This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/21/2019 at 01:29:55 (UTC).

WCL CORPORATION ET AL VS HAN CHEOL GWAK ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/27/2018 WCL CORPORATION filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against HAN CHEOL GWAK. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is HOLLY J. FUJIE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5630

  • Filing Date:

    02/27/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

HOLLY J. FUJIE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

LIM SEUNG HOON

WCL CORPORATION

LIM HYE KYUNG

CW COMPANY.CAL INC.

SUH DANIEL AKA DANIEL SUNGBONG SUH

MTC CONTRACTORS INC. DBA GATES ENTERPRISES INC

GATES JOE LOUIS JR. ROE 21

BECKTEL C.H. DEVELOPMENT INC.

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY INC.

GWAK HAN CHEOL

Y 2 M CONSTRUCTION

CW COMPANY.CAL INC.

WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY

DOES 1 - 40

Y2M CONSTRUCTION INC.

KIM JOHN SEUNG

SUH DANIEL

SUN SMART INC.

OH FREDRICK DONGIL

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff

WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LIM YOUNG S. ESQ.

KIM MITCHELL S

Defendant Attorneys

KWON JEAN

SOBEL STEVEN ALAN

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

PAGAN JOHN M.

 

Court Documents

AFFIDAVIT OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE

6/20/2018: AFFIDAVIT OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

6/27/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

7/16/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Substitution of Attorney

10/12/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

10/30/2018: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Minute Order

11/2/2018: Minute Order

Stipulation and Order

11/6/2018: Stipulation and Order

Summons

11/29/2018: Summons

Proof of Personal Service

12/13/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Minute Order

12/17/2018: Minute Order

Proof of Personal Service

12/20/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Order

1/3/2019: Order

Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)

1/25/2019: Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)

Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)

1/25/2019: Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)

Case Management Statement

2/26/2019: Case Management Statement

Substitution of Attorney

3/6/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order

5/1/2018: Minute Order

DECLAPATION OF WILLIAM W. KIM IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING RE: FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE

4/25/2018: DECLAPATION OF WILLIAM W. KIM IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING RE: FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE

71 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/20/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 56; Jury Trial - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • at 08:32 AM in Department 56; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Request for Refund / Order; Filed by John Seung Kim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by WCL Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 56; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by WCL Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by WCL Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 56; Order to Show Cause Re: (Dismissal of defendant Wesco) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • Answer; Filed by CW Company.Cal, Inc. (Defendant); Daniel Suh (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by WCL Corporation (Plaintiff); WCL Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
122 More Docket Entries
  • 04/02/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by WCL Corporation (Plaintiff); Hye Kyung Lim (Plaintiff); Seung Hoon Lim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF ORPL CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by WCL Corporation (Plaintiff); Hye Kyung Lim (Plaintiff); Seung Hoon Lim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC695630    Hearing Date: February 14, 2020    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

WCL CORPORATION, etc.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HAN CHEOL GWAL, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: BC695630

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Date: February 14, 2020

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff WCL Corporation

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. No courtesy copies of any opposition papers were provided to the Court.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) arises from alleged wrongful actions pursuant to an oral construction contract. The FAC alleges against Defendants causes of action for: (1) breach of oral contract; (2) conversion; (3) intentional misrepresentation; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) false promise; (6) concealment; (7) conspiracy to defraud; (8) money had and received; (9) equitable indemnity; (10) recovery of contractor’s bond; and (11) declaratory relief.

Plaintiff filed two motions: (1) a motion to compel Defendant Sun Smart, Inc. (“Sun Smart”) to produce the person most qualified (“PMQ”) to testify on its behalf for deposition and all documents described in the deposition notice, and for monetary sanctions against Sun Smart and its counsel in the amount of $3,487.65; and (2) a motion to compel Defendant John Seung Kim (“Kim”) to appear for deposition, and for an award of monetary sanctions against Kim in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $3,465.50.

