BENNETT KOO, Plaintiff, v. JAI JUNE RHEE, et al., Defendants.
JAIN JUNE RHEE,
Cross-Complainant, v. BENNETT KOO, et al.,
Cross-Defendants.
Case No.: BC580540
Hearing Date: October 5, 2016
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
(1) PLAINTIFF BENNETT KOO’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE SECOND SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT MYONG JU KIM
(2) PLAINTIFF BENNETT KOO’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE THIRD SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT JAI JUNE RHEE
(3) PLAINTIFF BENNETT KOO’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE THIRD SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT EUN JUNG KIM
BACKGROUND
This action arises out of a dispute regarding real property located in Los Angeles, CA (“Property”). Plaintiff Bennett Koo (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Jai June Rhee (“Rhee”) were involved in a previous action (“Underlying Action”) wherein Plaintiff obtained a money judgment in the sum of $3.8 million. Plaintiff alleges that he properly recorded a judgmen
Hearing Date
October 05, 2016
Type
Other Real Property Rights Case (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
BENNETT KOO, Plaintiff, v. JAI JUNE RHEE, et al., Defendants.
JAIN JUNE RHEE,
Cross-Complainant, v. BENNETT KOO, et al.,
Cross-Defendants.
Case No.: BC580540
Hearing Date: October 5, 2016
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
(1) PLAINTIFF BENNETT KOO’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE SECOND SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT MYONG JU KIM
(2) PLAINTIFF BENNETT KOO’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE THIRD SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT JAI JUNE RHEE
(3) PLAINTIFF BENNETT KOO’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE THIRD SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT EUN JUNG KIM
BACKGROUND
This action arises out of a dispute regarding real property located in Los Angeles, CA (“Property”). Plaintiff Bennett Koo (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Jai June Rhee (“Rhee”) were involved in a previous action (“Underlying Action”) wherein Plaintiff obtained a money judgment in the sum of $3.8 million. Plaintiff alleges that he properly recorded a judgmen