This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/15/2022 at 19:25:42 (UTC).

MARY CHOMKO, ET AL. VS KYLE D. KRING,, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/22/2020 MARY CHOMKO filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against KYLE D KRING. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0653

  • Filing Date:

    10/22/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

MARY CHOMKO AND ANGELA CHOMKO AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE JOHN AND MARY CHOMKO TRUST

CHOMKO MARY

Defendants

DELROSARIO MARK M.

PATTERSON GREGORY W.

KRING KYLE D.

KRING & CHUNG LLP; WESTERN MANAGEMENT CONTROL INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION;

REYNOLDS MATTHEW A

WESTERN MANAGEMENT CONTROL INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

PARIS JEFFREY A.

Defendant Attorney

CHOI ERIC HYUNG

 

Court Documents

Declaration for Default Judgment by Court (Unlawful Detainer)

7/14/2022: Declaration for Default Judgment by Court (Unlawful Detainer)

Declaration - DECLARATION EXHIBITS 1-8

6/16/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION EXHIBITS 1-8

Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

6/16/2022: Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT)

6/30/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; FINAL STATUS CON...)

5/5/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; FINAL STATUS CON...)

Notice of Motion

2/24/2022: Notice of Motion

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

3/9/2022: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Unknown - PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CONTINUING THE TRIAL IN THIS ACTION

3/10/2022: Unknown - PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CONTINUING THE TRIAL IN THIS ACTION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ...)

3/15/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ...)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

3/17/2022: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING P...)

3/22/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING P...)

Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING ON ADVANCING THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S ANSWER

3/24/2022: Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING ON ADVANCING THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S ANSWER

Status Conference Report

4/21/2022: Status Conference Report

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

4/29/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY...)

1/11/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY...)

Notice of Ruling

1/12/2022: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Ruling

1/13/2022: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY"))

1/13/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY"))

40 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/10/2022
  • Hearing08/10/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 74, Michelle Williams Court, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Entry of Default Judgment) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2022
  • DocketDeclaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment; Filed by MARY CHOMKO (Plaintiff); MARY CHOMKO and ANGELA CHOMKO as co-Trustees of THE JOHN AND MARY CHOMKO TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 2000, (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2022
  • DocketDeclaration (Exhibits 1-8); Filed by MARY CHOMKO (Plaintiff); MARY CHOMKO and ANGELA CHOMKO as co-Trustees of THE JOHN AND MARY CHOMKO TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 2000, (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2022
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 74; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 74; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 74, Michelle Williams Court, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions; Final Status Con...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 74, Michelle Williams Court, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
56 More Docket Entries
  • 01/11/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 74, Michelle Williams Court, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (of Non-Service); Filed by MARY CHOMKO (Plaintiff); MARY CHOMKO and ANGELA CHOMKO as co-Trustees of THE JOHN AND MARY CHOMKO TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 2000, (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by MARY CHOMKO (Plaintiff); MARY CHOMKO and ANGELA CHOMKO as co-Trustees of THE JOHN AND MARY CHOMKO TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 2000, (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by MARY CHOMKO (Plaintiff); MARY CHOMKO and ANGELA CHOMKO as co-Trustees of THE JOHN AND MARY CHOMKO TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 2000, (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by MARY CHOMKO (Plaintiff); MARY CHOMKO and ANGELA CHOMKO as co-Trustees of THE JOHN AND MARY CHOMKO TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 2000, (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by MARY CHOMKO (Plaintiff); MARY CHOMKO and ANGELA CHOMKO as co-Trustees of THE JOHN AND MARY CHOMKO TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 2000, (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******0653 Hearing Date: June 30, 2022 Dept: 74

*******0653 MARY CHOMKO vs KYLE D. KRING

OSC re Entry of Default Judgment

TENTATIVE RULING: The request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The Court grants Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff must file and serve an amended complaint and seek Defendant’s default anew. Plaintiff seeks $68,843.66 in damages, which exceeds the amount claimed in the complaint from Defendant Western Management Control. The complaint asserts the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action against Defendant Western Management Control, which only claim damages according to proof in excess of the jurisdictional limit of the Court. (Compl. 34, 46.) The specific damages alleged are only directed to the other parties. (See e.g. Compl. 24, 28.)