None of Plaintiff’s respective motions are opposed by any party with an opposing memorandum of points and authorities; however, John Heath provided a declaration in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel Sun Smart’s PMQ deposition insofar as it requests monetary sanctions against JK Law Firm, APC.

John Heath declares that: (1) on July 29, 2019, his office was terminated by their former clients Kim and Sun Smart (Heath Decl. at ¶ 3); (2) on that date, Kim on behalf of himself and as CEO of Sun Smart, executed substitution of attorney forms and stated in no uncertain terms that the JK Law Firm, APC was not authorized to perform any services in this case on behalf of himself or Sun Smart (Id.); (3) the substitution of attorney forms were filed with the Court and served electronically on Plaintiff on July 29, 2019 (Id. at ¶ 3 and Exhibit 1); (4) the day after Plaintiff received this substitution of attorney forms, they mailed a deposition notice of Sun Smart’s PMQ set for the morning of September 23, 2019 (Id. at ¶ 4); (5) despite being instructed by Kim to not work on this case, he attempted to work with Plaintiff’s counsel and Kim to set a deposition date in late October 2019 and during this time, communication with Kim was sporadic at best and no new deposition date was set (Id. at ¶ 6); (6) the JK Law Firm’s motion to be relieved as counsel was granted following the hearing on October 17, 2019 (Id. at ¶ 7 and Exhibit 2); and (7) the JK Law Firm requests that sanctions be awarded against Sun Smart and not against the JK Law Firm, APC or any of its attorneys. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

The Court finds that imposing monetary sanctions against JK Law Firm, APC, or any of their attorneys, is improper as they were not representing Sun Smart when the notice of deposition was served by mail. (Wilton Decl. at ¶ 2 and Exhibit A; Health Decl. at ¶ 2.) The substitution of attorney form with respect to Sun Smart was filed and served on July 29, 2019, which is one day prior to the service of the notice of deposition of Sun Smart’s PMQ was served on the JK Law Firm, APC on Sun Smart’s behalf.

DISCUSSION

Issue No. 1: Monetary Sanctions

Sanctions with Respect to Plaintiff’s Motion in Connection with Sun Smart

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $3,487.65 with respect to its motion in connection with Sun Smart.

California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2023.030(a) says that “[t]he 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.” A misuse of the discovery process is failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d).)

Plaintiff’s counsel, Conrad Wilton (“Wilton”), declares with respect to the motion to compel Sun Smart to produce a PMQ to testify on its behalf for deposition and all documents described in the deposition notice: (1) he spent over 4 hours researching and preparing the present motion and related papers, and his partner Mitchell S. Kim spent approximately 0.5 hours revising and editing his work (Wilton Decl. at ¶ 13); (2) he expects to spend 2 hours researching and preparing the reply and Mr. Kim expects to spend 0.5 hours editing and revising his work on the reply (Id.); (3) Mr. Kim expects to spend 1 hour preparing for and attending the hearing (Id.); (4) on this matter, Mr. Kim’s time is bellied at the rate of $435.00 per hour and his time is billed at the rate of $335.00 per hour (Id.); (5) the filing fee paid to the Court for the motion will be $61.65 (Id.); (6) the court reporter fees and the cost of Certificate of Non-Appearance that Plaintiff incurred in connection with Sun Smart’s PMQ deposition totaled $546.60 (Id.); and (7) Plaintiff requests a monetary award against Sun Smart and its counsel in the sum of $3,487.65. (Id.)

The Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS Plaintiff reduced monetary sanctions totaling $949.15, representing 2 hours of work by Mr. Wilton plus 0.5 hours of work by Mr. Kim on the motion with respect to Sun Smart plus the $61.65 filing fee, to be paid by Sun Smart within 20 days of the date of this order. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495.)

Sanctions with Respect to Plaintiff’s Motion in Connection with Kim

The Court incorporates its discussion of the law with respect to monetary sanctions from above and applies it to the discussion of monetary sanctions against Kim.

