This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/30/2020 at 09:14:22 (UTC).

CHUCK BUAKONG VS PAUL BUAKONG ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/02/2018 CHUCK BUAKONG filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against PAUL BUAKONG. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DAVID S. CUNNINGHAM III. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4340

  • Filing Date:

    05/02/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DAVID S. CUNNINGHAM III

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

BUAKONG CHUCK V.

Defendants and Respondents

BUAKONG LAKTHONG

BUAKONG PAUL

DOES 1 TO 20

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

OBAGI LAW GROUP P.C.

OBAGI ZEIN E JR

OBAGI JR. ZEIN E.

Defendant Attorneys

ROBLES CELIA L ESQ.

FRANCO ANGELA ESQ.

FRANCO ANGELA

ROBLES CELIA L.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

9/30/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

8/26/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Declaration - DECLARATION OF HEE J. KIM

8/26/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF HEE J. KIM

Declaration - DECLARATION COMPENDIUM OF DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF CHUCK BUAKONG'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9/27/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION COMPENDIUM OF DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF CHUCK BUAKONG'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Separate Statement

9/27/2019: Separate Statement

Notice - NOTICE OF COURT ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

12/13/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF COURT ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

Notice - NOTICE OF COURT ORDER STAYING ACTION, DIRECTING SALE OF PROPERTY AND SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE

12/31/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF COURT ORDER STAYING ACTION, DIRECTING SALE OF PROPERTY AND SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 07/14/2020

7/14/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 07/14/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: STATUS OF SETTLEMENT)

7/21/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: STATUS OF SETTLEMENT)

Notice - NOTICE OF COURT ORDER RE: DEPOSIT AND RETENTION OF FUNDS FOLLOWING PRIVATE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY

7/21/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF COURT ORDER RE: DEPOSIT AND RETENTION OF FUNDS FOLLOWING PRIVATE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY

Notice - NOTICE TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

9/3/2020: Notice - NOTICE TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

Case Management Statement

9/3/2020: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

4/23/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Case Management Statement

3/27/2019: Case Management Statement

Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order JOINT STIPULATION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGEMENT AGAINST PAUL AND LAKTHONG BUAKONG,AND FOR LEA VE TO ANSWER AND COURT ORDER

2/27/2019: Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order JOINT STIPULATION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGEMENT AGAINST PAUL AND LAKTHONG BUAKONG,AND FOR LEA VE TO ANSWER AND COURT ORDER

Proof of Personal Service

1/9/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Minute Order - Minute Order (Legacy Event Type : OSC-Failure to File Request Ent of Def)

11/5/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Legacy Event Type : OSC-Failure to File Request Ent of Def)

FIRST AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8/24/2018: FIRST AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

86 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/14/2021
  • Hearing09/14/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 37 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2021
  • Hearing09/07/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 37 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 37; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 37; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 37; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • DocketNotice (Trial Setting Conference); Filed by Lakthong Buakong (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Lakthong Buakong (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Lakthong Buakong (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Lakthong Buakong (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
120 More Docket Entries
  • 07/13/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Chuck V. Buakong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Chuck V. Buakong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Chuck V. Buakong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Chuck V. Buakong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S RECORDING OF LIS PENDENS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Chuck V. Buakong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR PARTITION AND SALE

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC704340    Hearing Date: December 04, 2019    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE: December 4, 2019

CASE NUMBER: BC704340

CASE NAME: Chuck Buakong v. Paul Buakong, et al.

TRIAL DATE: September 15, 2020

MOTION: Motion to Compel Further Response to Form Interrogatories, Inspection Demand and Special Interrogatories from Defendants Paul Buakong and Lakthong Buakong; Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted against Defendants; Request for Sanctions.

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiff, Chuck Buakong

OPPOSING PARTY: None (no opposition on file as of 12/02/19)

PROOF OF SERVICE: OK

OPPOSITION: None

REPLY: N/A

TENTATIVE: Plaintiff, Chuck Buakong’s Motions to Compel Defendants, Paul Buakong and Lakthong Buakong to respond to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Document Demands is GRANTED. Plaintiff, Chuck Buakong’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions, Set One admitted as to Defendants, Paul Buakong and Lakthong Buakong is also GRANTED. Further, Plaintiff Chuck Buakong’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of ____.

Defendants, Chuck Buakong and Lakthong Buakong are ORDERED to serve complete, verified responses within 30 days of the date of Plaintiff’s notice. Defendants are further ordered to pay sanctions of ____ within 45 days.

 

Background

This is a property dispute matter arising out of Plaintiff, Chuck Buakong and Defendants, Paul Buakong and Lakthong Buakong (Defendants) concurrent co-ownership of real property located at 8953 Mills Avenue, Whitter, California 90605 (Subject Property) as joint tenants. Plaintiff allegedly invested large sums of money into the Subject Propertys mortgage under the agreement that Defendants would vacate the property after two years. However, Defendants allegedly failed to vacate the property as agreed after two years and also allegedly ignored Plaintiffs request to purchase his share of interest in the property.

