Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 23STCV14657, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

CASE: Marvin Fetalino, as Trustee of the MF Hero Trust v. Stephen Snyder, et al.

This is a contractual fraud case concerning the residential property located at 3327 Ione Drive, Los Angeles, CA (the “Property”). On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff, Marvin Fetalino, as trustee of the MF Hero Trust, filed a Verified Complaint against Defendants Stephen Snyder (“Snyder” or “Defendant”)[1] and 3327 Ione, LLC (“Ione”), for (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Intentional Misrepresentation, (3) Fraudulent Concealment, (4) Negligent Misrepresentation, (5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and (6) Declaratory Relief. Snyder is self-represented.

On July 12, 2024, Plaintiff motions to compel Snyder’s responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”), and Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RFP”).

On September 24, 2024, the court granted in part Plaintiff’s motions. The court ordered Snyder to provide further responses to the at-issue discovery requests with the exception of RFP No. 3 within 30 days of the court’s order.

On November 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel Defendant’s Compliance with Discovery Order. Plaintiff seeks the following relief: (1) an order compelling Snyder to provide verified responses to the RFPs; (2) imposition of monetary sanctions; (3) imposition of issue, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions; and (4) holding Snyder in contempt of court

On February 3, 2025, Snyder filed an opposition arguing the motion is moot and the request for sanctions denied because he served code-complaint responses to the RFPs on December 30, 2024.

Given it is undisputed that Snyder provided verified responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs, the court finds the motion is moot. The court further finds the service of the belated verified responses does not support the imposition of an issue, evidence, or terminating sanction. Accordingly, the court proceeds to consider only whether monetary sanctions should be imposed against Snyder.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Snyder for disobeying a court order.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is a general statute authorizing the court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct such as failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)¿¿¿¿¿

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction.¿¿¿¿

At the heart of the dispute is whether Plaintiff agreed to Snyder’s request to provide responses by December 30, 2024. After review of the pertinent email communications provided by both parties, the court finds that Snyder was given until November 11, 2024 to provide responses to the RFPs. Snyder requested a further extension to November 18, 2024, which Plaintiff accepted on the condition that Snyder stipulate to extending Plaintiff’s deadline to file this motion to December 30, 2024. Specifically, Plaintiff’s counsel wrote in response: “I can provide you until 11/18/2024 to comply with the Court Order, which is over 3 weeks from the due date, if you will stipulate to an extension of the motion to compel deadline an additional 3 weeks also, to 12/30/24.” (See David Decl., Ex. B, p. 2.) It appears Snyder bases his belief that he had until December 30, 2024 to provide response on this conditional offer. Snyder plainly misreads the offer. Plaintiff offered an extension to November 18, 2024, only, not to December 30, 2024, subject to stipulation. Further, there is no evidence Snyder agreed to extend Plaintiff’s motion filing deadline. Although the court has found Snyder’s belated service of verified responses on December 30, 2024 undermines the justification for issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions, and obviates the need for an order compelling Snyder’s compliance, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is well-founded. Snyder’s interpretation of the deadline to provide responses is patently unreasonable.

Accordingly, the court imposes monetary sanctions against Snyder in the requested sum of $2,122.95, consisting of five hours at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate and $122.95 in filing fees.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to pay $2,122.95 in monetary sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through his counsel, within 30 days of this order.

¿¿¿

¿ Kerry Bensinger¿¿

¿ Judge of the Superior Court¿

[1] Aka Steve Snyder aka Stephen Williams Snyder.