This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/22/2022 at 05:34:38 (UTC).

CAL GARDEN, LLC VS QUEENS LAND BUILDER, INC., ET AL.

Case Summary

On 04/29/2020 CAL GARDEN, LLC filed a Property - Construction Defect lawsuit against QUEENS LAND BUILDER, INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ANTHONY MOHR, MAURICE A. LEITER, YVETTE M. PALAZUELOS and KENNETH R. FREEMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6589

  • Filing Date:

    04/29/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Construction Defect

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ANTHONY MOHR

MAURICE A. LEITER

YVETTE M. PALAZUELOS

KENNETH R. FREEMAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Cross Plaintiffs and Not Classified By Court

CAL GARDEN LLC

SURETEC INDEMNITY COMPANY

BLE INC.

Defendants, Cross Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

QUEENS LAND BUILDER INC.

LIU WEN-YOUNG "RAY"

WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY

HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY

RAY LIU ASSOCIATES CORP.

WONG DAVID CASTANEDA

BLE INC.

WESTERN SURETY COMPANY

JH ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION

KIM WONG PLUMBING INC.

KIM JAYEE JAEYOUNG DBA ALL NATIONS INSPECTION

VELASCO RAYMOND JOHN JR. DBA CALIFORNIA SHOTCRETE

FINANCIAL PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY

SURETEC INDEMNITY COMPANY

ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNOLOGY LABORATORY

LEE SANG-YOUCK

LINE ELECTRIC INC.

MIT CONSTRUCTION INC.

CEN WEI MEN

51 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

IP EDWARD C.

Cross Plaintiff, Defendant and Cross Defendant Attorneys

BUCHANAN NATASHA KAMDAR

HOWARD ELMIRA REZAEI

LAGMAN-LEGASPI CATHERINE CLAIRE

PARKMAN SHARMILA R

DAMICO NICHOLAS LUCIANO

SIDERMAN LORI ELLEN

ANYIA ALFRED OSHIOMELE

PARKMAN SHARMILA R.

BUNT RICHARD A.

SMITH CHARLES GERARD

KIM AMBER

SCANDURA STEVEN PAUL

SCHAUER ROBERT

SCHAUER ROBERT FREDERICK

BERGSTEN ROBERT T.

CISNEROS JUDE A.

BELL JEFFREY THOMAS

Not Classified By Court Attorneys

ALTHOUSE DENNIS LEE

GRAJEWSKI WAYNE STANLEY

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

1/18/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

Notice of Continuance - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE NOTICE OF MINUTE ORDER RE MOTION OF DEFENDANTS JWDA-MS RCHITECTS/ JWDA, INC., MICHAEL CHENG SUN, LEE & LEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. AND SANG YOUCK LEE

12/13/2021: Notice of Continuance - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE NOTICE OF MINUTE ORDER RE MOTION OF DEFENDANTS JWDA-MS RCHITECTS/ JWDA, INC., MICHAEL CHENG SUN, LEE & LEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. AND SANG YOUCK LEE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION)

12/10/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION)

Brief - BRIEF PLAINTIFF CAL GARDEN, LLC'S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE BRIEF OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES

12/7/2021: Brief - BRIEF PLAINTIFF CAL GARDEN, LLC'S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE BRIEF OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES

Notice - NOTICE PLAINTIFF CAL GARDEN, LLC'S NOTICE OF INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

11/15/2021: Notice - NOTICE PLAINTIFF CAL GARDEN, LLC'S NOTICE OF INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS JWDA-MS ARCHITECTS, JWDA, INC., MICHAEL CHENG SUN, LEE AND LEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. AND SANG YOUCK LEE'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS

11/17/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS JWDA-MS ARCHITECTS, JWDA, INC., MICHAEL CHENG SUN, LEE AND LEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. AND SANG YOUCK LEE'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS

Answer

11/19/2021: Answer

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION OF PARTIES TO CONTINUE AND CONSOLIDATE HEARING DATES ON MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO STRIKE GENERAL CONTRACTOR RELATED DEFENDANTS' ANSW

11/23/2021: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION OF PARTIES TO CONTINUE AND CONSOLIDATE HEARING DATES ON MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO STRIKE GENERAL CONTRACTOR RELATED DEFENDANTS' ANSW

