This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/12/2020 at 00:18:59 (UTC).

KOREA RESOLUTION & COLLECTION CORPORATION VS HAK IM

Case Summary

On 04/02/2018 KOREA RESOLUTION COLLECTION CORPORATION filed an Other - Other Judgment lawsuit against HAK IM. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MONICA BACHNER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0539

  • Filing Date:

    04/02/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Other Judgment

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MONICA BACHNER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

KOREA RESOLUTION & COLLECTION CORPORATION

Defendants, Respondents and Not Classified By Court

IM HAK SOON

LIM HAK SUN

IM KYUNG

IM HAK

DOES 1-50

IM KYUNG OK

IM HAK AKA HAK SUN LIM AKA KYUNG IM AKA KYUNG OK IM

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

KAHANA AMIR M. ESQ.

KAHANA AMIR MOSHE ESQ.

Defendant, Respondent and Not Classified By Court Attorney

KIM JAMIE ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

5/22/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Minute Order - Minute Order (COURT ORDER ADVANCING AND VACATING FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AN...)

3/6/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (COURT ORDER ADVANCING AND VACATING FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AN...)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (COURT ORDER ADVANCING AND VACATING FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AN...) of 03/06/2019

3/6/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (COURT ORDER ADVANCING AND VACATING FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AN...) of 03/06/2019

Notice of Settlement

3/6/2019: Notice of Settlement

Minute Order - Minute Order (Post-Mediation Status Conference)

1/3/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Post-Mediation Status Conference)

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY -

9/19/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY -

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY -

9/19/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY -

Minute Order -

7/16/2018: Minute Order -

Minute Order -

7/16/2018: Minute Order -

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY -

7/16/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY -

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

7/3/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

6/13/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

5/14/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER -

5/14/2018: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

5/3/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

5/3/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

4/20/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

4/19/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

14 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/14/2020
  • Hearing12/14/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 71 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2020
  • Hearing12/04/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department 71 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • Hearing09/04/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 71 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Post-Mediation Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Korea Resolution & Collection Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (After Settlement) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal After Settlement)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Amir Moshe Kahana, Esq. (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • Docketat 08:00 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
39 More Docket Entries
  • 05/03/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Korea Resolution & Collection Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Korea Resolution & Collection Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Korea Resolution & Collection Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC700539    Hearing Date: September 30, 2020    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

KOREA RESOLUTION & COLLECTION CORPORATION,

vs.

HAK IM aka HAK SUN LIM aka HAK SOON IM, et al.

Case No.: BC700539

Hearing Date: September 30, 2020

Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to compel Defendant Hak Im to provide responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Requests for Production (Set Two) are granted. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to deem Requests for Admission (Set Two) admitted against Hak Im is granted. Hak Im is ordered to provide responses within 10 days.

Plaintiff’s unopposed requests for monetary sanctions against Hak Im are granted in the reduced total amount $500.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to compel Defendant Kyung Im to provide responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Requests for Production (Set Two) are granted. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to deem Requests for Admission (Set Two) admitted against Kyung Im is granted. Kyung Im is ordered to provide responses within 10 days.

Plaintiff’s unopposed requests for monetary sanctions against Kyung Im are granted in the reduced total amount $500.