Wilton declares with respect to the motion to compel the deposition of Kim: (1) he spent over 4 hours researching and preparing the present motion and related papers, and his partner Mitchell S. Kim spent approximately 0.5 hours revising and editing his work (Wilton Decl. at ¶ 9); (2) he expects to spend 2 hours researching and preparing the reply and Mr. Kim expects to spend 0.5 hours editing and revising his work on the reply (Id.); (3) Mr. Kim expects to spend 1 hour preparing for and attending the hearing (Id.); (4) on this matter, Mr. Kim’s time is bellied at the rate of $435.00 per hour and his time is billed at the rate of $335.00 per hour (Id.); (5) the filing fee paid to the Court for the motion will be $61.65 (Id.); (6) the court reporter fees and the cost of Certificate of Non-Appearance that Plaintiff incurred in connection with Kim’s deposition totaled $523.85 (Id.); and (7) Plaintiff requests a monetary award against Sun Smart and its counsel in the sum of $3,465.50. (Id.)

The Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS Plaintiff reduced monetary sanctions totaling $949.15, representing 2 hours of work by Mr. Wilton plus 0.5 hours of work by Mr. Kim on the motion with respect to Kim plus the $61.65 filing fee, to be paid by Kim within 20 days of the date of this order. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495.)

In conclusion: (1) Kim will pay $949.15 in sanctions to Plaintiff within 20 days of the date of this order; and (2) Sun Smart will pay $949.15 in sanctions to Plaintiff within 20 days of the date of this order.

The Court GRANTS each of Plaintiff’s motions as they are both unopposed. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 14th day of February 2020

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC695630    Hearing Date: February 10, 2020    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

WCL CORPORATION, etc.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HAN CHEOL GWAK,etc, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: BC695630

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT

Date: February 10, 2020

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

FSC: May 5, 2020

Jury Trial: May 11, 2020

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Fredrich Dongil Oh

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. No courtesy copies of any opposition papers were provided to the Court.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) arises from alleged wrongful actions pursuant to an oral construction contract. The FAC alleges against Defendants causes of action for: (1) breach of oral contract; (2) conversion; (3) intentional misrepresentation; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) false promise; (6) concealment; (7) conspiracy to defraud; (8) money had and received; (9) equitable indemnity; (10) recovery of contractor’s bond; and (11) declaratory relief.

Defendant filed a motion for the Court to set aside/vacate default. Defendant indicates in his moving papers that he is unsure if default has been entered against him because he has never received any documents from the Court or Plaintiff. Defendant’s motion is unopposed.

A review of the register of actions in this case indicates that neither default nor default judgment has ever been entered against Defendant in connection with this action. The Court finds that Defendant’s motion is MOOT and is placed off-calendar.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 10th day of February 2020

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC695630    Hearing Date: December 03, 2019    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

WCL CORPORATION, etc.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HAN CHEOL GWAL, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: BC695630

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Date: December 3, 2019

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff WCL Corporation

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. No courtesy copies of any opposition papers were provided to the Court. Any opposition papers were required to be filed by November 18, 2019 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1005(b).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) arises from alleged wrongful actions pursuant to an oral construction contract. The FAC alleges against Defendants causes of action for: (1) breach of oral contract; (2) conversion; (3) intentional misrepresentation; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) false promise; (6) concealment; (7) conspiracy to defraud; (8) money had and received; (9) equitable indemnity; (10) recovery of contractor’s bond; and (11) declaratory relief.

Plaintiff filed numerous motions including: (1) a motion to compel responses to Plaintiff’s first set of form interrogatories from Defendant Sun Smart, Inc. (“Sun Smart”) and for monetary sanctions against Sun Smart and its counsel in the amount of $4,045.00; (2) a motion to compel responses to Plaintiff’s first set of special interrogatories from Sun Smart and for monetary sanctions against Sun Smart and its counsel in the amount of $4,045.00; (3) a motion to compel responses to Plaintiff’s first set of form interrogatories from Defendant John Seung Kim (“Kim”) and for monetary sanctions against Kim in the amount of $4,045.00; (4) a motion to compel responses to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production of documents from Kim and for monetary sanctions against Kim in the amount of $4,045.00; and (5) a motion to compel responses to Plaintiff’s first set of special interrogatories from Kim and for sanctions of $4,045.00 against Kim.

