This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/02/2019 at 00:57:02 (UTC).

SERGIO MIRALDA VS HENG SHENG INC

Case Summary

On 11/16/2016 SERGIO MIRALDA filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against HENG SHENG INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is HOLLY E. KENDIG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0698

  • Filing Date:

    11/16/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

HOLLY E. KENDIG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MIRALDA SERGIO

Defendants and Respondents

HENG SHENG INC.

HOT WOK CAFE

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

LIU CHAO-CHUNG

WU CHRIS

HENG SHENG INC. DBA HOT WOK CAFE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

CHAMI POUYA B. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

CHEN SHUN C. ESQ.

NGUYEN NEIL NGHIA XUAN

CHEN SHUN CHIANG ESQ.

 

Court Documents

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC., 170.6)

1/30/2018: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC., 170.6)

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

2/6/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Minute Order

5/31/2018: Minute Order

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

7/23/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

Declaration re: Due Diligence

11/14/2018: Declaration re: Due Diligence

Opposition

1/10/2019: Opposition

Unknown

1/30/2019: Unknown

Notice of Ruling

2/15/2019: Notice of Ruling

Opposition

3/6/2019: Opposition

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

3/14/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Reply

3/27/2019: Reply

DEFENDANT HENG SHENG, INC.'S MOTION TO REQUEST AN ORDER ON DISQUALIFYING ITS COUNSEL AND ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND; DECLARATION OF SHUN C. CHEN

3/1/2017: DEFENDANT HENG SHENG, INC.'S MOTION TO REQUEST AN ORDER ON DISQUALIFYING ITS COUNSEL AND ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND; DECLARATION OF SHUN C. CHEN

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

5/2/2017: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

FJRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. UNPAID WAGES (LABOR CODE ? 201) 2. UNPAID OVERTIME WAGES (LABOR CODE 510, 1194)

5/24/2017: FJRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. UNPAID WAGES (LABOR CODE ? 201) 2. UNPAID OVERTIME WAGES (LABOR CODE 510, 1194)

NOTICE OF HEARING RE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

6/13/2017: NOTICE OF HEARING RE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

DEFENDANT HENG SHENG, INC.'S SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO REQUEST AN ORDER TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS; ETC

6/27/2017: DEFENDANT HENG SHENG, INC.'S SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO REQUEST AN ORDER TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS; ETC

Minute Order

7/7/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

9/8/2017: Minute Order

103 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Request for Refund / Order; Filed by Chao-Chung Liu (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 74; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Order to Show Cause Re: (entry of default as to Hang Sheng, Inc.) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: entry of default as to Hang Sheng, Inc.)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Chao-Chung Liu (Defendant); Chris Wu (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held - Advanced and Heard

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Order to Show Cause Re: (entry of default as to Hang Sheng, Inc.) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
224 More Docket Entries
  • 01/05/2017
  • DECLARATION OF POUYA B. CHAMI IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER DISQUALIFYING LAW OFFICES OF SHUN C. CHEN AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR DEFENDANT .HENG SHENG, INC., OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING THE NOTICE PERIOD ON PLAINTIFF'S

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Sergio Miralda (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2016
  • ANSWER-CONTRACT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2016
  • Answer; Filed by Heng Sheng, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND OSC RE: PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. UNPAID WAGES (LABOR CODE 201) ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Sergio Miralda (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC640698    Hearing Date: August 17, 2020    Dept: 74

BC640698 SERGIO MIRALDA vs HENG SHENG

Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The court imposes an issue sanction against defendant Chris Wu. The following facts are conclusively established: (1) Defendant Wu, as the alter ego of Heng Sheng Inc., and/or joint employer of Plaintiff, has failed to compensate Plaintiff with his regular and overtime wages; (2) Defendant Wu, as an alter ego of Heng Sheng Inc., and/or joint employer of Plaintiff, has failed to compensate Plaintiff the minimum wage for all hours worked as required by applicable California law; (3) Defendant, as an alter ego of Heng Sheng Inc., and/or joint employer of Plaintiff, has failed to facilitate uninterrupted rest breaks for Plaintiff, and (4) Defendant, as an alter ego of Heng Sheng Inc., and/or joint employer of Plaintiff, has failed to provide Plaintiff accurate itemized wage statements. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Case Number: BC640698    Hearing Date: June 24, 2020    Dept: 74

BC640698 SERGIO MIRALDA VS HENG SHENG INC

Defendant Heng Sheng, Inc’s Motion for Reconsideration

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. Moving party to give notice.

Defendant Heng Sheng, Inc. seeks reconsideration of this court’s order imposing monetary sanctions against Mr. Chen as part of the court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to discovery. In the alternative, defendant seeks an offset from funds owed pursuant to another judgment.

Any party affected by a court order may request a reconsideration of that order. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) The propounding party must file an application within 10 days following service of the written notice of entry of the order. (Id.) A request to reconsider the matter must consider “new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” (Id.) The judge that granted or denied the order must hear the reconsideration. (Id.) The party seeking the reconsideration must state by affidavit “what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Id.)

The order at issue was made on October 2, 2019 and this motion was not filed until October 15, 2019. As such, it is untimely. “The Supreme Court …held that a party is prohibited from making, and the trial court from granting, a motion for reconsideration unless the requirements of sections 437c, subdivision (f)(2), or 1008 are satisfied.” (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 211.) Furthermore, Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(e) further notes that an application for reconsideration that fails to comply with Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 cannot be considered.

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Chen for bringing this instant motion.

Code Civ. Proc. §1008(d) states “A violation of this section may be punished as contempt and with sanctions as allowed by Section 128.7...” Code Civ. Proc. §128.5 allows for sanctions when making a frivolous motion in bad faith.

While the motion is denied, there is no evidence it was brought in bad faith. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Case Number: BC640698    Hearing Date: February 11, 2020    Dept: 74

BC640698 SERGIO MIRALDA VS HENG SHENG INC.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Chris Wu and for Sanctions

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. Wu is ordered to appear for deposition within 15 days at a time and place designated by plaintiff. The court orders defendant Chris Wu and her former attorney Shun C. Chen APLC, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff sanctions of $3997.50.

Defendant Wu’s address of record with the court is in Chatsworth, in Los Angeles County. There was no substantial justification for demanding her deposition occur in Taiwan.

Plaintiff has established that he served a notice of deposition, and made substantial efforts to meet and confer to obtain a mutually acceptable date, without result. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (a), (b).) Any defect in service of the declaration in support of the motion was waived by addressing it on the merits.

The motion is granted. Wu is ordered to appear for deposition within 15 days at a time and place designated by plaintiff. The court orders defendant Chris Wu and former attorney Shun C. Chen APLC, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff sanctions of $3997.50.

Case Number: BC640698    Hearing Date: December 05, 2019    Dept: 74

BC640698 SERGIO MIRALDA VS HENG SHENG INC

Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. Service of the order should be mailed to Lin’s last known address.

It appears that Lin has willfully abandoned defense of this action by declining to provide any way to contact him. Should he decided to defend against his case, there is time before trial, which is set in six months and Lin can represent himself in propria persona.

The motion is granted.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer CHAMI POUYA B.