Six discovery motions involving two defendants are presently before the Court. First, Plaintiff Korea Resolution & Collection Corporation (“Plaintiff”) moves for orders compelling Defendant Hak Im (“Hak”) to provide initial responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Requests for Production (Set Two), as well as for an order that Requests for Admission (Set Two) be deemed admitted against Hak. (Notices of Motion, pg. 2.) For each of the three motions, Plaintiff also requests sanctions against Hak in the amount of $2,375, for a total amount of $7,125. (Notices of Motions, pg. 2.) Second, Plaintiff moves for orders compelling Defendant Kyung Im (“Kyung”) to provide initial responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Requests for Production (Set Two), as well as for an order that Requests for Admission (Set Two) be deemed admitted against Kyung. (Notices of Motion, pg. 2.) For each of the three motions, Plaintiff also requests sanctions against Kyung in the amount of $2,375, for a total amount of $7,125. Plaintiff’s total request for monetary sanctions is in the amount of $14,250. (Notices of Motions, pg. 2.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motions on June 4, 2020, without scheduled hearing dates. On June 10, 2020, the Court scheduled all six motions for September 30, 2020, and instructed Plaintiff to give notice. On June 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Hearing Date for the six motions, with proof of service on Hak and Kyung (collectively, “Defendants”) by mail at 11466 Fenton Avenue Sylmar, CA 91342. The Court notes Defendants are self-represented litigants as of September 19, 2018, when Defendants’ former counsel Jamie Kim filed substitutions of attorney indicating Defendants would be self-represented, and listed their address as 11466 Fenton Avenue Sylmar, CA 91342. As such, Plaintiff’s service of the discovery requests on this address and service of the Notice of Hearing Date for the six motions is proper. As of the hearing date, Defendants have not filed oppositions to the motions. On September 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed three Consolidated Notice of Non-Opposition as to each of the discovery requests Plaintiff moves for an order compelling initial response. The Court declines Plaintiff’s request that the Court refuse to hear oral argument on the motions. (Notice of Non-Opposition, pg. 1.) In light of the similarity of the issues to be resolved in ruling on the motions, the Court rules on the motions collectively.

Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Hak to provide responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Requests for Production (Set Two). (C.C.P. §§2030.290(b), 2031.300(b).) Plaintiff is also entitled to an order deeming Requests for Admission (Set Two) admitted against Hak. (C.C.P. §2033.280(b).) Plaintiff submitted evidence it propounded its second set of discovery on Hak on February 28, 2020, with a discovery deadline of March 28, 2020, and Hak has failed to provide initial responses to any of the discovery requests. (See Declarations of Yu ¶¶2-3, Exh. A [as to each Declaration].)

Plaintiff is also entitled to an order compelling Kyung to provide responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Requests for Production (Set Two). (C.C.P. §§2030.290(b), 2031.300(b).) Plaintiff is also entitled to an order deeming Requests for Admission (Set Two) admitted against Kyung. (C.C.P. §2033.280(b).) Plaintiff submitted evidence it propounded its second set of discovery on Kyung on February 28, 2020, with a discovery deadline of March 28, 2020, and Kyung has failed to provide initial responses to any of the discovery requests. (See Declarations of Yu ¶¶2-3, Exh. A [as to each Declaration].)

Plaintiff is entitled to monetary sanctions for reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with bringing the motions. (C.C.P. §§2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.290(d).) However, Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees is excessive. Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the total amount of $14,250, reflecting $7,125 as to each defendant and $2,375 for each motion based on 5 hours per motion at rate of $475 per hour (2 hours incurred in drafting each motion and 3 hours anticipated to draft a reply and appear at the hearing). (Decl. of Yu ¶4.) However, given the motions are to be heard together on the same day, the request for appearance fees in connection with each motion is duplicative. Moreover, in light of COVID-19, the parties will appear remotely at the hearing, eliminating travel time. In view of the totality of the circumstances including Defendants’ non-opposition to the motions, the similarity of the motions to each other, Defendants’ pro per status, and Plaintiffs’ lack of replies, the Court finds the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motions against Defendants is $1,000, at $500 for each of Hak and Kyung.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to compel Defendants’ initial responses to Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories are granted. Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendants are granted.

Plaintiff’s unopposed requests for monetary sanctions against Hak is granted in the reduced total amount of $500. Plaintiff’s unopposed requests for monetary sanctions against Kyung is granted in the reduced total amount of $500.

Dated: September ____, 2020

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where KOREA RESOLUTION & COLLECTION CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer KAHANA AMIR MOSHE