“[A] prayer for damages according to proof passes muster under section 580 only if a specific amount of damages is alleged in the body of the complaint.” (Becker v. S.P.V. Construction Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 494. See also Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 286 (“As this court has iterated and then reiterated, Code of Civil Procedure section 580 prohibits the entry of a default judgment in an amount in excess of that demanded in the complaint.”); Janssen v. Luu (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 272, 275 (“the amount of damages communicated to the defaulting defendant sets the ceiling on the plaintiff's recovery, and that a default judgment in excess of that amount is void.”).) Accordingly, the Court cannot enter the requested judgment on the existing complaint.

Additionally, if a default judgment is sought at a later time, Plaintiffs must provide a request for default judgment on Judicial Council form CIV-100, a memorandum of costs (which is within form CIV-100), and a summary of the case. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1800(a).) The Court also notes the proposed judgment incorrectly completed section 6(b), which applies where a defendant would recover costs.

For these reasons, the request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The Court grants Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.



Case Number: *******0653 Hearing Date: May 5, 2022 Dept: 74

*******0653 MARY CHOMKO vs KYLE D. KRING

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer, Enter Default of Defendant Western Management Control and Set a Date For ‘Prove-Up’ Hearing; or Alternatively, Deeming Requests for Admission Propounded on Defendant Western Management Control to be Admitted; Imposing Evidence Sanctions Denying the Right of Defendant Western Management Control to Present Evidence at Trial; and Awarding Additional Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant Western Management Control and its Counsel in the Amount of $2,086.80.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant Western Management Control’s answer filed on January 27, 2021 is hereby stricken and its default is entered. The FSC and trial dates are VACATED. An OSC re Entry of Default Judgment is scheduled for June 30, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 74. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Background

On October 22, 2020, Plaintiffs Mary Chomko and Mary Chomko and Angela Chomko as Co-Trustees of the John and Mary Chomko Trust Dated September 21 , 2000 filed this action against Kyle D. Kring, Mark M. Delrosario, Gregory W. Patterson, Matthew A.

Reynolds, Kring & Chung, LLP, and Western Management Control, Inc. The complaint asserted six causes of action based upon the individual defendants alleged legal malpractice and Defendant Western Management Control’s alleged improper retention of the other Defendants and mismanagement of real property owned by Plaintiffs.

On June 7, 2021, the Court entered an order determining good faith settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendants Kyle D. Kring, Mark M. Delrosario, Gregory W. Patterson, Matthew A. Reynolds, Kring & Chung, LLP. Plaintiffs dismissed the settling Defendants on July 22, 2021. Accordingly, the only remaining Defendant in this action is Western Management Control.

On January 11, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed motions to compel Defendant Western Management Control’s responses to Request for Production, Set One and Form Interrogatories, Set One. On January 13, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to deem Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions, Set One admitted.

On March 22, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to advance the hearing on the instant motion to May 5, 2022.

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Plaintiffs move for terminating sanctions against Defendant Western Management Control, or alternatively evidentiary sanctions. Plaintiffs also request monetary sanctions.

The motion is unopposed.

Terminating Sanctions

Standard

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. 2023.010(g); 2030.290(c); 2031.300(c). Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(d), the court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

(3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

(4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.

“Dismissal is a proper sanction to punish the failure to comply with a rule or an order only if the court's authority cannot be vindicated through the imposition of a less severe alternative.” (Rail Services of America v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 323, 331. See also Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-80 (“A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.”); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496 (“The power to impose discovery sanctions is a broad discretion subject to reversal only for arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical action. Only two facts are absolutely prerequisite to imposition of the sanction: (1) there must be a failure to comply ... and (2) the failure must be willful.”).) “Discovery sanctions ‘should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545) “A discovery sanction may not place the party seeking discovery in a better position than it would have been in if the desired discovery had been provided and had been favorable.” (Rail Services, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at 332.)

