Julie Holmes vs. Kong's Fashionia, Inc.

Summary:

Attorney Haewon Kim represents the defendant. The judge had previously ordered Kim's client to answer discovery by a set date. More than 6 months after the due date the discovery had still not been answered and plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions.

The judge said the sanctions would be ordered against attorney Haewon Kim personally, and his client, for $960.



From the Judge and Court File:

Haewon Kim represents the defendant.




In October the court had granted a motion by plaintiff to compel the defendant to answer written questions and to produce documents.




In early May, more than six months later, the court docket shows plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions because the court order had not been complied with.




The day before attorney Haewon Kim filed an opposition to the discovery motion, the discovery was finally provided as ordered by the judge.






Mr. Kim said he was retained as the attorney in January and had been "working" with plaintiff's attorney on the discovery. He declared under penalty of perjury that he forgot to provide the discovery that had been ordered by the judge.




The judge said monetary sanctions were appropriate against attorney Haewon Kim, and his client, in the amount of $960. The judge also said more severe evidentiary or issues sanctions were not warranted.





From Attorney Haewon Kim:

We reached out to attorney Kim about what happened. In one email he said the original amount of sanctions plaintiff requested was not mentioned, but he did not state the amount. Later, he said "the amount plaintiff originally sought was twice the amount of $3876 because there was two motions for sanctions". He also said there were other factors about the situation, but he did not state what they were.

In another email he said defendant produced unofficial discovery responses in February and plaintiff did not respond to that production.



Lawzilla Commentary:

When Mr. Kim was retained as the attorney his client was already in violation of the court order to answer discovery. In our opinion this should have been a top priority for an incoming attorney to avoid a sanctions motion.

Months passed without the discovery responses being provided.

The judge said attorney Kim declared he "inadvertently forgot" to provide the responses. The timeline of events suggests to us it was not a mere failure to provide the responses, but a bigger failure to address the discovery at all. A failure to provide responses suggests they would have been immediately provided after the sanctions motion was filed. But they were not. Rather, responses were only made a day before the opposition to the sanctions motion was made.

But at least responses were provided and as a result Kim was able to avoid even more severe sanctions against his client. According to Kim, he saved his client thousands in potential sanctions.

The lesson from this situation is if you are under a court order and hiring a new attorney, make sure the attorney actually addresses the judge's order.



With regard to Kim's comments in response to our outreach, from reviewing what is available online, it appears to us plaintiff originally sought $3876 in sanctions at $415 per hour. There is nothing about this in the judge's order or why a lesser amount was awarded. Attorney Kim does deserve credit if he reduced the amount of sanctions by about $3000 (or even more if it was requested in two motions). Lawzilla has reviewed hundreds of orders from the Sacramento judges and, unlike some other counties, in our opinion large sanctions orders in Sacramento are rare. We would consider $960 a large sanctions order for Sacramento. We consider it extremely unlikely plaintiff would have received almost $4000 in sanctions - even if Kim did not oppose the motion. We also consider it very unlikely a Sacramento judge would award an hourly rate of $415 per hour, and the judge did say he was only awarding fees at $300 per hour.

We also note Mr. Kim is from Los Angeles and without the research Lawzilla has compiled from thousands of court orders, could be unaware Sacramento is different from many other counties in deciding when to issue sanctions, the approved hourly rates, and amounts.

The judge in his order did say Kim informally provided documents in February. But the discovery motion also pertained to interrogatories and we consider it basic that an informal attorney exchange is not a substitute for a client declaring under penalty of perjury that interrogatory answers are true or that all documents have been produced.

Would you hire Haewon Kim to be your attorney?

The judge evaluating the situation decided sanctions were appropriate against attorney Kim.

On the other hand, discovery responses were finally provided and Kim was able to prevent his client from having potentially case-ending sanctions from being imposed in the form of issue or evidentiary sanctions.

It is a mixed bag one may want to ask the attorney about.



What happens if the sanctions are not paid?

It is Lawzilla's understanding the plaintiff can formalize a judgment for the sanctions and levy on the attorney and his clients personal bank accounts, levy on their wages, put on a lien on their homes, lien legal fees in other cases, etc.

Haewon Kim was admitted to the California Bar in 2007. Bar Number 249606.

Law Office Haewon Kim
3580 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1275
Los Angeles, California 90010

Law School: Southwestern University

Sanctions are Recoverable as a Judgment - Analysis of the little known fact that sanctions awarded in a lawsuit can be enforced as their own separate judgment. Surprise someone by putting a lien on their bank account, home, wages, etc.