The operative Complaint, filed May 2, 2018, alleges one cause of action for partition of the property.

On November 5, 2018, default was entered as requested against defendants. On February 27, 2019 and after filing of moving and opposing papers to a motion to set aside default, the parties stipulated that the default should be set aside. Defendants answered the Complaint on March 13, 2019.

Procedural History

Plaintiff first served form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for admissions, sets one on defendants by email to each of their counsel of record on April 23, 2019. (See Declaration of Hee J. Kim in support of Motion (“Kim Decl.”), ¶ 3, Exhibits 1-8.) On April 30, 2019, counsel for defendant Paul Buakong responded by email advising that the electronic copy were considered courtesy copies and requesting hard copies. (Kim Decl., ¶ 4, Exhibit 10.) On May 1, 2019, hard copies were mailed to each defendant’s counsel of record (Kim Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, Exhibit 9.)

On August 12, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed counsel for defendants advising them that no responses had been received and that a motion to compel would be forthcoming. (Kim Decl., ¶ 8.) Counsel for defendant Paul Buakong responded stating that there was no meet and confer prior to filing the motion and offering an explanation for the delay. (Kim Decl., ¶ 8.) Neither defense counsel advised that responses would be forthcoming, nor were responses served prior to the filing of the motion. (Kim Decl., ¶ 11.) Neither defense counsel requested an extension prior to the responsive deadline on Plaintiff’s discovery. (Kim Decl., ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff argues that defendants should be compelled to respond to each set of discovery because they have failed to respond by the statutory deadline. Defendants do not oppose the motion.[1]

Analysis

I. Discussion

Under the Discovery Act, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

  1. Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Documents

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 subdivision (b) and 201.300 subdivision (b), the party propounding interrogatories or inspection demands may move for an order compelling responses if the responding party fails to timely respond.

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel, Hee J. Kim, attests that Plaintiff served defendants with all sets of discovery at issue by mail by May 1, 2019. (see Kim Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, Exhibits 1-9.) Kim further attests that no response has been received as of the date Plaintiff filed its motions. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Defendants do not oppose the motions.

Because Plaintiff has demonstrated that his discovery requests were properly served and his motions properly filed, the court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendants to respond to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production, Sets One.

  1. Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . . (b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) If the requesting party moves for an order to deem its requests for admissions admitted, the court “shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admissions have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 (c).) If the responding party serves responses to requests for admissions before the hearing to deem them admitted, the court “ ‘has no discretion but to deny the motion.’” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776 [quoting Demyer v. Costs Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395-396.])

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel Hee J. Kim attests that Plaintiff served each defendants with requests for admissions on May 1, 2019. (see Kim Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, Exhibits 1-9.) Kim further attests that no response has been received as of the date Plaintiff filed its motions. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Defendants do not oppose the motions.

Because Plaintiff has demonstrated that his requests were properly served and his motions properly filed, the court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to deem Requests for Admissions, Set One admitted against defendants.

II. Request for Sanctions

The court may impose sanctions against any party for engaging in conduct constituting a “misuse of the discovery process.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030 (a).) Misuse of the discovery process includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010 (d).)

Plaintiff requests sanctions against each defendant and their respective counsel in the total amount of $1,645.00. Hee J. Kim attests that her billing rate is $375 and that lead attorney Zein Obagi’s billing rate is $425. (Kim Decl., ¶ 17.) Kim attests that her billing rate of $375 is based on her experience practicing law since 2010 and running her own law firm since 2017. (Id., ¶ 16.) Kim also attests that her support staff’s billing rate is $85. (Id.) Kim further attests that she has spent 4 billable hours in preparing the motion and that her support staff have spent one hour. (Kim Decl., ¶ 18.) Further, the filing fee on the motion is $60.00. (Kim Decl., ¶ 21.) Accordingly, Kim attests that the total fees and costs are $1,645.00 against each defendant for an unopposed motion.

Based on the declaration in support of the fees and costs and because a single motion was filed against both defendants, fees of $750 and filing fees of $300 (after plaintiff pays the additional motion fees) will be awarded against each defendant.

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff, Chuck Buakong’s Motions to Compel Defendants, Paul Buakong and Lakthong Buakong to respond to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Plaintiff, Chuck Buakong’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions, Set One admitted as to Defendants, Paul Buakong and Lakthong Buakong is also GRANTED. Further, Plaintiff Chuck Buakong’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1050 against each defendant. Plaintiff is to provide notice.

Defendants, Paul Buakong and Lakthong Buakong are ORDERED to provide complete, verified responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories, requests for production and special interrogatories within 30 days of the date of notice on this ruling.


[1] This motion is really 8 motions as evidenced by the 8 sets of discovery attached to the Kim Declaration. The reservation said it was for one motion. Plaintiff is ordered to file the motion fees for the other 7 motions.