Reply - REPLY REPLY OF DEFENDANTS JWDA-MS ARCHITECTS/JWDA, INC., MICHAEL CHENG SUN, LEE & LEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. AND SANG YOUCK LEE TO OPPOSITION OF CAL GARDEN LLC TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITR

11/23/2021: Reply - REPLY REPLY OF DEFENDANTS JWDA-MS ARCHITECTS/JWDA, INC., MICHAEL CHENG SUN, LEE & LEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. AND SANG YOUCK LEE TO OPPOSITION OF CAL GARDEN LLC TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITR

Order - ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT KIM WONG PLUMBING, INC.'S APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

10/21/2021: Order - ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT KIM WONG PLUMBING, INC.'S APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

11/4/2021: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Request for Dismissal

11/5/2021: Request for Dismissal

Request for Dismissal

10/20/2021: Request for Dismissal

Answer

9/29/2021: Answer

Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

9/10/2021: Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Request for Dismissal

9/16/2021: Request for Dismissal

Answer

9/17/2021: Answer

Notice of Change of Handling Attorney

9/21/2021: Notice of Change of Handling Attorney

178 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/09/2023
  • Hearing01/09/2023 at 09:30 AM in Department 54 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2022
  • Hearing12/16/2022 at 09:30 AM in Department 54 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2022
  • Hearing09/28/2022 at 09:30 AM in Department 54 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Post-Mediation Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2022
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 54, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Informal Discovery Conference (IDC))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2021
  • DocketNotice of Continuance (NOTICE OF MINUTE ORDER RE MOTION OF DEFENDANTS JWDA-MS RCHITECTS/ JWDA, INC., MICHAEL CHENG SUN, LEE & LEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. AND SANG YOUCK LEE, TO COMPEL ARBITRATION IN LIEU OF FILING ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF ACTION); Filed by Queens Land Builder, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 54, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 54, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Strike (Answer) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2021
  • DocketBrief (Plaintiff Cal Garden, LLC's Informal Discovery Conference Brief of Discovery Disputes); Filed by Call Garden, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
198 More Docket Entries
  • 05/29/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 05/29/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ((Court Order) of 05/29/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Court Order); Filed by Call Garden, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2020
  • Docketat 10:48 AM in Department 14, Kenneth R. Freeman, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re. Complex Determination;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re. Complex Determination;) of 05/15/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Call Garden, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Call Garden, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2020
  • DocketPlaintiff Cal Garden, LLC's Certificate of Merit Regarding Construction and Design Issues Pursuant to C.C.P. 411.35; Filed by Call Garden, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STCV16589 Hearing Date: December 10, 2021 Dept: 54

\r\n\r\n

\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

Superior\r\n Court of California

\r\n

County of\r\n Los Angeles

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

Cal Garden, LLC,

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

Plaintiff,

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

Case No.:

\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

20STCV16589\r\n (Related to 19STCV14551; 20GDCV00072; BC720860)

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

vs.

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

Tentative Ruling

\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

Queens Land Builder, Inc., et al.

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

Defendants.

\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Hearing\r\nDate: December 10, 2021

\r\n\r\n

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

\r\n\r\n

Motion to Compel Arbitration

\r\n\r\n

Moving Party: Defendants Lee & Lee Structural\r\nEngineering, Inc., Sang Youck Lee, JWDA-MS Architects/JWDA Inc. and Michael\r\nCheng Sun

\r\n\r\n

Responding Party: Plaintiff Cal Garden, LLC

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

T/R: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION IS\r\nGRANTED. THE ARBITRATION IS STAYED PENDING RESOLUTION\r\nOF THE LITIGATION.

\r\n\r\n

DEFENDANTS TO\r\nNOTICE.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

If the\r\nparties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party)\r\nbefore 8:30 am on the day of the hearing.

\r\n\r\n

The\r\nCourt considers the moving papers, opposition and reply.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

BACKGROUND

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

This is a\r\nconstruction defect case arising out of the construction of condominium complex\r\nand its subterranean garage. The owners of adjoining property to\r\nthe complex, claim the construction caused substantial subsidence and\r\nsettlement issues on its property. The action involves several\r\ncontractors/sub-contractors, complaints and cross-complaints.

