Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/19/2019 at 00:07:12 (UTC).

AMIRA STRUGANO VS ELIZABETH ROSE QUINN ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/01/2017 AMIRA STRUGANO filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ELIZABETH ROSE QUINN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4976

  • Filing Date:

    12/01/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

STRUGANO AMIRA

Defendants and Respondents

QUINN ELIZABETH ROSE

DOES 1 TO 50

A BIRD AND A BEAR ENTERTAINMENT LLC

HAZY MILLS PRODUCTIONS INC. (DOE 2)

SAMJEN PRODUCTIONS (DOE 3)

KING STREET PRODUCTIONS INC. (DOE 5)

VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC. D/B/A VIACOM

KYLES CEDRIC ANTONIO AKA CEDRIC THE ENTERTAINER

SAMJEN PRODUCTIONS DOE 3

HAZY MILLS PRODUCTIONS INC. DOE 2

MARTIN SUZANNA DBA SAMJEN PRODUCTIONS

KING STREET PRODUCTIONS INC. DOE 5

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

WEINSTEIN ZEV Y.

MILLER DELANEY L. ESQ.

SCHWIMER MICHAEL E. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

CATLOW JAMES T. ESQ.

PARMINTER STEVEN R. ESQ.

PARMINTER STEVEN ROBERT

 

Court Documents

Proof of Personal Service

1/23/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

1/17/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

1/17/2018: Proof of Personal Service

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

1/3/2018: ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

Proof of Personal Service

1/9/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

12/15/2017: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

12/15/2017: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

12/15/2017: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

12/15/2017: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

12/15/2017: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

CoverSheet

12/1/2017: CoverSheet

Summons

12/1/2017: Summons

Complaint

12/1/2017: Complaint

1 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/03/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Hazy Mills Productions, Inc. (Doe 2) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Amira Strugano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • Answer; Filed by A Bird and a Bear Entertainment, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2018
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious Name)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2018
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Amira Strugano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2018
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Amira Strugano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2018
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious Name)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
26 More Docket Entries
  • 12/15/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Amira Strugano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Amira Strugano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Amira Strugano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Amira Strugano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious Name)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Amira Strugano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious Name)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Amira Strugano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC684976    Hearing Date: March 05, 2021    Dept: D


Case Number: EC067094    Hearing Date: March 05, 2021    Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING
Calendar:    13
Date:         3/5/21
Case No:    EC067094 Trial Date:   October 18, 2021
Case Name: Lu, et al. v. Lu, et al.
MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY (3)
Moving Party: Defendant Jam Lu   
Responding Party: Plaintiff Frederick Yu 
Plaintiff Megan Way Mun Wong  
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two from Frederick Wu
Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set Three from each plaintiff  
MONETARY SANCTION
 Notice stating person/party/counsel against
 whom sanction being sought: Plaintiff and counsel     
 Notice stating amount sought: $940, each of 3 motions  
  
Declaration supporting amount sought:
5 hours preparing moving papers/3 motions  
3 hours preparing replies / 3 motions @ $330 per hour 
Filing fees = $60
TOTAL= $960 for each of three motions       
 
 Points & authorities supporting sanction:   yes  
CHRONOLOGY
Date Discovery served: October 28, 2020
Date Responses served: November 30, 2020, elect.
Date Motion served:  January 14, 2021 timely     
Meet and Confer? Ok, Para. 8  
FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 
Plaintiffs Frederick Yu and Megan Way Mun Wong allege that in June of 2009, upon the death of the father of defendant Jam Lu, plaintiff Yu discussed purchasing real property located in Monterey Park, held by a family trust of which defendant Lillian Lu, Jam Lu’s wife, and her siblings, were the named beneficiaries.   The beneficiaries agreed to sell the property to defendants Jam and Lillian, and it was suggested to plaintiff Yu that the parties, Yu and Lillian Lu and Jam Lu, create a partnership to purchase, renovate and sell the property.  The parties entered into such an agreement, and further agreed to put title to the property into the name of defendant Kathy Lu, the daughter of defendants Lillian Lu and Jam Lu, to claim an incentive from the government for first time home buyers.  
Plaintiffs allege that plaintiff Yu expended efforts to renovate the property, and to obtain renters for the property, and that eventually the parties agreed to open an investment account with the rental proceeds, to invest and make a profit, but that Lillian Yu has withdrawn all funds from the account, and defendants have failed to honor the partnership agreement.  It is also alleged that defendant Kathy Lu executed two short form deeds of trust and assignment of rents to plaintiff Megan Wong in the amount of $150,000 and promissory notes secured by the deeds.  Plaintiffs allege that they have collected nothing in connection with the partnership agreement such as net rent income and renovation costs, and Megan has not received any payments toward her notes. 
 