Terminating Sanctions are Warranted

Plaintiffs served form interrogatories upon Defendant Western Management Control on February 2, 2021 and requests for production of documents on February 11, 2021. (Paris Decl. 4.) Plaintiffs provided an extension to respond, but Defendant never provided responses or objections to the discovery. (Id. 6.) Plaintiffs’ counsel met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel and filed motions to compel on June 9, 2021, which were properly served. (Id. 7.) Despite the passage of time, Defendant had not provided responses by the hearing on the motions to compel on January 11, 2022. (Id. 8.) Defendant did not appear at the hearing or oppose the motions. The Court granted the unopposed motions to compel and ordered Defendant to provide verified responses within 20 days. (Id. 9, Ex. A.) Plaintiffs properly served Defendant with notice of the Court’s ruling. (Ibid.) Defendant has not responded to the discovery or produced documents and therefore has not complied with the Court’s order. (Id. 10.)

Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence before the Court to establish Defendant’s willful failure to comply with the Court’s January 11, 2022 order as well as its obligations under the Discovery Act. (See Code Civ. Proc. 2023.010 (“Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following . . . (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.”).)

Defendant failed to oppose Plaintiffs’ three motions to compel or the instant motion for terminating sanctions and has “show[n] no interest in taking part in the case or in following orders of the court.” (Del Junco v. Hufnagel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 789, 799–800.) As in Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1619, Defendant has demonstrated a “persistent refusal to share with plaintiffs the facts underlying their denial of liability and their purported affirmative defenses. Trial in this matter is scheduled for May 9, 2022, two days following the hearing on this motion. The court in Collisson upheld sanctions under similar circumstances were trial was “less than two months after the sanction hearing.” (Id. at 1619.) Imposition of a lesser sanction against Defendant would permit it to “benefit from their stalling tactics.” (Id. at 1620. See also Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Adm'rs, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1106 (“LCL persisted in its pattern of failure or refusal to give meaningful responses to discovery. The trial court was not required to allow LcL to continue its stalling tactics indefinitely.”).) The Court finds terminating sanctions warranted under the circumstances.

The Court shall not impose additional monetary sanctions or initiate contempt proceedings considering the court’s imposition of terminating sanctions. Such additional sanctions would be excessive.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Answer, Enter Default of Defendant Western Management Control and Set a Date For ‘Prove-Up’ Hearing; or Alternatively, Deeming Requests For Admission Propounded on Defendant Western Management Control to be Admitted; Imposing Evidence Sanctions Denying the Right of Defendant Western Management Control to Present Evidence at Trial; and Awarding Additional Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant Western Management Control and its Counsel in the Amount of $2086.80 is GRANTED in part.

Defendant Western Management Control’s answer filed on January 27, 2021 is hereby stricken and its default is entered.

Plaintiffs shall proceed by way of default judgment. The Court shall not schedule a prove up hearing at this time. (Code Civ. Proc. 585(d); LASC Local Rule 3.201(a) (“Determination of applications for default judgment on declarations pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 585(d) is the preferred procedure.”). The Court shall schedule an OSC re Entry of Default Judgment. The May 9, 2022 trial date is hereby vacated.

Plaintiffs’ other requests for relief, including monetary sanctions, are DENIED.



Case Number: *******0653 Hearing Date: January 13, 2022 Dept: 74

*******0653 MARY CHOMKO vs KYLE D. KRING

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Deem Matters Admitted

TENTATIVE RULINGS: The motion to deem admitted matters set forth in Requests for Admission, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Western Management Control and its attorney of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay sanctions to plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the amount of $735 (1.5 hrs at $450/hr plus $60 filing fee), within twenty days.



Case Number: *******0653 Hearing Date: January 11, 2022 Dept: 74

*******0653 MARY CHOMKO vs KYLE D. KRING

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery from Western Management Control

TENTATIVE RULINGS: The motion to compel Western Management Control’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and the motion to compel Western Management Control’s responses to Requests for Production, Set One are GRANTED. Western Management Control is ordered to serve verified, code compliant responses within 20 days and to produce all responsive documents within 30 days. All objections are deemed waived. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Western Management Control and its attorney of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay sanctions to plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the amount of $1,470 (3 hrs at $450/hr plus $120 filing fee), within twenty days.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where WESTERN MANAGEMENT CONTROL INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where KRING & CHUNG LLP; WESTERN MANAGEMENT CONTROL INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer PARIS JEFFREY A.