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“On petition of a party to an arbitration\r\nagreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a\r\ncontroversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate a controversy, the\r\ncourt shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the\r\ncontroversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy\r\nexists….” (CCP § 1281.2.) The right to compel arbitration exists unless\r\nthe court finds that the right has been waived by a party’s conduct, other\r\ngrounds exist for revocation of the agreement, or where a pending court action\r\narising out of the same transaction creates the possibility of conflicting\r\nrulings on a common issue of law or fact. \r\n(CCP § 1281.2(a)-(c).) “The party\r\nseeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration\r\nagreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any\r\ndefense, such as unconscionability.” (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle\r\nMarket Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A.\r\nExistence of Agreement to Arbitrate and Scope of Agreement

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants\r\nmove to compel arbitration based on an agreement for architectural design\r\nservices between JWDA-MS Architects/JWDA, Inc. and Cal Garden’s principals,\r\nexecuted by the parties on June 2, 2015. (Decl. Weiss, Exh. A.) The agreement\r\nprovides,All\r\ndisputes under this Agreement shall be submitted to binding arbitration in the\r\nCounty of Los Angeles in accordance with the standard procedures of the\r\nAmerican Arbitration Association then in effect.” (Id.) Defendants have\r\nestablished an agreement to arbitrate exists.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\ndoes not dispute the existence of the agreement, but Plaintiff contends its\r\ntort claims against Defendants do not fall within the scope of the agreement. Plaintiff\r\nasserts causes of action for professional negligence, indemnity, apportionment\r\nand contribution, and declaratory relief arising from the architectural design\r\nservices provided by Defendants. The arbitration agreement is broad, providing\r\nthat “all” disputes “under” the agreement must be arbitrated. This clause\r\nrequires arbitration of any dispute arising under the agreement, which\r\nnecessarily includes tort claims arising from Defendants’ performance under the\r\nagreement. (See e.g. EFund Cap. Partners v. Pless (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th\r\n1311, 1322 [“We interpret [‘any problem or dispute’] to mean just\r\nwhat it says. The language ‘[a]ny dispute or other disagreement’\r\nextends beyond contract claims to encompass tort causes of action.”] See also Rowe\r\nv. Exline (2007) 153 Cal.App.,4th 1276, 1286 fn. 4.) Plaintiff’s claims are\r\nsubject to arbitration.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants\r\nhave met their burden to establish the existence of an agreement to arbitrate.\r\nThe burden now shifts to Plaintiff to establish any defenses to enforcement.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

B.\r\nEnforceability of Arbitration Agreement

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\nargues the parties should not be compelled to arbitration because there is a\r\nrisk of conflicting rulings. “Under section 1281.2(c), the trial court has\r\nthe discretion to, among other things, stay or deny arbitration if one or more\r\nparties to the action is not subject to arbitration, and multiple proceedings\r\nmight result in conflicting rulings involving the same transaction.” (Gravillis\r\nv. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 761,\r\n783; see also CCP § 1281.2(d)(4) (authorizing the court to stay arbitration\r\npending outcome of court action.)

\r\n\r\n

This\r\naction involves numerous other parties and several cross complaints. It has\r\nbeen related to two other lawsuits also involving many parties and multiple cross\r\ncomplaints. The Court declines to deny the motion on this basis; the parties to\r\nthis motion agreed to arbitrate and will arbitrate their claims. But as\r\nsuggested by the moving Defendants, a stay of the arbitration pending the litigation\r\nin this Court is appropriate. It would be inequitable to stay the litigation in\r\nfavor of an arbitration involving relatively few parties. Staying the\r\narbitration avoids the risk of conflicting rulings.

\r\n\r\n

The\r\nmotion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The arbitration is STAYED pending\r\nresolution of the litigation.

\r\n\r\n'

Case Number: 20STCV16589    Hearing Date: March 9, 2021    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Cal Garden, LLC,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

20STCV16589 (Related to 19STCV14551; 20GDCV00072; BC720860)

vs.

Tentative Ruling

Queens Land Builder, Inc., et al.

Defendants.

Hearing Date: March 9, 2021

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Motions to Dismiss and for Sanctions per CCP § 128.7

Moving Party: “Specially Appearing” Defendants Lee & Lee Structural Engineering, Inc., Sang Youck Lee, JWDA-MS Architects/JWDA Inc. and Michael Cheng Sun

Responding Party: Plaintiff Cal Garden, LLC

T/R: DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS ARE DENIED. PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

The Court considers the moving papers and opposition.

BACKGROUND

This is a construction defect case arising out of the construction of condominium complex and its subterranean garage. The owners of adjoining property to the complex, claim that the construction caused substantial subsidence and settlement issues on its property. The action involves several contractors/sub-contractors, complaints and cross-complaints.

