Kahama VI, LLC v. HJH, LLC et al

Filing 389

ORDER denying 370 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, to Strike the Answer, Motion and response of and For Default Judgment Against Defendant Bahng Due to His Violation of the Court's Orders. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 9/24/2014. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
KAHAMA VI, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:11-cv-2029-T-30TBM

HJH, LLC, et. al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, to
Strike the Answer, Motion and Response of and For Default Judgment Against Defendant
Bahng Due to His Violation of the Court’s Orders (Dkt. #370) and Defendant’s Response
in Opposition to the Motion (Dkt. #386). Upon review and consideration, it is the Court’s
conclusion that the Motion should be denied.
Plaintiff previously filed a similar motion for contempt and sanctions on March 7,
2014, (Dkt. #261). In that Motion, Plaintiff requested sanctions including a default
judgment against Bahng. The Court held a hearing on the Motion and concluded that Bahng
was in contempt of this Court’s orders. The Court entered a Contempt Order, but did not
order the sanctions requested by Plaintiff. See Dkt. #344.
Plaintiff’s current Motion requests sanctions on the same basis as the previous
Motion, in addition to Bahng’s failure to abide by the Contempt Order. In support of its
Motion, Plaintiff filed the Affidavit of Roger Hoss who verifies that “the matters set forth
in the attached Motion…are true and correct.” Plaintiff requests that the Court strike

Bahng’s Answer, his Motion to Withdraw Admissions, and his Response in Opposition to
the Motion for Summary Judgment. It further requests a default judgment against Bahng.
The Contempt Order provided that the Court would issue an arrest warrant in the event
Bahng did not pay the past dues taxes or report to the United States Marshal’s Office by
August 20, 2014.
Bahng’s Motion to Withdraw Admissions (Dkt. #354) and Response in Opposition
to Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #355) are no longer at issue
given the Court’s recent rulings. See Dkts. # 376 and 380. The Court has already
determined Bahng’s liability under the Note and Guaranties and has limited the November
trial to the disputed oral agreement to forbear foreclosure, the fraudulent transfer claim as
to HJH and McMillan, and the amount of damages if the Court finds in favor of Plaintiff.
See Dkts. # 36 and 385. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Motion should be denied
as to the relief requested.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions,
to Strike the Answer, Motion and response of and For Default Judgment Against Defendant
Bahng Due to His Violation of the Court’s Orders (Dkt. #370) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 24th day of September, 2014.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Odd\2011\11-cv-2029 sanctions 386.docx

2