It is also alleged that defendants misrepresented to plaintiffs that they would abide by the partnership agreement, to induce plaintiffs to enter the agreement and provide funds to purchase the property, and that plaintiff Wong is entitled to enforce her security interest against the property by judicial foreclosure.  
Defendant Kathy Lu has filed a cross-complaint against Yu and Wong, alleging that in September 2009, when Lu and her parents desired to purchase property in Monterey Park, cross-defendants Yu and Wong agreed to loan her $100,000 for the purchase price of the property, and demanded interest for repayment in the total sum of $150,000, and required Lu to execute a promissory note and deed of trust for the same.  The cross-complaint alleges that by the very terms of the Note, the interest rate being charged exceeds the maximum rate allowed by the California Constitution, and is usurious, entitling cross-complainant to recover treble the amount of interest paid, damages, and attorneys’ fees. 
ANALYSIS:
Interrogatories 
Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  The section specifically provides that “Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery may be obtained “of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”
CCP § 2030.300(a) provides that if the party propounding interrogatories deems that an objection “is without merit or too general” or that “an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete”,   “the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response...”
If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully respond to discovery.  Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.  The granting or denial of a motion to compel is in the discretion of the trial court.  Coy, at 221-222.   A court should generally consider the following factors:
The relationship of the information sought to the issues framed in the pleadings;
The likelihood that disclosure will be of practical benefit to the party seeking discovery;
The burden or expense likely to be encountered by the responding party in furnishing the information sought.
Columbia Broadcast System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.
The motion as to Special Interrogatories is directed to plaintiff Frederick Yu, and concerns one Special Interrogatory, No. 96. 
This interrogatory requests, “For each and every date YOU IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 95, state in detail the contents of each communication or correspondence.”  
The response are objections that the request calls for information that is irrelevant, is compound as phrased, and subject to the objections, the response states, “Responding Party’s communications with Daniel Kwoh were as follows:  (1) to advise him that my counsel would like to speak with him regarding this matter; and (2) to discuss what he told my counsel.”  
As an initial matter, the separate statement is incomplete, as it does not set forth Special Interrogatory No. 95 or the response referenced.  
CRC Rule 3.1345(c) requires that a separate statement “must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response.”  The rule requires the statement “must include” for each discovery request to which a further response is requested, the text of the request, the text of each response or further response, and “(5) If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request,…the other request and the response to it must be set forth.”    
Here, the separate statement does not include the request and response on which Special Interrogatory No. 96 is dependent.
However, the interrogatories and responses were themselves provided with the moving papers, and the Court has reluctantly reviewed these other documents. Interrogatory No. 95 requests the identification of all dates on which plaintiff Yu communicated or corresponded with Dr. Daniel Kwoh, identified in paragraph 43 of the FAC “as it RELATES to this action from 2017 to present.”  The response is the same set of objections, and a response that, “Responding Party communicated with Daniel Kwoh regarding this litigation on two occasions, the dates of which I do not recall, but they were either late 2019 or early 2020.”
Defendant argues that Dr. Kwoh was a mutual friend of the parties who, pre-litigation, acted as a mediator for purposes of trying to settle the matter for the parties, which mediation was not successful and this lawsuit was filed.  Defendant argues that Dr. Kwoh is a potential witness in this action, that plaintiff admits that he communicated with him on two occasions, and that the response that the communication was to discuss what Dr. Kwoh told plaintiff’s counsel is evasive.  Defendant argues that defendant is entitled to know what was discussed, and what the witness said during these communications, and that prior to this motion being filed, during meet and confer, plaintiff’s counsel said he would check with his client to ensure nothing more was said between plaintiff and the witness, suggesting there was not the appropriate level of diligence prior to the responses being served.
  