None of Plaintiff’s respective motions are opposed by any party. As such, the Court GRANTS each of Plaintiff’s respective motions to compel as they are unopposed. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Issue No. 1: Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $4,045.00 pursuant to each of its respective motions. Plaintiff filed three motions that seek $4,045.00 each per motion against Kim. Plaintiff filed two motions with respect to Sun Smart that seek $4,045.00 each per motion against Sun Smart and its counsel. Each of Mitchell S. Kim’s declarations filed in support of each respective motion is essentially identical. Each declaration sets forth the exact same details with respect to: (1) the amount of time Mr. Kim’s associate, Conrad Wilton, spent researching and preparing each respective motion; (2) the time Mr. Kim spent revising and editing Conrad Wilton’s work; (3) the time that is anticipated to be spent on a reply brief including editing and revising Conrad Wilton’s work; (4) the time expected to be spent preparing for and attending the hearing; (5) the filing fee in this action; and (6) the hourly rate of himself and Conrad Wilton. (See Respective Kim Declarations at ¶ 4 or ¶ 5.)

Mitchell Kim declares that: (1) his associate, Conrad Wilton, spent over 6 hours preparing and researching each respective motion and related papers and he spent 1 hour revising and editing Mr. Wilton’s work; (2) Mr. Wilton will spend approximately 2 hours researching and preparing the reply; (3) he expects to spend 0.5 hours revising and editing Mr. Wilton’s work on the reply; (4) he expects to spend 1.5 hours preparing for and attending the hearing; (5) his time is billed at $435.00 per hour; (6) Mr. Wilton’s time is billed at $335.00 per hour; (7) the rates charged by himself and Mr. Wilton are reasonable and customary; (8) the filing fee paid to the Court for this motion will be $60.00; and (9) Plaintiff requests a monetary award against the sanctionable party of $4,045.00 with respect to each motion.

California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2030.290(c) mandates that the Court impose monetary sanctions “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make imposition of the sanction unjust.” California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.300 (c) mandates that the Court impose monetary sanctions “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make imposition of the sanction unjust.” California Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 2023.010(d) and (f) says that misuses of the discovery process include “[f]ailing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery” or “[m]aking an evasive response to discovery.”

Plaintiff filed five separate motions to compel. Thus, if the Court awarded the maximum amount of sanctions per motion against each sanctionable party—Kim or Sun Smart— then that would collectively provide Plaintiff with an aggregate amount of $20,225.00 in monetary sanctions.

With respect to the monetary sanctions requested against Sun Smart and its counsel pursuant to the two motions filed to compel responses from Sun Smart, the Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS Plaintiff reduced monetary sanctions totaling $1,165.00 representing 2 hours of work by Mr. Wilton plus 1 of work by Mr. Kim on both motions with respect to Sun Smart plus the $60.00 filing fee, to be paid by Sun Smart and its counsel of record within 20 days. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495.)

With respect to the monetary sanctions requested against Kim pursuant to the three motions filed to compel responses from Kim, the Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS Plaintiff reduced monetary sanctions totaling the $1,165.00 representing 2 hours of work by Mr. Wilton plus 1 of work by Mr. Kim on all three motions with respect to Kim plus the $60.00 filing fee, to be paid by Kim within 20 days. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495.)

Thus: (1) Kim will pay $1,165.00 in sanctions to Plaintiff within 20 days; and (2) Sun Smart and its counsel will pay $1,165.00 in sanctions to Plaintiff within 20 days.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 3rd day of December 2019

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court