ANALYSIS

CCP § 128.7(b) provides that by signing and filing a pleading, an attorney “is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following conditions are met: (1) [i]t is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation[;] (2) [t]he claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law[;] (3) [t]he allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery[;] (4) [t]he denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.” CCP § 128.7 authorizes the court to impose appropriate sanctions upon attorneys or parties that have violated this subsection. (CCP § 128.7(c).) 

“Specially Appearing” Defendants Lee & Lee Structural Engineering, Inc., Sang Youck Lee, JWDA-MS Architects/JWDA Inc. and Michael Cheng Sun move to dismiss the complaint and for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff asserts four causes of action against these Defendants: the eighth cause of action for professional negligence; eleventh cause of action for indemnity; twelfth cause of action for apportionment and contribution; and thirteenth cause of action for declaratory relief.

A. Lee & Lee Structural Engineering, Inc. and Sang Youck Lee’s Motion

Lee & Lee asserts it was hired by JWDA, the architect on the project, to provide the structural shoring system plans for the Project, which were never used. Sang Youck Lee declares, “[a]lthough Lee & Lee was engaged to provide the original shoring structural drawings and plans for the Project, those drawings and plans were used strictly to obtain permits for the Project. Plaintiff's contractor, over which Lee & Lee had no supervisory responsibilities, actually used another structural engineer for the shoring on the Project, which designed a completely different structural shoring system, which utilized soldier piling with deeper holes, and was totally different from the Lee & Lee drawings and specifications.” (Decl. Lee ¶ 4.) Defendants assert that this statement means they cannot be held liable for any of these causes of action. Defendants do not discuss the applicable law or elements of the causes of action nor do they explain how this statement precludes liability.

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that on May 7, 2019, Sang Youck Lee signed off on a “Structural Observation Report Form”, in which he declared that he was the engineer or architect retained by the owner to be responsible for “the structural observation in accordance with the requirements of the City of Los Angeles,” that a final structural observation had been done and that there were no deficiencies. (Pl. Exh. B.) Sang Youck Lee admits this and declares that “Lee & Lee did perform some site observation in 2017 and only one in 2019. After reviewing the Structural Site Observation Report Forms and particularly the form from May 7, 2019, I can verify that this document has nothing to do with the excavation and shoring issues for the Project, but are related to the building structure only. Therefore, these forms are irrelevant to the issues that are the subject of the current lawsuits, i.e. the shoring issues.” (Decl. Lee ¶ 7.) Defendants do not provide any other evidence or explanation to support that the document is “irrelevant” to the shoring issues.

CCP § 128.7 sanctions are an extreme remedy, reserved only for circumstances in which a complaint is frivolous, objectively without merit, or made to harass. Here, Defendants seek summary judgment in the guise of a motion under CCP § 128.7. Their evidence consists of one declaration that provides no real detail or explanation, and simply concludes that Defendants are free from liability. The motion contains no legal analysis of Plaintiff’s complaint. This is not sufficient to establish entitlement to dismissal and sanctions under CCP § 128.7.

B. JWDA-MS Architects/JWDA Inc. and Michael Cheng Sun’s Motion

The JWDA Defendants assert that agreement between JWDA and Plaintiff excludes supervisory work by JWDA from the scope of work and therefore they are not liable under Plaintiff’s complaint. (Decl. Sun ¶ 7.) Defendants do not provide authority for this assertion. Defendants also contend that the agreement’s indemnity clause relieves them from liability because they were neither actively nor passively negligent. Defendants assert they were not actively nor passively negligent because the agreement excludes supervisory work. Defendants provide no law or evidence justifying these circular conclusions. In opposition, Plaintiff contends that it seeks to hold Defendants liable for design defects, not supervisory negligence. Plaintiff also contends that the indemnity clause only applies to claims by third parties and is void under Civ. Code § 2782.

As with the Lee Defendants’ motion, the JWDA Defendants are attempting to shoehorn summary judgment into a motion under CCP § 128.7. Defendants provide one conclusory, vague declaration and make extreme legal leaps and circles.

Based on the foregoing, the motions are DENIED. Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 128.7(c)(1). Plaintiff shall notice a hearing for determination of the amount of sanctions, based on supplemental declarations.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where KIM WONG PLUMBING INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where BLE INC. FOE 1 is a litigant