Under 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.”
Plaintiff Yu in opposition argues that the willingness of counsel to check again does not constitute an admission that plaintiff’s counsel was not diligent, and that, in any case, plaintiff’s counsel did speak to plaintiff after meeting and conferring, and confirmed that Dr. Kwoh stated only that he had spoken to plaintiff’s counsel and that the remainder of the conversation revolved around COVID-19, with no details of the discussion between Dr. Kwoh and plaintiff’s counsel.  Plaintiff argues that there is accordingly nothing to supplement.  Plaintiff also argues that defendant has known of the existence of Dr. Kwoh as a witness since before litigation commenced, and has more than three years to interview or depose him to gain the information sought.  
The opposition makes no attempt to justify the objections, so the court will order that a further response be served without objection.  It is also not clear why plaintiff, if he recalls that there was a communication “to discuss what he told my counsel,” plaintiff cannot provide details of what was said during this discussion related to this lawsuit.  It seems unlikely that a discussion about what Dr. Kwoh told plaintiff’s counsel would involve only a discussion of COVID-19.  Plaintiff accordingly is ordered to serve a further response, without objections, and which provides all the information plaintiff recalls concerning the second communication as it relates to this action.  
Requests for Admissions
There are two motions brought here—one against plaintiff Yu and one against plaintiff Wong, which seek further responses to the same three RFAs, Requests Nos. 34, 39, and 40. 
The RFAs, responses, motions and oppositions are substantially identical with respect to this set of discovery as to each plaintiff. 
Under CCP Section 2033.290:
“(a) On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply:
(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete.
(2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.”  
RFA No. 34 
These requests ask that plaintiffs admit that, “YOU are a creditor of Defendant Kathy Lu.” 
The responses are objections that the request calls for a legal conclusion and is vague and ambiguous as to the definition of “creditor,” and that subject to such objections, “Admit that he/she is a person to whom an obligation is owed by Kathy Lu.” 
Defendant argues that the objections are unfounded as a request may seek a legal conclusion, and that the responses are not unequivocal admissions, but do not properly admit in part or deny in part the Requests.   
Under CCP § 2033.220(b):
“(b) Each answer shall:
 (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.
(2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue.
 (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.”
Because the language of CCP § 2033.220(b) is so broad and permits the qualification of response by a responding party, it is held that it is not proper ground for objection that a request for admission is vague or “ambiguous,” unless it is so ambiguous that the responding party cannot in good faith make an intelligent reply.  See Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 428-430.  
The opposition argues that these responses are essentially unequivocal admissions, as they correctly observe that the terms “creditor” is not defined, and answer the inquiry based on the definition of “creditor,” in the Civil Code, that is, “one in whose favor an obligation exists, by reason of which he is, or may become, entitled to the payment of money.”   Civil Code section 3430.  
The opposition does not attempt to justify the objections, and it is not clear why plaintiffs did not simply admit that plaintiffs are creditors as that term is defined in Civil Code section 3430, as the responses were easily explained in the opposition.  Further responses, without objection, and which fully comply with the Code are ordered to be served. 
Request No. 39
These RFAs request that plaintiffs each admit that defendant Kathy Lu owes each plaintiff “$150,000 plus interests as stated in the Promissory Note attached as Exhibit 4 to YOUR Verified First Amended Complaint.”  
The response are that the requests call for a legal conclusion, expert opinion and the document speaks for itself.  The responses are then that, “Responding Party admits that Kathy Lu, along with the other defendants, owe Plaintiff no less than $150,000 plus interest on the Promissory Note.  Responding Party denies, however, that this is the exclusive sum owed.”  
Again, the objections are not justified in the opposition, and do not appear appropriate. Further responses, without objection, will accordingly be ordered to be served.  
Plaintiffs argue that a denial of a request must be unequivocal, but that is not what the statute appears to require, as it permits qualification in the responses, which appears to be what is done here by denying that this is the exclusive sum owed.  The oppositions explain that the responses are truthful and not evasive, as it has been plaintiffs’ position throughout this lawsuit that plaintiffs were part of a partnership, and are therefore entitled to half the value of the real property, so that it if the Court finds a partnership exists, the amount owed would not be limited to $150,000.   This appears to be a prudent response, appropriately explained.   The Court orders further responses, without objection, to be served, but does not require further substantive changes to the responses. 
Request No. 40
These RFAs seek that each plaintiff, “Admit that Defendant Kathy Lu must issue a payment of all unpaid principle balance and interest” to each plaintiff, “when the PROPERTY is sold” pursuant to the Promissory Note attached to the FAC.  
The responses make the same objections that these call for a legal conclusion, expert opinion and the document speaks for itself, and that, Responding Party admits in part and denied in part, and again states, “Responding Party admits that Kathy Lu, along with the other defendants, owe Plaintiff no less than $150,000 plus interest on the Promissory Note.  Responding Party denies, however, that this is the exclusive sum owed.”  
Again, the objections are not justified, and further responses without objections are ordered to be served.   The responses also do not appear to respond to the gist of the question, which is not about how much is owed, but when the payment must be issued, essentially, when the property is sold.   The responses are not responsive to the admission sought, and plaintiffs are ordered to serve further responses, without objections, which address the actual request for admission propounded. 
Sanctions 
This leaves the issue of sanctions, which are sought by both sides.  
CCP § 2030.300 (d) provides that the court “shall impose a monetary sanction...against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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.”  Similar provisions apply to requests for admissions.  CCP § 2033.290 (d).
  
