ANDREW CHARLES

Defendant Attorney

TKACH JOHN A. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Case Management Statement

10/4/2016: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

10/17/2016: Minute Order

Unknown

6/26/2017: Unknown

Motion to Bifurcate

6/28/2017: Motion to Bifurcate

Notice of Ruling

7/5/2017: Notice of Ruling

Statement of the Case

7/31/2017: Statement of the Case

Jury Instructions

8/9/2017: Jury Instructions

Other -

8/9/2017: Other -

Unknown

8/9/2017: Unknown

Unknown

8/18/2017: Unknown

Unknown

10/2/2017: Unknown

Unknown

10/17/2017: Unknown

Unknown

10/18/2017: Unknown

Unknown

10/25/2017: Unknown

Notice of Ruling

11/1/2017: Notice of Ruling

Proof of Service by Mail

7/12/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Motion re:

11/27/2018: Motion re:

Notice

4/10/2019: Notice

97 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/10/2019
  • Notice (Proof of Electronic Service); Filed by MARTIN HSU (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Notice (Notice of Ruling and Order Thereon); Filed by MARTIN HSU (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other Requesting Superior Court to Have O...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Requesting Superior Court to Have O...) of 04/03/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Order (Tentative Ruling); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for ([Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Requesting Superior Court to Have O...)]); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • 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)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2018
  • Appeal Record Delivered (Supplemental clerk's); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
111 More Docket Entries
  • 10/17/2016
  • Minute order entered: 2016-10-17 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2016
  • Notice; Filed by MARTIN HSU (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2016
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by MARTIN HSU (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2016
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by PATTERSON BUILDERS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2016
  • Answer; Filed by MARTIN HSU (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2016
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by PATTERSON BUILDERS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2016
  • Summons (on Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by PATTERSON BUILDERS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2016
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by PATTERSON BUILDERS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

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.