Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV14562, Date: 2025-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14562    Hearing Date: May 15, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing       

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Aysia A. Rowe, as trustee of the Nubian Village Trust

(1)   Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions

(2)   Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions

(3)   Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions

(4)   Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission or to Deem Such Requests Admitted, and Request for Sanctions

The court considered the moving, consolidated opposition, and consolidated reply papers filed in connection with each motion.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

Defendant NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order (1) compelling plaintiff Aysia A. Rowe, as trustee of the Nubian Village Trust (“Plaintiff”) to serve responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,350.

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)¿¿¿¿ 

Defendant served Plaintiff with its Special Interrogatories, Set One, on January 23, 2025 by email.  (Mika Decl., Ex. A, PDF pp. 14-15.)  Plaintiff did not serve timely responses and had not served responses as of the date that Defendant filed this motion.  (Mika Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.)  However, Plaintiff has submitted evidence, in support of her opposition papers, showing that she served responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One on May 1, 2025.  (Paredes Decl., Ex. 3.)  Defendant does not appear to dispute that Plaintiff served responses to the subject discovery.

The court therefore denies as moot Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to serve responses to its Special Interrogatories, Set One.

The court finds that the circumstances presented would make the imposition of sanctions unjust and therefore denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

Defendant moves the court for an order (1) compelling Plaintiff to serve responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,560.

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)¿¿¿¿ 

            Defendant served Plaintiff with its Form Interrogatories, Set One, by email on January 23, 2025.  (Mika Decl., Ex. A, PDF pp. 17-18 [proof of service].)  Plaintiff did not serve timely responses and had not served responses as of the date that Defendant filed this motion.  (Mika Decl., ¶ 6.)  In her opposition papers, Plaintiff has submitted evidence showing that she served responses to this discovery on May 1, 2025.  (Paredes Decl., Ex. 4.)

The court therefore denies as moot Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to serve responses to its Form Interrogatories, Set One.

The court finds that the circumstances presented would make the imposition of sanctions unjust and therefore denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

Defendant moves the court for an order (1) compelling Plaintiff to serve responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,570.

If a party to whom a demand for inspection is directed fails to serve a timely response, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §¿2031.300, subd. (b).)¿¿¿ 

Defendant served Plaintiff with its Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on January 23, 2025, by email.  (Mika Decl., Ex. A, PDF pp. 20-21 [proof of service].)  Plaintiff did not serve timely responses and had not served responses as of the date that Defendant filed this motion.  (Mika Decl., ¶ 6.)  Plaintiff has, in her opposition papers, presented evidence showing that she served responses to the subject discovery on May 1, 2025.  (Paredes Decl., Ex. 1.)

The court notes that Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff served responses and produced responsive documents but argues that the documents produced did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, subdivision (a).  To the extent that Defendant takes issue with Plaintiff’s responses or production, Defendant may seek relief on a more appropriate motion.

The court therefore denies as moot Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to serve responses to its Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.

The court finds that the circumstances presented would make the imposition of sanctions unjust and therefore denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION OR TO DEEM SUCH REQUESTS ADMITTED

Defendant moves the court for an order (1) compelling Plaintiff to serve responses to Defendant’s requests for admission or, alternatively, deeming the truth of those matters admitted, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,710.

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the court shall, upon motion by the propounding party, order that the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted unless the court finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served substantially compliant responses before the hearing on the motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (b), (c).)¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

Defendant served Plaintiff with its Requests for Admission, Set One, by email on January 23, 2025.  (Mika Decl., Ex. A, PDF pp. 24-25 [proof of service].)  Plaintiff did not serve timely responses and had not served responses as of the date that Defendant filed this motion.  (Mika Decl., ¶ 6.)  Plaintiff has submitted evidence showing that she served responses to the subject discovery on May 1, 2025.  (Paredes Decl., Ex. 2.)

The court therefore denies as moot Defendant’s motion (1) to compel Plaintiff to serve responses to its Requests for Admission, and (2) to deem the truth of the matters specified in the Requests for Admission admitted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

The court grants Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  The court finds that $760 ((2 hours x $350 hourly rate) + $60 filing fee) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Plaintiff in connection with this motion.  (Mika Decl., ¶ 7.)

ORDER

            The court denies defendant NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing’s motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one, and request for sanctions.

            The court denies defendant NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, and request for sanctions.

            The court denies defendant NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing’s motion to compel responses to requests for production of documents, set one, and request for sanctions.

            The court denies as moot defendant NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing’s motion to compel responses to requests for admission, set one, or to deem such admissions admitted.  The court grants defendant NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing’s request for monetary sanctions in connection with this motion.

            The court orders plaintiff Aysia A. Rowe, as trustee of the Nubian Village Trust, to pay monetary sanctions to defendant NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing in the amount of $760 within 30 days of the date of service of this order.

            The court orders defendant NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  May 15, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court