Under CCP § 2023.010, misuse of the discovery process includes “(e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery”; and “(f) Making an evasive response to discovery.”  Where there has been a misuse of the discovery process, under Section 2023.030(a), the court “may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” 
The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice.  Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.  
In this case, plaintiffs have made evasive responses to discovery, interposed objections plaintiffs have failed to justify, and have made these motions necessary. 
The Court accordingly awards sanctions in favor of the moving party.  The sanctions sought are $940 for each of three motions, which do not appear unreasonable, although, as noted above, the two RFAs motions were likely very efficiently cut and pasted from each other.  Hence, the sanctions are adjusted accordingly as follows: $858.00 for the motion to compel interrogatories, $858.00 for the first motion to compel RFAs and $495.00 for the second motion to compel RFAs, since it is duplicative of the first motion to compel RFAs with an attorney rate of $300.00 per hour for all motions.
RULING:
Defendant Jam Lu’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two is reluctantly considered by the Court despite the submission by defendant in support of the motion of a Separate Statement which is not complete.   CRC Rule 3.1345(c) provides that a separate statement is a “separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.”   This separate statement “must include” for each discovery request to which a further response is requested, the text of the request, the text of each response or further response, and “(5) If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request,…the other request and the response to it must be set forth.”    Here, the response at issue includes references to other responses, Special Interrogatory No. 95, but the text of that request, and, more importantly, the response to it, are not set forth.   The subdivision further states that “The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response.”  The Court has greatly inconvenienced by this omission, and defendant is cautioned that further motions must provide all matter required to understand the discovery request and response.   
Motion is GRANTED. 
Plaintiff Frederick Yu is ordered to serve a further complete response to Special Interrogatory No. 96, without objection, which provides all information requested, including the specific content of the second communication between the parties.   
Plaintiff has failed in the opposition to justify the objections asserted, and the Court has considered the asserted objections and finds they are without merit, and therefore overrules all objections, so that the further response is to be served without objections.  
Further response to be served within ten days. 
Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $858.00 (2.6 hours @ $330/hour) (8/3; 2- 2/3) plus costs of $60 filing fee [Amount Requested $940], which sum is to be awarded in favor of defendant Jam Lu and against plaintiff Frederick Yu, payable within 30 days. CCP §§ 2030.300(c), 2023.010 (e) and (f), and 2023.030(a).
Monetary sanctions requested in the opposition are DENIED.
Defendant Jam Lu’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set Three, from Plaintiff Frederick Yu is GRANTED. 
Plaintiff Frederick Yu is ordered to serve further complete verified responses, which provide all information requested, and which fully comply with the Code as to Requests No. 34 and 40.  The response to Request No. 40 is to answer the Request propounded, in essence, concerning the due date for payment, not the amount due, which is not mentioned in the request, so that the current response is not responsive.  The Court has considered the asserted objections and finds they are not justified in the opposition, and are without merit, and therefore overrules all objections, so that further responses are to be served without objections. 
As to Request No. 39, a further response, without objection, is also ordered to be served, but no substantive supplemental response is required. 
Further responses to be served within ten days. 
Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $858.00 (2.6 hours @ $330/hour) (8/3; 2- 2/3) plus costs of $60 filing fee [Amount Requested $940], which sum is to be awarded in favor of defendant Jam Lu and against plaintiff Frederick Yu, payable within 30 days.   CCP sections 2033.290 (d), 2023.010(e) and (f), 2023.030(a).
Monetary sanctions requested in the opposition are DENIED.
Defendant Jam Lu’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set Three, from Plaintiff Megan Way Mun Wong is GRANTED. 
Plaintiff Megan Way Mun Wong is ordered to serve further complete verified responses, which provide all information requested, and which fully comply with the Code as to Requests No. 34 and 40.  The response to Request No. 40 is to answer the Request propounded, in essence, concerning the due date for payment, not the amount due, which is not mentioned in the request, so that the current response is not responsive.  The Court has considered the asserted objections and finds they are not justified in the opposition, and are without merit, and therefore overrules all objections, so that further responses are to be served without objections. 
As to Request No. 39, a further response, without objection, is also ordered to be served, but no substantive supplemental response is required. 
Further responses to be served within ten days. 
Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $495.00 (1.6 hours @ $330/hour) (8/3; 2- 2/3) plus costs of $60 filing fee [Amount Requested $940], which sum is to be awarded in favor of defendant Jam Lu and against plaintiff Megan Way Mun Wong, payable within 30 days.   CCP sections 2033.290 (d), 2023.010(e) and (f), 2023.030(a).
Monetary sanctions requested in the opposition are DENIED.
GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES 
Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00.   Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear, unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court.  Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff.  If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative. 
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer WEINSTEIN ZEV YONI

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MILLER DELANEY L.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SCHWIMER MICHAEL EVAN