Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV05079, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV05079 Hearing Date: January 26, 2023 Dept: 55
SHETTY
v.
BLOCK 22STCV05079
Hearing Date: 1/26/23,
Dept. 55
#10: MOTION TO
COMPEL NIKI ALEXANDER SHETTY TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM
INTERROGATORIES; AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST MR. SHETTY AND HIS COUNSEL.
Notice: Okay
No
Opposition
MP:
Defendant TOM BLOCK.
RP:
Summary
On 2/9/22, Plaintiff NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY et al
filed a Complaint alleging: The EMREK defendants purported to retain a security
interest in Plaintiffs’ home, when the security interest and loan documents that
Plaintiff ADINA ZAHARESCU signed with NEW HAVEN FINANCIAL, INC., was to finance
the acquisition of a Chatsworth Property.
The security interest was based on forged changes in
the Note and Deed of Trust that she executed on December 29, 2005, as part of
the loan documents for the Chatsworth Property transaction, which never closed
with NEW HAVEN, but instead with another lender. On or about July 7, 2008, timely, within
three years from the date of the original transaction, Plaintiffs sent a
recission demand, pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act. Defendant THOMAS
BLOCK obtained an assignment of the
altered and forged Deed of Trust from Defendant SUE EMREK, as trustee of the
EMREK FAMILY TRUST, recorded on 7/7/11. The
Deed of Trust was rendered void by Plaintiff’s rescission, and the note was
rendered unsecured. Block has been
foreclosing on plaintiffs’ home pursuant to the altered, forged Note and Deed
of Trust, with a trustee’s sale date of February 22, 2022.
The causes of action are:
1. WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE;
2. QUIET TITLE;
3. CANCELLATION OF
INSTRUMENT;
4. DECLARATORY RELIEF;
5. VIOLATION OF
REGULATION Z OF THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT;
6. FRAUD;
7. ACCOUNTING;
8. VIOLATION OF THE
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT.
MP
Positions
Moving party requests an order compelling further
responses to form interrogatories, and imposing sanctions against Plaintiff and
counsel, on grounds including the following:
·
On July 8, 2022, Mr. Shetty served
objection-only responses to some of the discovery numbers, and some were unanswered.
·
The responses were not verified.
Tentative
Ruling
The unopposed motion is granted, as prayed.
Plaintiff is to provide responses within 30 days.
Sanctions in the amount of $1,860.00 total are awarded
to Defendant THOMAS BLOCK and against Plaintiff NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY and
counsel Mainak D’Attaray, jointly and severally.
Interrogatory responses must be (1) the information
sought, (2) an exercise of a valid option to produce writings, or (3) an
objection. Hernandez v. Sup. Ct.
(2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 285, 293. An
interrogatory response must be as complete and straightforward as reasonably
available information permits. CCP
§2030.220(a), (b). A response must
“represent the interrogated party's present best and complete answer.” Fuss v. Sup. Ct. (1969) 273 Cal. App.
2d 807, 816. If interrogatory responses
lack specificity, then parties may move to compel further responses under Code
of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300(a), providing for motions to compel, where
parties deem that an answer is evasive, incomplete, or inadequate as to
specification of documents. Best
Products, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 1181, 1190
Form interrogatories approved by the Judicial Council
entail fundamentally routine discovery of witness contact information. Puerto v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 158 Cal.
App. 4th 1242, 1250.